Washington, DC - President Bush’s veto this last week of the bipartisan State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), was a rejection of the success of this program in providing health care to children of hard working low-income parents.

SCHIP was created ten years ago to provide basic health care for children whose parents didn’t qualify for Medicaid, but couldn’t afford to go to the doctor on their own. It only applies to children whose parents do not have health insurance through their employers. The child with a rotten tooth would be left to his pain, and the one with juvenile diabetes could be unaware of her condition until it is too late.

The Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, and our Health Subcommittee, have held numerous hearings this year on the SCHIP issue. The program’s renewal includes notable improvements to the original version. For example, it provides incentives to states to make every child eligible for coverage for an entire year without having to go through the hassle of reenrolling. In Texas, children have been forced to reenroll every six months. As a result, children are dropped from the rolls twice a year, leaving some needy children without medical care. In fact, in 2003 more than 175,000 children were dropped from Texas rolls, due primarily to the six-month reenrollment period. The plight of the children who are dropped because of reenrollment snafus illustrates how crucial SCHIP can be. Devante Johnson’s story is one example.

Devante’s mother made sure to fill out her son’s renewal paperwork two months in advance because she knew he couldn’t afford to be without coverage. He was 13 years old, and suffering from kidney cancer. As the six-month deadline approached, her son’s reenrollment hadn’t been approved and she grew increasingly desperate. Despite many frantic phone calls, Devante was dropped from Texas’s SCHIP program. It took four months and an intervention from a state representative to get him back on the rolls.

If the reenrollment period had been 12 months instead of six, Devante would have had continuous care, and his chance for recovery would have been greater. Instead, he died in March.

The SCHIP reauthorization bill would reauthorize the program for five years. This would cover nearly 4 million more children from working families that can’t afford the rocketing costs of private health insurance and yet don’t qualify for Medicaid. In Texas, 440,000 children would be added to the program, giving them a good chance to stay healthy. The bill maintains the narrow intent of the current law by giving states resources and incentives to reach more children who are already eligible but not enrolled. The bill focuses on the children from the poorest families; more than 91 percent of children who would be covered under the SCHIP bill are from families whose income is less than 200 percent of the poverty level. It does not make government bigger or expand the eligibility guidelines to include more children.

This bill is a spectacular example of bipartisan cooperation, garnering high levels of support from Democrats, Republicans and independents. The House voted 265 to 159, the Senate 67 to 29 in favor. In addition, 43 out of 50 governors and 72 percent of American people surveyed in an ABC News/Washington Post poll support the bipartisan SCHIP bill.

The president’s veto may reflect his concern for the American taxpayer. This is interesting since before he vetoed SCHIP, which would cost only $35 billion more over five years, he asked Congress for almost $190 billion in special appropriations for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq just for next year. This is over and above the regular Department of Defense annual appropriations bill.

Support for SCHIP is primarily a question of priorities and values. Americans, whether they are Democratic, Republican or independent, value the contribution of our brave men and women who have been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. We also value the health of our children, grandchildren, nieces, and nephews. Most of us value fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, and elimination of the national debt. But will we, as a nation, extend our hand to the children who need our help the most? This is not a hard decision, nor is it a major sacrifice. It is simply putting children first in an affordable way.

The House and Senate will now try to override this veto. If we do not receive two-thirds of those voting, we will have fewer children covered. These children go to school and church with us and deserve to be healthy.