Timothy Walz

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, last week 10 million children were denied health insurance because some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle chose to stand with President Bush over the children. It is disappointing that some of our colleagues stood with the President and stood with the smoke-and-mirrors campaign to distort what the SCHIP legislation was. But this is not the end; it is only the beginning of the effort of this Congress to stand with American families to protect health care for our children. Democrats in this body, along with 68 Members of the Senate and 43 of our Nation's Governors and over 80 percent of the American public want this piece of legislation to move. We are committed to ensuring that States have the resources and flexibility necessary to enroll these children. Mr. Speaker, the American people, Governors and many Members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, were disappointed that more of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle didn't vote to override the veto. However, we will give them the opportunity soon and often to change that vote, stand with America's children, and reject the President's veto.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Well, I thank the gentleman. And I thank the gentleman from New York for his clear testimony and for fulfilling his obligation, not only as a Congressman, but as a citizen, to ask the hard questions. When we send our soldiers and our warriors into harm's way, it's all of our responsibility to ask, is this the right mission? Are they being provided for with the right equipment? Are we doing everything necessary to ensure that that's happening? And quite honestly, the problem around here up until January of this year was that people were being told that it was unpatriotic, it wasn't right to question those things because the President, under his administration, was determining that he was the unitary executive, he was the decider. Now, that's the President's right, that's this President's right or any right, I guess, to determine how they're going to look at that. The foundational principles, though, of this country don't let us just get to pick and choose. We go back to the document that the gentleman from Kentucky keeps referring to. The Constitution of the United States clearly lays out for us, and I think it's kind of interesting and maybe even critical for us, it might be the teacher in me that goes back to this, I have been rereading a book on the Constitutional Convention by two professors from Georgia that take James Madison's notes about what was happening at that time and that summer when they were thinking how they were going to form this government. When the President talks about he doesn't need 435 commanders in the field or whatever, what he does need to understand is that these 435 Members were the very first piece of decision-making that went into that convention. I would like to quote a little bit if I could from this, to my colleagues and to you, Mr. Speaker, about what was going through their minds as they were formulating this and what our responsibilities as article 1 is. Keep in mind that they met on May 30, and on June 1, the first piece of legislation once they got a quorum and they decided they were going to go with a Federal or national government, here are some of the notes that were compiled. Here is Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason argued strongly for an election of the larger branch by the people. It was going to be the grand depository of the democratic principles of the people. It was, so to speak, to be our House of Commons. It ought to know and sympathize with every part of the people. It ought to therefore not only be taken from different parts of the whole, but also from different districts of the larger members, which had several instances, particularly in Virginia, different interests of views arising from differences of produce, differences of habit, all kinds of differences. Mr. Madison considered the popular election of one branch of the national legislature as essential to a free government. He thought, too, that the great fabric to be raised would be more stable and durable if it should rest on the solid foundation of the people themselves and their elected representatives as the pillars. They went on to formulate how they were going to do that and have the debate of who should elect the Senate and how those things should happen. But there was no doubt in anyone's mind by the framers of this government about where the pillar and where that foundation should lay. I think it is interesting, then, to take a look at this of when they talked about the next branch, when they started talking about the executive branch. On June 1, the delegates began considering the structure of the executive. They were not sure yet what duties would fall to the executive or even whether a single person would hold that position. The major issue that faced them was one of balance. If the executive branch was too strong and independent, many delegates feared it might result in another monarchy like the ones they had recently revolted from. But if the executive was too weak and depended solely on the legislature, it might be ineffective. Thus, checks and balances were key to this. In going through and looking at these, the different issues that are coming up or the clauses that went into this, it was apparent from the very beginning that the Founders of this Nation clearly understood that. As we said earlier, and my colleagues each said, this isn't about a piece of legislation. This is a platform or a framework to get back to where this country came from. This isn't about President Bush. This is about all subsequent Presidents. And so be it, be that Democratic, Republican or whatever it would be, that those individuals still must fall within this framework. I believe, and I think my colleagues that are here tonight believe, that that was one of the motivating factors for sending many of us here almost a year ago to the day. It wasn't just ideology. It was about the framework of the genius that went into the Constitution and the thought processes that formed that. So in listening to this and listening to Mr. Hall describe his trip to Iraq, he is fulfilling his constitutional duties as an elected official and fulfilling the things that we know are necessary. I would go back to talking about this MRAP. If you remember, without the oversight, it was the administration that sent our soldiers with the army that we had, not the one that we would want. No one asked about body armor. No one asked about up-armored Humvees. Those were