What a country! Before the Senate gets around to voting on this, everybody and their brother needs to call, fax, and write their Senators to let them know that the State Children's Health Insurance Program, aka 'SCHIP' is a bunch of SH CRAP! Below is a copy of an email I received from Arizona's Republican Congressman John Shadegg. In my humble opinion, Shadegg is one of the good guys - he stands up for conservative values even when it's unpopular with his peers. In fact, to those Arizona Republicans looking for a true conservative to support financially (you know all you people who used to donate money to Senator Kyl and Senator McCain!), I strongly recommend donating money to Congressman Shadegg. From what I've seen, he actually represents his constituents as he was elected to do. He opposed the Amnesty bill while AZ Representative Jeff Flake and Senators Jon Kyl & John McCain caved to the President's shamnesty bill. Shadegg remained firmly opposed even when Bush and his Washington heavies tried to strongarm amnesty opponents - they even went as far as to label opponents as 'racists'. Anyway, before I get side-tracked further, here's Congressman Shadegg's email:
To: Shadegg Insiders
From: Congressman John Shadegg
On Wednesday night the Democrats in the U.S. House passed a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The expansion allows states -- even encourages them - to provide coverage to ADULTS, including CHILDLESS adults. A bill which will extend SCHIP funding beyond the working poor -for which the program was intended - to not just middle income families making more than $45,000 a year, but also to upper middle income Americans making $60,000 to $80,000 a year. And the bill has no asset test, so the children of the richest Americans could be eligible. To pay for their expansion of coverage beyond just the uninsured children, the Democrats cut spending for the Medicare Advantage program. It would eliminate coverage for 3 million seniors across America (more than 50,000 in Arizona alone).
The Democrats rushed this through Congress in barely 8 days, with no committee hearings, no Republican amendments and only three hours of debate on the floor. To try to hold the Democrats accountable, on the day before the vote Republicans attempted to discuss the problems with the Democrat's SCHIP bill while debating the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill.
The Democrats were none too happy about this maneuver. And, it actually was a lot of fun to use floor procedure to engage in the debate. Below you will find my floor remarks and my back and forth with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and the Chair as I point out the flaws in the Democrat's SCHIP bill in the context of my support for a cut in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
From: Congressman John Shadegg
On Wednesday night the Democrats in the U.S. House passed a massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The expansion allows states -- even encourages them - to provide coverage to ADULTS, including CHILDLESS adults. A bill which will extend SCHIP funding beyond the working poor -for which the program was intended - to not just middle income families making more than $45,000 a year, but also to upper middle income Americans making $60,000 to $80,000 a year. And the bill has no asset test, so the children of the richest Americans could be eligible. To pay for their expansion of coverage beyond just the uninsured children, the Democrats cut spending for the Medicare Advantage program. It would eliminate coverage for 3 million seniors across America (more than 50,000 in Arizona alone).
The Democrats rushed this through Congress in barely 8 days, with no committee hearings, no Republican amendments and only three hours of debate on the floor. To try to hold the Democrats accountable, on the day before the vote Republicans attempted to discuss the problems with the Democrat's SCHIP bill while debating the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill.
The Democrats were none too happy about this maneuver. And, it actually was a lot of fun to use floor procedure to engage in the debate. Below you will find my floor remarks and my back and forth with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and the Chair as I point out the flaws in the Democrat's SCHIP bill in the context of my support for a cut in the Agriculture appropriations bill.
Congressional Record, July 31, 2007, Debate on McHenry Amendment to H.R. 3161, Department of Agriculture appropriations bill
Mr. SHADEGG. I rise in strong support of the McHenry amendment to reduce the budget of the Office of the Secretary by $101,000.
The reason I support that amendment is because I do not support cutting the Medicare Advantage program by billions of dollars and hurting seniors.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has confined his remarks to the pending amendment. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. I would rather cut the Secretary's budget by $101 billion as a way to save money than to cut the Medicare Advantage program because the Medicare Advantage program helps millions of Americans and thousands in my own congressional district. So as the Democrats propose to cut that program in their SCHIP bill, I believe it would be better to cut this program.
I rise in support of the McHenry amendment to cut $101,000 from the Secretary's budget because the Medicare Advantage bill will cut 3 million seniors' ability to collect their benefits through Medicare Advantage. That 3 million includes some of the poorest of seniors who are on Medicare Advantage, and I would rather cut $101,000 from the Secretary's budget than cut that money going to Medicare seniors who need it desperately.
I support the amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr . McHenry) to cut $101,000 from the budget of the Secretary of Agriculture because the other cut we are faced with is a $15 billion cut in part A, including a cut in benefits to skilled nursing facilities, as the Democrats propose to do in their SCHIP bill.
