Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 295

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 295

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we gather in the Senate this evening, there are 45 million Americans who are uninsured.

I have introduced this sense-of-the-Senate resolution and invite cosponsors from both sides of the aisle to establish a national goal that we will eliminate the 45 million uninsured in the next 10 years.

Some are critical of a sense-of-the-senate resolution saying this is ``pie in the sky,'' we could not do that, we could not eliminate 45 million uninsured in America in the course of 10 years. I disagree. If we set it as a bipartisan national goal, if the President and Congress agree it is goal we are going to seek, we can reach that goal.

The amendment which I have just offered will eliminate 20 percent of the uninsured Americans--20 percent of them.

Now, which would be the first group that you would turn to, to give health insurance and give the protection of health insurance? Well, I think most Americans, certainly most American families, would say our children. Would we not want to take care of them first?

There are 9.1 million children in America without health insurance. Let me show you what 9 million children might look like in this depiction. Look at the States in yellow. If you took the children in every one of these States, they would total 9 million children. It gives you an indication of the gravity of this challenge. And it also tells you that we need to do much more. The number of children without health insurance in our Nation exceeds the number of all children living in 21 States and the District of Columbia combined.

According to the Center for Studying Health System Change, uninsured children when compared to privately insured children in the year 2003 were, first, 3 1/2 times more likely to have gone without needed medical, dental or health care; second, 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; third, 5 times more likely to go without needed prescription drugs; fourth, 6 1/2 times less likely to have the usual source of care.

Let me give you the hard number. Six million children went without needed health care in America in the year 2003.

I am sad to report this year I am afraid it is even more. There are more than 250,000 children in my State of Illinois without health insurance. Most come from working families, such as the Akeys family of Chicago. Annette and her husband own a real estate company. They make about $60,000 a year. That is not a huge sum of money in the city of Chicago. They were forced to give up their family health insurance when their premiums rose to $500 a month. Unfortunately, their 6-year old daughter Katana became ill with a kidney problem and a heart murmur.

Katana was in the hospital for 3 days and the Akeys were left with a $10,000 medical bill to pay out of their own pocket. How did they do it? They took a second mortgage on their home.

The Baldwins from Moline, IL, are another working family who can't afford insurance. Amanda Baldwin manages a fast food restaurant. She makes $556 every 2 weeks. Her husband David is a truck driver. He grosses $1,100 every 2 weeks. They have a 1-year-old son Zachary, but the Baldwins of Moline, IL, have no insurance. Why? Because it would cost $400 a month, which is about one-sixth of their monthly income.

Paula Brooks of Adwardsville, IL, has coverage through the nonprofit agency where she is employed, but she can't afford to add her daughter Brittany, who is 9 years old, to her policy.

There isn't a State in this Union, there isn't a city or town or village in this Nation where you could not find this story repeated over and over and over again--families that can't afford health insurance, children that go without protection.

Let me tell you what has happened since Congress has failed to address this issue. If this is impossible to read as you are following this debate, it is because the print is so small, but what I have is the response of 19 States that have decided they are tired of waiting for Congress. They are trying to expand health care to their citizens. It is pretty clear that many of these States have become desperate. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, my home State of Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, they are doing what we are not doing; they are showing leadership on the issue of expanding health coverage to the people living in their State. For the life of me, I can't explain why this President and this Congress ignore one of the most pressing problems facing America today.

Luckily for the kids of my home State of Illinois, Governor Blagojevich signed a bill yesterday that covers all the children in the State. He calls it the All Kids Program. It will offer Illinois's uninsured children comprehensive health care that includes doctor visits, hospital stays, prescription drugs, vision care, dental care, and medical devices, such as eyeglasses and asthma inhalers.

Parents will pay monthly premiums based on their income. For instance, a family of four that earns between $40,000 and $60,000 a year will pay a $40 monthly premium per child and a $10 copay per physician visit.

But let's make it clear, this Governor in my home State is trying. In Illinois, we are doing something that is not being done in Washington. In Washington, we are not even trying. At the very least, Congress should take steps to ensure all American children have access to affordable, quality health insurance coverage.

Does anyone doubt the popularity of that suggestion, that if you went to the people of America and said, I have a plan that will make sure every kid in America will be covered for a hospital stay, can get to a doctor, can have their prescriptions filled when they need them, regular dental care and vision screenings, is there anyone in America who believes that is an extravagance? I don't think so.