the questions that should have been asked in this chamber. But they were told, no, go along with the executive. Well, article I is about saying, we will never just go along because that is not our duty. I am pleased to see each of my colleagues here. I know the passion that each of them feel for this issue is a passion for this great Nation. It is a passion for the founding principles. It is not a revisionist history. It is not a power grab. It is functional government that delivers for its people. That is what we need to get back to. With that, I would like to, if I could, yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for being here. It couldn't have been put better. We represent the entire bread of this country, from New York to New Hampshire out to Minnesota, Kentucky down to Florida. And there is more to come and there will be more to talk about this. I am just reminded, remember how the Constitutional Convention ended? All of us remember this story from school, where Benjamin Franklin was asked what he was thinking about, and he said, I remember looking at that sun sitting behind General Washington and thinking during the time that this was crafted, is that a rising or a setting sun? And he said when they had ended, I could say with happiness, it is a rising sun. This country's democracy is still healthy, it is still moving forward, the checks and balances are still here, and this country knows that it is the true secret credit of where our greatness lies.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Filner for his strong support of this piece of legislation and to all members of the committee. Mr. Boozman has been a strong supporter of our veterans, and I appreciate the support for this piece of legislation. Mr. Boswell so clearly illustrated the need for this piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to stand in support of this compromise that has come back from the Senate, and thank Senator Harkin for moving it towards us. As I spoke on this piece of legislation in March, the numbers show that veterans' suicide and mental health issues are urgent issues that require Congress' immediate attention. Although veterans make up 10 percent of our population, one in five people who commits suicide in the United States is a veteran. A full 35 percent of our veterans returning from Iraq are seeking counseling for mental health issues within the first year. PTSD is fast becoming a signature injury of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Veterans' Affairs Committee has seen in countless hearings that the need to expand care is there. H.R. 327 will meet this need. By directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to offer mental health screening to veterans, providing education to VA staff, contractors and medical personnel, and making available 24-hour mental health care for veterans who are at risk, we will alleviate some of these hardships. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation because of the critical service it will provide. Although we often have bitter debates in this House and are deeply divided over issues like the war in Iraq, there is one issue that we all agree on and has the potential to unite us and this Nation, and that is the care for our veterans. No one in this body questions the incredible sacrifice each of the veterans has made on behalf of the United States. And no one questions the responsibility that we have in Congress to provide them with the resources and the help necessary to live healthy and prosperous lives. With this legislation, the 110th Congress will again demonstrate its commitment on behalf of our veterans.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank my colleagues. I thank you for your passion. I thank you for speaking out for those Americans and speaking out especially for those that are least able amongst us, the children, the children of those that are not as advantaged. It doesn't happen often, but tomorrow we are going to get the opportunity. You hear a lot of politicians talk about family values. Tomorrow they are going to get an opportunity to cast a vote that really will affect family values. That ability to put that smile on that child. That ability to take that child in and give them the preventative care necessary to see that child grow up and be a productive member of society. I am proud to be prepared to cast this vote to override this veto with my colleagues.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I think it's critically important, Madam Speaker, to understand the President is framing this in simply a dollars and cents argument. He's saying that this goes beyond authoring $35 billion in terms of what the compromise piece of legislation that overwhelmingly, in a veto-proof majority in the Senate, has passed, a large number of our colleagues across the aisle, 45, to join us on this piece of legislation. Dr. Kagen so clearly pointed out everyone from AARP to the Children's Defense Fund, Easter Seals, March of Dimes, Cancer Society, across the board, American Nurses Association, pediatric physicians across the country agree that this is a good bill. But let's say for a minute that that's not the case and let's say that it is strictly a fiscal thing, if the President can separate a budget into being strictly a fiscal document, not a moral document that affects this Nation's values. He is still undercutting massively what it's going to take. We have watched this administration throughout the President's tenure continue to underestimate the need. We saw it in the Veterans Administration, where we saw the President say, well, I have two things that I think about the Veterans Administration. We are going to see fewer soldiers coming into the system, and health care is going to cost less. Well, there's not a person in America that wouldn't take the bet the sun's not going to rise tomorrow before they would take that. So, in the President's bill here, under the President's current piece of legislation, not only will we not add the 9 million American children who aren't covered, and I would like the President to go by and decide which one of those faces gets coverage and which one does not in this Nation. If he chooses to go with his piece of legislation, asking us to compromise, he is going to cut 840,000 children who are currently on the program off. We're not talking about even maintaining the program. We're talking about undercutting it. And under our bipartisan congressional bill, 3.8 million additional children will receive their coverage. So you can see the difference here. When we have compromised, when Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, when 69 Senators on the