I would rather cut the Department of Agriculture's budget than----
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate about the SCHIP program in another bill for another day.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
The gentleman may proceed.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SHADEGG. I presume I can state my reason for supporting the amendment; is that correct?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must keep his remarks to the pending question, and there must be a nexus between the pending question and broader policy issues.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SHADEGG. And I will continue to say that a $15 billion cut in skilled nursing facilities is, from my perspective, a bad idea, much worse than a $101,000 cut from the Secretary's budget. And, therefore, I rise in strong support of the McHenry amendment because I don't want to see skilled nursing cut as the Democrats propose to do in their SCHIP bill.
I support the McHenry amendment which would cut $101,000 from the Secre tary's budget because I don't support cutting rehabilitation facilities as the Democrats would do in their SCHIP bill.
Indeed, I would much prefer to cut $100,000 from the Secretary's budget than to cut, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill, rehabilitation facilities.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate about a piece of legislation that will come up in a few days. We are discussing the Agriculture appropriations bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the pending question.
The gentleman may proceed.
& nbsp;
Mr. SHADEGG. As I believe I have, quite skillfully.
I do rise in very strong support of the McHenry amendment because I believe that cutting the Secretary's budget is a much better idea than cutting skilled nursing facilities.
I believe it is a much better idea than cutting long-term hospital facilities, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. And I think it would be much better to cut $100,000 from the Secretary of Agriculture's administrative budget than to cut, as the Democrats do, funding for long-term care by hospitals.
It seems to me this is a simple debate: Where do we cut? I would much rather cut $100,000 from the budget of the Office of the Secretary than to cut $9 billion from Medicare plan B, including payments for oxygen, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. It seems to me that kind of cut in their SCHIP bill is a bad idea. I would rather support the gentleman's amendment.
&nb sp;
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the gentleman sounds like a broken record. The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment, and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman making a point of order that the debate is irrelevant?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I am making the point of order that the debate is absolutely irrelevant.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Arizona mu st confine his remarks to the pending question.
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I seek a clarification. What was the ruling of the Chair?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is correct. The gentleman from Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
Mr. SHADEGG. Precisely how did my remarks not----
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending question is the amendment by Mr. McHenry of North Carolina to the amendment by the gentleman from Georgia. That is the pending question.
Mr. SHADEGG. And I thank the Chairman for her ruling, and I am pleased to say that each of my points have tried to explain that I support, adamantly support the amendment by the gentleman to cut $100,000 from the Secretary's budget because I don't favor these other cuts. I don't favor cutting the funding for end-stage renal disease programs. I would much rather cut the Department of Agriculture ad ministrative budget than do as the Democrats would in their SCHIP bill, cut $3.6 billion from the end-stage renal disease program.
It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina to cut $100,000 from the administrative budget of the Secretary is a much-preferable method to achieve the savings that we need. In each of these instances, I believe that cutting the Secretary's budget would make much more sense than cutting the Medicare program.
I have constituents in my district who would much rather see us cut the Ag budget than see us cut Medicare or see us cut end-stage renal disease or than see us cut oxygen therapy as is all done in the Democrats' SCHIP bill. For all of those reasons, I believe it is very important that we support the gentleman's amendment.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman fr om Illinois may state his point of order.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
Mr. SHADEGG. There is nothing irrelevant about it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona will suspend.
Does the gentleman make a point of order that the debate is irrelevant?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I make the point of order that the debate is irrelevant.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
Mr. SHADEGG. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, noes 178, not voting 39
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SHADEGG. As I understand the ruling of the Chair, it is appropriate for me to say I support the gentleman's amendment because I do not support cuts in skilled nursing facilities or cuts in rehabilitation facilities or cuts in long-term care hospitals or cuts in oxygen, or cuts in brachytherapy, or cuts in end-stage renal disease or cuts in Medicare Advantage; but that I cannot say which appear in their SCHIP bill. Is that correct?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is permissible to identify as preferable an alternative object for funding. It is not permissible to dwell on the merits of that alternative object.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank you very much for your ruling.
Madam Chairman, I do rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I believe that we have to find the funding necessary for essential government programs and that cutting the Secretary of Agriculture is much better than cutting such programs as skilled nursing facilities, rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, oxygen under Medicare, brachytherapy under Medicare, end-stage renal disease funding under Medicare or Medicare Advantage.
For those reasons, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Raising taxes to increase revenue has a lot in common with spanking children to get better behavior.
You can do it only so much as is necessary and only to a limit (even if that limit is undefined and vague). Beyond that, it restricts behavior in general, good behavior as well as bad. In the case of taxes, it impedes business ventures involving risk.
Posted by: David Perich | January 02, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Hi everyone,
Just wanted to introduce myself. This seems like a nice place and I look forward to hanging out here :)
Pam
http://sacredheartdietforreal.blogspot.com/
Posted by: pamelakworkoutgirl | January 13, 2008 at 05:54 AM