PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-127.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Nov 17, 2003
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed in the Senate on October 31, 2003. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends title XXI (State Children's Health Insurance) (SCHIP) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to make a technical amendment to the definition of qualifying State used for purposes of giving certain States operating under waivers of specified State plan requirements the authority to use up to 20 percent of their FY 1998 through 2001 SCHIP allotments, for fiscal years in which they are available, for paying the costs of covering under Medicaid (SSA title XIX) certain low-income children whose family income meets an income eligibility standard under such waivers of at least 185 percent of the poverty line. Extends the meaning of qualifying State to include waivers first implemented, and 185 percent-of-the-poverty-line eligibility standards operating, on several specified dates to allow additional States (New Mexico, Maryland, Hawaii, and Rhode Island) to use such portion of their unspent SCHIP funds for covering such children under Medicaid.
People & committees
Rep. Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) [R-LA-3] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-127.
Became Public Law No: 108-127.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S13742)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S13742)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 382 - 0 (Roll no. 565). (text: CR H9703)
House roll call 565 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 382 - 0 (Roll no. 565).(text: CR H9703)
House roll call 565 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9706-9707)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3288.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9703-9704)
Mr. Upton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3288 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3288 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3288 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3288 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.