Senate side and 265 Members of this body and over 70 percent of the American public say this is a good piece of legislation, we have done our compromising. It is now time for the President to decide that he is not the sole decider on this. The American public has spoken on this, and it is time to do the right thing: cover our children, get them good preventative care, keep them out of the emergency rooms, keep them healthy, keep them in school, keep them moving forward, and keep this Nation in a place where it should be. With that, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I would like to talk a little bit about this. This issue we are discussing is a program which has proven to be highly successful. It was put in to understand and address the issue that if you do not treat children with preventive medical care, you will treat them with chronic care down the road. Or you will treat them in a setting that is much more expensive, like in the emergency room. This President is mischaracterizing what is going on here. The President is talking about some of the myths that he is putting out there to make this appear like this is some type of government-run health care program. Now I find it a bit ironic and a little bit disingenuous that there are Members who sit in this body tonight who would vote against SCHIP, yet receive government-paid-for health care coverage. These are children who do not have the choice. President Bush, using the $83,000 level, is simply doing it, and these are not my words. Take a look at this. This was USA Today talking about what they call the $83,000 question. ``Bush's claim is misleading at best; simply wrong at worst. The House would do well to look past the President's deceptive rhetoric and override this veto.'' The President is misleading the public on exactly what this does. This is not the way to have this debate. This Nation needs to have an open, honest debate. Do we value our children to the point that we are willing to invest in basic preventive health care? And it is a question that stretches from Minnesota to Iowa to Wisconsin and across to our good friend out in California. I am glad to be joined tonight by Mr. McNerney who, coming from the most populous State, understands the issues that face this, and understands that when a program is administered in coordination with the State at a local level, that invests in preventive care, that is a very conservative notion, and it is one that this Nation would be well served to, as our friends at USA Today said, look past the rhetoric. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. And I would respond to that, and the thing that I think this Nation wants more than anything is, this is a body and there are Members, please don't get us wrong. There's a veto-proof majority with many Republican sponsors on the Senate side. We had 45 of our Republican colleagues in this body vote with this. This was crafted in 1997 under President Clinton, Democratic President, and a Republican House and Senate. This is a good piece of legislation. I might also add that 43 of the Nation's 50 Governors are supporting this wholeheartedly, the piece of legislation we came up with. Fifteen of those are Republicans, including my Republican Governor, Governor Pawlenty, who happens to chair the Governors' Conference in this country. So this is a strong piece of legislation. Many of us I think are quite confused, as you're right. This is something that Republican authorship on this should be proud of, as Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch have been, and I applaud them for their vision. I applaud them for reaching across to us to find a good piece of legislation, and I yield to my friend from Wisconsin.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues who are here tonight. As a new Member, I am joined by other new Members who have been in this body for 9 months. Tomorrow we have an opportunity to take an important and historic vote, the veto override on SCHIP. It is a piece of legislation that many of us believe, as you just heard our colleague from Hawaii so clearly illustrate, is critically important to the health of our Nation's children. We came here 9 months ago from the classroom, from the courtroom, from the board room, and from the operating room. And we are here tonight with a single purpose, to talk about the importance of this piece of legislation to clearly illustrate when this body makes a choice like we will make tomorrow, and the President talks about it being a budgetary issue, he is partially right. Budgets are financial documents, but they are also much more. They are a reflection of the values that we as a Nation share. Tomorrow we will have the opportunity to show as a people that we value our children. We value their health. We value our future. The greatest asset we have is these children. At my house this weekend was a very special occasion and one I felt very blessed to be able to attend. My son, Gus, celebrated his first birthday on Saturday. He was surrounded by grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles and friends. A good time was had by all. I came back to Washington and on Tuesday morning my wife said Gus was feeling a little bad, and she took him to see our doctor. Gus had an earache and he was put on some antibiotics and he was given a little bit of Motrin. He had one rough night, but was feeling better the next day. The thought of this little guy going through any type of pain or suffering over something so treatable and so easy to take care of as an earache would be unimaginable to me. And yet, that is what happens to 9 million children across this country. That is what their parents go through. The President has made it clear, those types of issues, and if Gus happened to be someone without health insurance, he would have suffered through an earache. Or maybe Gus would have a parent who couldn't suffer through it and would have taken him to the emergency room where it would cost far more. So my colleagues and I are committed to making sure that no parent has to make the choice whether to take their child to get their care. That no parent has to have the gut-wrenching experience of deciding if they are going to pay bills, or if they are going to try to pay out of pocket to get their child covered. This government and we as a people can do far better. Tonight, we are going to take you through the process of this legislation. We are going to take our colleagues through everything that is involved and the myths that have been perpetuated. This is something that is difficult for myself and my colleagues to deal with. We are going to hear from people like Dr. Kagen, who has seen what