Thread: SCHIP Bill Can STILL Be STOPPED

SCHIP Bill Sparks Immigration Controversy

Immigration also became a heated topic of conversation during last week's debate of the SCHIP legislation. The House and Senate took up separate versions of a bill to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP), which provides health coverage for low-income children who fail to meet Medicaid requirements. While the reauthorization of the SCHIP program was controversial for a variety of reasons, many immigration reformers in the House became upset when they learned that the House bill (H.R. 3162) relaxed certain eligibility and verification requirements, making it easier for both legal immigrants and illegal aliens to get benefits under the bill.

H.R. 3162 contains four immigration-related provisions.

Section 132 gives the states the option to waive the 5-year residency requirement for lawful permanent residents who are either pregnant or under the age of 19 to receive medical benefits.

Both Sections 112 and 142 allow states to relax documentary requirements for those persons under 21 applying for Medicaid benefits.

Finally, Section 233 proposes a multi-million dollar grant program that would fund interpreter services for 24 medical service providers around the country.

Representatives, such as Congressman Nathan Deal (R-GA), intended to offer amendments in the Energy and Commerce Committee to strip these provisions during committee mark-up. However, Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) and House Leadership agreed to yank the SCHIP bill from committee before amendments could be offered and send it straight to the floor.

On its way, the bill made a brief stop in the Rules Committee where token language was added providing that no illegal aliens should receive funding under the bill. The Rules Committee also adopted a procedural rule allowing only two hours of debate on the House floor with no amendments permitted. The bill passed by a vote of 225 to 204.

Meanwhile, the Senate considered its own version of the bill, which was introduced as an amendment to the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007 (H.R. 976). While there was some debate over relaxing current eligibility and verification requirements, the Senate bill generated less controversy than its House counterpart. This was likely due to the bi-partisan nature of the bill, sponsored by Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and the fact that the immigration provisions of H.R. 976 were less onerous than those in the House.

Like the House version, H.R. 976 makes several changes to current eligibility and verification requirements. Section 201 of H.R. 976 provides additional funding for interpreter services if states choose to provide them.

Section 203 creates a pilot program that allows states to expedite eligibility determinations for Medicaid and SCHIP benefits by adopting the eligibility determinations of other welfare agencies. This fast-track provision, however, cuts off federal funding when the eligibility error rate exceeds 3%.

Finally, Section 301 makes the citizen documentation requirements for Medicaid applicable to SCHIP and gives states the option of continuing to use the SAVE system for determining eligibility of Medicaid and SCHIP applicants or using a program similar to the Basic Pilot Program.

These provisions were still in place when the Senate passed H.R. 976 on Thursday by a vote of 68 to 31.

The House and Senate versions of the SCHIP reauthorization bill will now go to conference committee where legislators will hammer out differences.

Observers will be watching closely to see which provisions regarding eligibility for benefits survive.

FAIR UPDATE VIA EMAIL

What this means is, IT CAN STILL BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!! CALL, EMAIL AND/OR FAX MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO.

This is the same bill that the President is going to veto.

Paige wrote:

This is the same bill that the President is going to veto.

He threatened a veto. However, whether he'll follow-up on that threat or not remains to be seen.

It is at the point where you fund the war or fund Mexico. I think Mexico may lose on the one.