Kids are the least expensive people to insure. The average cost to cover a child in the program in Illinois is $93.23 a month. To cover all 9.1 million children in America, if we decided to expand the program in Illinois to all of America, the cost would be $10 billion per year. Now if you are following this and you say, $10 billion, wait a minute, Senator, that is a huge amount of money for a program, remember this: It is health insurance for every child in America.

Where would we find the $10 billion? We would find it in the legislation that is being debated by the House and the Senate right now: the 2-year cost of the extensions on capital gains tax cuts, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The 2-year cost from 2008 to 2010 is $20 billion. So if we defer the tax break the administration is pushing for the wealthiest people in America, if we say they are not going to receive that tax break for the next 2 years, we would have enough money to provide basic health insurance for every uninsured child in America, and we would eliminate 20 percent of the uninsured Americans with that single act alone.

We could cover all the kids in America for 2 years for the cost of capital gains and dividend tax cuts, and that figure doesn't even include the State share of the program.

The first thing Congress can do is provide States more funding to enroll children who are eligible but not enrolled in SCHIP. These kids account for more than half of all uninsured children.

Before his last election, President Bush campaigned in Pennsylvania, and here is what he said on October 22, 2004:

We'll keep our commitment to America's children by helping them get a healthy start in life. I'll work with Governors and community leaders and religious leaders to make sure every eligible child is enrolled in our Government's low-income health insurance program.

President Bush, then a candidate, went on to say:

We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between millions of children and the health care they need.

That was a few days before the election. Since then no proposal to cover the uninsured children in America has come from this White House nor from this Congress--a campaign promise that hasn't been kept.

The majority leader inserted $25 million in funds for outreach in last week's reconciliation bill. That is hardly enough. That isn't going to reach and insure these children. The bill of the Senator from Tennessee to fund outreach to kids would appropriate $100 million. Once we get all eligible kids enrolled, we should provide the Department of Health and Human Services with funds to grant to States that want to cover more children in their State.

Very briefly, here is what my amendment does. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the Senate should not vote to extend the capital gains and dividend tax cuts until Congress has taken steps to ensure that all children in America have access to affordable, quality health insurance.

The majority of the benefits of capital gains and tax cuts go to households with incomes over $1 million a year. Aren't kids in America a higher priority than millionaires? And how many times do people in the course of a campaign or on this floor talk about family values and moral values? Here is a nice moral choice for the Senate: Is it more important to give a tax break to someone making more than a million dollars a year, or provide health insurance for 9 million uninsured children in America?

How does that play out, whether your inspiration is the Bible, the Torah, whatever it happens to be? I think most who have religious convictions and feelings and believe there are moral values we are fighting for say this is a pretty simple choice: a choice between tax cuts for people making over $1 million a year or health insurance for 9 million uninsured children.

Specifically, my amendment would provide grants to States, faith-based organizations, safety net provider schools, and other community and nonprofit organizations to facilitate the enrollment of 6.8 million children currently eligible for SCHIP and not enrolled.

It covers 90 percent of the costs associated with the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of enrollment systems that will provide more efficient enrollment and retention of eligible children.

It will establish a grant program under which a State may apply for a waiver to expand coverage of children in their State.

When I go back home and speak to the families I represent, time and again they say to me: Are you people in Washington in touch with the reality of what is facing us in America? Whether it is a business owner who had to cancel his health insurance because one of his employees had a sick baby which drove the premiums through the roof for every other employee in the pool, whether it is a member of a labor union who says, I am working harder this year, I am getting paid more this year, but I have no take-home pay because it is being taken away from me in health insurance premiums and, Senator, I am getting less coverage, or whether it is a parent worried about a sick child and a medical bill they might never be able to repay--these are the realities of the life in America. It is not the reality of the debate in the Senate. We live in a different world in the Senate. We live in a world where people with a straight face can stand before us and say it is a much more moral thing to do and the right thing to do to give a tax cut to a wealthy person than to provide basic health care for a child in America.

That is the choice, and that is what my amendment will offer to the Members of the Senate. I hope they will choose the children over the millionaires.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://thomas.loc.gov/