happens if children cannot get health care or are suffering with asthma, and he will talk about the implications of what it takes to get a child covered. I think each of my colleagues here tonight will put a face on this for you. My colleagues have an opportunity to cast a vote tomorrow to override the veto and provide this Nation's children with the health care they deserve. It is not a privilege for them, it is a right as an American citizen, and we are here to guarantee that. We are here to make an investment in our future and do the fiscally responsible thing. This program is 10 years old now. It has been highly successful. No matter what the President said, it is clear, and people need to know this, this is a cap block grant program. This is State administered. This is private physicians and private insurance. Any words to the contrary is muddying the waters on this. We have seen this President try this before. He tried to sell this Nation on privatized Social Security, and this body said no. This President sold us, and many of us feel very strongly about this, sold us on the necessity to go to war in Iraq, and here we sit 5 years later understanding the implications of that. We have an administration that is trying to sell this body a bill of goods. We are ready to override this veto tomorrow, and my colleagues here tonight are ready to illustrate to this body why they should cast their vote tomorrow in favor of overriding this veto. It is a great pleasure to turn over to my good friend from neighboring Wisconsin and also one of the very few physicians in this body, someone who has worked on these issues his entire life who is dedicated to the treatment and making sure our children are healthy, and that is my good colleague, Dr. Kagen from Wisconsin.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. What I would like to talk about first is, and I said the good news in this is, this is a defining moment tomorrow. This is a defining moment, Madam Speaker, and my colleagues in this House, of what this body does to represent the American people. And if my colleagues who are undecided as of now want to know where the American people are at, the latest poll just came out from CBS News. This is the largest one done to date on this, and here are the factors: Would you favor the Democratic version of expanding SCHIP? Eighty-one percent of people in this country, in Iowa, in California, Minnesota, in Wisconsin, in Florida, in Georgia, across this Nation, agree. Now, here is the real kicker. This is the part I think for us to listen and to hear this. They look at that picture. They see that little baby, they see that mother. And this Nation's heart is where it is at. They know exactly what we need to do. They even went so far as to ask them a tough question. Keep in mind, under this new House leadership over the last 9 months, we have to balance the budget. We have to go by PAYGO. It is no more paying and letting the children in the future pay for it. That is not happening on this. So under this piece of legislation, they even asked people in this poll: Would you be willing to pay more taxes to expand to this program? Seventy-four percent said yes. Seventy-four percent of the American public is willing to give their tax dollars to help fellow American children receive the health care that they know they so richly deserve. And the issue of that is, is this Nation knows it is morally right, it is fiscally right, and it invests in the future. I said we know this is an issue that the American people, as Dr. Kagen illustrated, the physicians are with it. The groups that care about this are with it. The majority of Members in the Senate are with us. The majority of the Members of the House are with it. And we have an opportunity here. We are about 12 hours away from being able to decide and override this veto and show that the system works.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I'm encouraged. I'm encouraged by the number of Members of this body that understand this issue. I'm encouraged by the willingness of our friends on both sides of the aisle to come together. I'm truly encouraged by the leadership of Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch working on this. I'd like to bring up one more point on this of fiction versus fact, that I think this is one of the, maybe the meanest spirited part of this. And something that gets brought up, and unfortunately all too often is brought up, this idea of scapegoating or trying to mislead the way the public, it obviously is not working very well with the numbers coming out of the latest poll, but this idea that somehow a nonlegal resident of this country, an illegal immigrant would be eligible for this. I don't know how many times we need to state this. But I think that, Madam Speaker, that those of us in this body owe it to one another to be very, very clear when we state this. The fiction part says that the compromise bill would allow illegal immigrants to get SCHIP. Here's what our Republican leadership in the Senate has said. ``Section 605 of our bill states the following: Nothing in this act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents.'' Anything to the contrary, if I would go back to the beginning, is simply misleading or, at worst, is an absolute attempt to distort or to be dishonest about this. This is not, and I reflect back with each of my colleagues here. This is not a Democratic bill. This was a bill that was crafted under a Republican House and Senate and a Democratic President. It is a good piece of legislation. Our 43 Governors across the country support it. Numerous organizations that you have heard about, ranging the spectrum from the American Medical Association to the Easter Seals to the Cancer Society, to AARP, you name it and they're there. This is a good piece of legislation. And if the American public wants to understand how close this is or if, Madam Speaker, if you'd like to check with the Members of this body, there needs to be about 25 Members of this body switch where they're at on this issue. That's all we're asking for, to switch them. We've got them to compromise on that. We get these 25 people, and all of a sudden we're looking at 10 million children getting the care that they can. Decisions are big around here. There's repercussions for your decisions. There's repercussions on the American public understanding what this body's job is supposed to do. And by all accounts, and each of us hear it, the American public, I would be willing to bet, it would be very difficult to find any issue that 81 percent of the American public agrees on, and this is the issue. So tomorrow we have the opportunity. The President can choose to see if he wants to see his veto upheld. The Members of this body have the opportunity to make a difference. So, Dr. Kagen.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Well, I think the two gentlemen make excellent points on this. It's about having a vision. It's about understanding investment. I would argue it has sunk in, Madam Speaker, to 81 percent of the country. It simply hasn't sunk in to another 25 Members of this body that will start to get that. I want to give just an example here, a couple on this. This idea that the President's going to decide again, and the claims that came up here and, of course, the chart we talked about where the President's going to cut back on numbers, we have a situation now where we have children uncovered. The President is going to decide. Now, our bill is going to get us to the number we want to try to get to. The President is going to say, no, there's not enough there to get that. Well, he calls himself the decider. So Madam Speaker, I'd like you to think about this, and I'd like Members of this body to think about this. Who gets coverage? Which one of these families gets coverage? You decide. Some aren't going to if you get the President's way. Our way makes the decision pretty easy. Cover the children. How about the Wilkerson family from St. Petersburg, Florida? ``This is personal not only to us but millions of parents,'' said Bethany's mother, Dara, in a telephone interview. ``Dara Wilkerson said Bethany had to have heart surgery in 2005, when she was 6 months old, after doctors told them she'd been born with two holes in her heart and a valve that didn't close. The Wilkersons said their annual income was about $34,000 from their jobs, and they couldn't afford private insurance, and it wasn't offered to them. But even if they could, Bethany had a preexisting condition. The heart problem she was born with made enrollment in private plans impossible, her mother said. Thanks to Florida's version of SCHIP, the State Kid Care Program, Bethany gets the care she needs and has recovered and is a healthy, happy little girl.'' The President can be the decider. Does Bethany and her family get the coverage or not? It's his decision. How about the Spaeth family from Kentucky? Tonya Spaeth will give birth to a baby whose health care is the subject of a contentious debate on Capitol Hill. For the Spaeth family, such matters go far beyond a political debate. The baby's two older siblings have spent much of their lives in Kentucky's version of KCHIP, which insures 51,000 uninsured, low-income children who don't qualify for Medicaid. The Spaeths pay $1 or $2 for prescription medication and a $20 monthly premium. Mom and dad both work, but are absolutely unable to afford private insurance, which would run about $400 a month. So you want to throw them off? We can see what they did. How about the Mackey family from Memphis, Tennessee? When Barbara Mackey's sister sent her an e-mail earlier this year about Tennessee's new CoverKids health care, she jumped at the chance. CoverKids is making a huge difference, said Barbara, who earns less than $20,000 a year as a bookkeeper at a church daycare center. The center offers health insurance to employees but not their dependents. Barbara said three of her four children were covered under the TennCare health insurance program for the poor, but lost coverage when the State ruled that the family's income was too high to qualify. So do you want to throw off Barbara Mackey and her children? The list goes on and on and on. So the decider is going to be able to make a decision. We, as the deciders of the people's will, the 81 percent of people who agree with this, the 74 percent who are willing to give up their hard-earned dollars to help invest, as we heard our good colleague from Iowa and from Wisconsin say, this is a good piece of legislation. It's bipartisan. It's well vetted. It's ready to go. It passed both Chambers. It was vetoed. And tomorrow we're going to have the opportunity to set that record straight. And I look forward to this vote. I look forward to standing on this floor with my colleagues and proudly casting that vote, knowing that this Nation's priorities are straight. This Nation's priorities are right. This Nation's commitments to its children are unwavering. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Absolutely. And this issue again comes back to the basic core principles of budgeting. I would just like to refer to the chart here for a moment. Whenever you make a budget and whenever we sit down in this body, we have to determine what our values are, what our priorities are, put them in order, and pay for them accordingly. The President has indicated that this is simply too expensive, that we cannot do it. Now, to keep in mind, I want to give an illustration here. The cost of a day in Iraq in the war is about $33 million. To get an idea, that is about a quarter of a million children we could cover. For 37 days, just over a month of what this war is costing us, and this number doesn't include, by the way, soldiers' salaries nor the health care costs that, it was estimated in a hearing I was at today, are going to cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of $9 billion a year, probably stretching, with the total cost coming from CBO and the Congressional Research Service, to $1.3 trillion over the next 15 years. We could cover all 10 million kids. So we have got a decision to make in this country, where we are going to put our resources, where we are going to invest, where we are going to see the future on this. And this is a simple decision. When the President comes to this body and will demand, cajole, just about everything you can think of and tell us why he is going to need $200 billion, of course he told us 5 years ago that it was silly when General Shinseki mentioned that this might cost $100 billion. Of course, General Shinseki was let go. He didn't agree with that budgeting. Or, that we might actually have to take care of more veterans. That is why we ended up short for the last 3 years taking care of our veterans. So the President is going to say this is a budgeting issue. This is the same gentleman that did what the previous 42 Presidents could not do. He got us into a trillion dollars in debt to foreign nations. It took him about 60 months to be able to do that while it took 218 years for our previous administrations. This is the one who took a massive surplus under the Clinton administration and turned it into a massive deficit. So the President's credibility when it comes to fiscal matters is pretty much zero. This Nation, 81 percent by the latest numbers, and possibly more, are saying, invest in the children, invest in the health care. Do what is right. I yield to the doctor from Wisconsin.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I appreciate the gentleman's passion on this. And I think it is really critical to point out, the gentleman was bringing to notion of how SCHIP works, and we already had addressed the issue of the $83,000 question that we know is just plain misleading. I want to mention, in this idea of where this health care is going to come from, who is going to provide it; and I know that one of the issues that most affects families, they don't care what kind of insurance it is if they don't have it; they simply need to get it. And one of the issues here, and this again comes from Senators Grassley and Hatch, the fiction of this, that Congress by doing this, the congressional bill is a step towards government-run health care. This is our Republican leadership in the Senate listing the facts. SCHIP is a leader in combining public-private solutions to provide health care coverage to uninsured children. The CHIP Reauthorization Act encourages a mix of public and private solutions to cover children and limits the scope of the program to the low-income, uninsured children Congress meant to be covered. So this idea of perpetuating these myths first and foremost doesn't get us at the heart of this. The bottom line on this is, this is a wonderful mix of trying to deliver in that gap area. Now, when we are talking some of these numbers that we are throwing around, 300 percent of poverty and those types of numbers; right now for last year, this is a family at poverty level, $17,170. Now, I would like to see how someone can make that budget work. I can guarantee you that this body could not do it. And then at 200 percent of poverty is then the $34,340 as you hear some of these numbers coming up. So the President's claim that this is pushing children into some type of government- sponsored health care is simply not the case. And the last thing I would like to do on this is that children who already have insurance, this myth has been out there and this is listed here. The fiction is Congress would move children with private insurance into government-run health care. The President reiterated that myth today at his press conference. The fact, according to Senators Grassley and Hatch is, according to independent Congressional Budget Office, and the one thing I would like to make very clear is the President is totally entitled to his opinion; he is not entitled to his facts. And the Congressional Budget Office, which is independent, clearly states, the Congressional Budget Office: The rate of substitution of public coverage for private coverage or what is called crowding out would be lower under the compromise bill than it is under current law. So the fact is, not only is this not going to happen, it is going to get better under this piece of legislation because the coverage will be there. So this idea of these myths, and when you hear the story of a young man who is facing these type things or a family that is going to take those type of decisions, and the President trying to tell the American public, well, this is for rich people, 94 percent of people falling in that 200 percent or lower that are on that are children. The President is saying it is those with $83,000; it is government- sponsored socialized medicine. We dug that word back out of the seventies, apparently. Or, it is going to force people who have private health insurance to take it on the government dole. None of those things are true. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Well, no, absolutely. But I think it goes back to this about the open, honest discussion. This Nation I think overwhelmingly, and we know that in each of our districts, whether it's California, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, no matter where we're at, we hear this, Madam Speaker. I would like to just for a minute before I send this back over to my good friend from California, I think it's important to understand that all of us received a letter today, an impassioned letter, one that I feel very strongly illustrates where we're at. And this came from our colleagues over in the other Chamber, over in the Senate. It came from Senator Baucus, the Democrat from Montana. It came from Senator Grassley, your Senator from Iowa. It came from Senator Rockefeller in West Virginia, and it came from Senator Hatch out in Utah. And what they told us was this. They sent us this letter dated today as we get ready to cast this vote. ``Dear Colleague: ``As you prepare to cast your vote tomorrow on the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, those of us who took lead roles in writing the bill in the Senate would like to provide you with detailed information about the legislation. The material below responds directly to the great amount of misinformation that has been spread about this bill. We hope that you will take time to review these facts before you vote. The four of us worked together on a bipartisan basis for most of this year to craft'' this piece of legislation ``that will do just what we all want to do: serve low-income children who currently lack health coverage. The following information separates fact from fiction.'' And let me read you their first line. ``Fiction: The compromise bill would expand coverage for children in families with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. ``Fact: The bill does not raise the eligibility level for CHIP. While the State of New York did ask the Department of Health and Human Services for approval to raise eligibility'' of the poverty level to 400 percent, ``the Secretary rejected New York's request.'' Many of us in here understand why New York City would ask to raise it in this case. It was not accepted, but the issue is the cost of living and the cost of delivery in New York City, but it was rejected. It never happened. It never went through. The President of the United States restated a myth today with the purposeful intention of misleading, as this said, at best, wrong at worst, and I said, these are the types of things, we're here to have the discussion. If this body and Members that were with us choose to cast their vote against overriding this veto, it should be based on factual knowledge. It should be based on the understanding of what this is going to do, and it should not be based on political rhetoric. And with that, I turn it back over to my friend and colleague from Iowa.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 657) expressing heartfelt sympathy for the victims of the devastating thunderstorms that caused severe flooding during August 2007 in the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 657.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Graves for joining us today. On August 18 and 19, torrential rains devastated communities all across the Midwest. In less than a 24-hour period, more than 18 inches of rain fell in some areas of southeast Minnesota causing severe flooding, mud slides, loss of property and loss of life. In my district in southeast Minnesota, seven people lost their lives as a result of these sudden and violent storms. Countless more were injured. Thousands of homes and businesses were damaged and destroyed. In community after community, people returned to their homes to discover that priceless family memories, literally all they owned, had been washed away in a matter of minutes. Roads and bridges had been swept away and must be rebuilt. I went to many of these towns countless times. I saw the challenges that these people face. Let me give you one example. Rushford, Minnesota, sits in the beautiful Driftless area, the rolling hills and rich farmland of southeast Minnesota. It is a town of 1,700 people, with a vibrant Main Street, a great civic pride, and they are also defending State football champions from last year. This town was almost completely under water. I entered the town on the morning of the rains by boat. There was one small island, a dry bit of land that had a church, part of a local school and a city building. That was the only part of the town that was above water. People had to take boats to get to this island in which they were having meetings, receiving help, and even getting started on that very morning of the task of rebuilding. Even during the flood itself, Minnesotans were reaching out to their neighbor. In Minnesota City, during the worst of the flash floods, authorities ran out of all rescue equipment and rescue boats. Residents used their own boats to go from house to house, literally plucking people off the rooftops and bringing them to safety. The response to this disaster has been inspiring. People from all across Minnesota and across the Nation have stepped forward to help. There have been blood drives, canned food drives, and waves and waves of volunteers who have come into the area to offer their help, open their hearts and homes. This disaster was not limited to Minnesota. Similar storms pounded all across my neighboring district, and my good friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) experienced devastating damage, as well as Iowa, Illinois and Ohio also. All told, 14 people died as a result of these storms and the flash floods that it caused. This resolution that the House considers today is one very, very small, but important way, to recognize the challenging times that these individuals have faced and will face. It expresses sympathy for their loss and gratitude to the State and Federal officials who responded swiftly. This resolution recognizes the generous support given by so many and reaffirms the support of this Congress for the flood victims and the immediate and heartfelt and serious disaster declaration help that came from FEMA and the Federal Government. President Bush was in Minnesota within days of this, reaffirming his support. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to stand with Minnesota and those throughout the Midwest who have come through the flood waters and are now working to rebuild their lives. I am sorry to say, the same area received between 6 and 12 inches of rain in some areas last night and is experiencing heavy rains again today. We have work to do, but the response so far has been truly inspiring. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague, my neighbor and my friend from Wisconsin whose district was greatly affected by this flooding. We have worked closely on this. It's through Mr. Kind's leadership, experience and forcefulness that we were able to secure, I believe probably in unprecedented fashion, the support we needed from the Federal Government. With that, I yield to my friend from Wisconsin. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to my colleague from Wisconsin, whose leadership and voice was instrumental. I also want to thank Mr. Graves. I think it is very important as Americans watch, and watch the proceedings on this floor, to understand the solidarity that is in this body and to hear my friends from Missouri and across the Nation stand with us in time of tragedy and understand that we will work together, we will solve these problems. I think it is encouraging to understand that we are making progress, we are making changes. I applaud that.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that. It absolutely is a team effort in this. I think the greatness that is this country is that when in times of tragedy and times of need, we can put many, many things aside and come together. As Mr. Kind pointed out so clearly, to have Director Paulison from FEMA on the ground within a matter of about 72 hours of this tragedy and Secretary Chertoff from Homeland Security personally be on the ground to assess this, and to have President Bush in Minnesota and guarantee that we would get this declaration and then follow through, I think the American public should feel very, very good about that. We have a lot of work to do, but the word coming out of our district and the word going to our staffs as they are working with people is that in this tragedy, they felt there was a face on a faceless bureaucracy. They felt America was there for them. They felt they could count on this body doing everything they could. For that, I thank everyone in here. I encourage my colleagues to adopt the resolution to show that continued solidarity.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her kind words, and I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his many years of leadership and his service also and to the whole Armed Services Committee for this important legislation. I am urging my colleagues, and I am sure it will not take a lot of urging. This House of Representatives understands. This resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 185, has recognized the incredible contributions, courage, and sacrifice of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the National Guard that they have given to our Nation. In July of 2005, members of the 1/34th Brigade Combat Team of the famed Red Bull Division were notified of their deployment. Twenty-two months later, in July of 2007, they began returning home, after a 22- month deployment. As my colleague from Minnesota said, they had no intention or no knowledge that they would be setting a record. They simply said yes when they were called upon. As you have heard from each of my colleagues, the statistics are amazing on what this unit did: 5,200 combat logistic patrols covering 2.4 million convoy miles. You heard Mr. Kline talk about the number of IEDs that were found. A full 37 percent of the total IED incidents during their time there were attributed to the diligent work of this unit. They helped start the Iraqi newspapers that you heard about, and they also helped produce documentaries on the positive work that our units are doing in Iraq. They completed 137 reconstruction projects; and during this deployment, as you heard, they reenlisted 1,400 of these brave citizen soldiers. And I think a really special thing is 21 of them became citizens during their time in service to this country. Although they were originally slated to come home, they endured a 125-day extension, and their families and employers endured that with them. This record of the longest continuous deployment of any U.S. military operation in Iraqi Freedom is something to be incredibly proud of. Being there is one thing. Contributing positively the way they did is quite another. The soldiers sacrificed 2 years of their lives in service to their country. I know how much they have given, as I was a former member of this Red Bull Division myself; and I know many of these men and women personally. They have added to the long and impressive list of the Red Bull. Their lineage goes back to the 1st Minnesota Volunteers, the first unit to volunteer for the Civil War. The Red Bulls had 517 days of actual combat in World War II, that is more than any other U.S. division during the war, and captured more enemy hills and territory than any other division in World War II. I, along with the rest of the Minnesota delegation in both the House and the Senate, introduced this resolution to honor their service and to recognize not just the soldiers, but their families and employers who patiently supported, loved and cared for them and waited for them until they returned to the Midwest. I want to thank my colleagues from Minnesota for their work in support of this resolution, especially my colleague Mr. Kline from Minnesota. My colleague from Minnesota himself is a lieutenant colonel, a lifelong and career Marine Corps officer and one that served with distinction. He understands and he too knows the sacrifice that they have given. I want to thank the 30 other Members of Congress who cosponsored this resolution to show their support of the 1st Brigade Combat Team. But most of all, I want to thank the 2,447 soldiers of the 1st Brigade Combat Team from Minnesota. The other soldiers that augmented this unit came from Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Kentucky, Idaho, and Washington. The Red Bulls have truly lived up to their long and heroic tradition and have contributed bravely to the war in Iraq and this Nation's security. Regardless of what any American feels about the war in Iraq, it is clear that America's servicemembers, like those from the 1st Brigade Combat Team, have performed brilliantly and magnificently; and they deserve our full support. Now Congress must do its part to recognize their service and provide them the benefits and the health care that they need. The Minnesota National Guard has a world-class reintegration program, the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program, which helps soldiers readjust to civilian life. I want to thank my friend and colleague and fellow Minnesotan, Congressman Kline, for working to expand this program nationwide for all soldiers. His leadership in this is appreciated by soldiers and families across this Nation. Their needs will go far beyond reintegration. Long after the initial fanfare fades, Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs must stand ready to assist these brave warriors throughout the rest of their lives. They have more than earned our support, and we must be certain they always have it. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to show their support for the Red Bulls by adopting this resolution.

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for offering this incredibly important piece of legislation modernizing the National Flood Insurance Program. On the evening of August 18 into the morning of August 19, devastating storms swept across the Midwest. Seven of the 22 counties in my congressional district are now Federal disaster areas as up to 18 inches of rain fell in a 24-hour period. Seven individuals in my district lost their lives, and countless others were injured. Thousands of homes were destroyed. Millions of dollars in damage to roads and bridges which were washed away literally overnight. Subsequently, many Minnesotans found out how quickly they needed to become experts in the National Flood Insurance Program, so I congratulate the committee for taking up this legislation. One of the improvements that you are hearing about is the improvements to the mapping of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. What my amendment does, we are getting the 500-year floodplains, and they are dealing with areas that could be flooded if a levee or dam fails. But they do not require FEMA at this time to map areas in the 100-year floodplain that, if not for a flood-control measure other than a dam or levee, could flood, and my amendment simply asks for those areas to be mapped. When a flood-control measure fails, it is obvious that it is catastrophic. Whether it be a flood wall or a levee in New Orleans, or as we found out in Minnesota, a culvert in St. Charles, Minnesota, or a storm sewer in Hokah, Minnesota, the impact is devastating. This amendment is very simple. It adds one sentence to this bill requiring FEMA to map ``areas in the 100-year floodplain, including any area that would be in the floodplain if not protected by a dam, levee, or other man-made structure.'' This does not put any new requirements on residents living in those areas, or put any additional burden on residents who live near dams or levees. The amendment simply requires FEMA to make information available about the risk of flooding that might occur if a flood control measure other than a dam or levee would fail. Some of the structures we are talking about: culverts, storm sewers, certain bridges and certain elevated rural roadways. The recent floods in Minnesota showed the need for communities to have a comprehensive information plan on the risks that they face. This amendment would help do exactly that, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this small change that could make a big difference in how people adjust to the circumstances based on the potential of flooding. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.