Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007
Floor Speech
SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - August 01, 2007)
Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me begin by commending Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley and their colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Rockefeller, for extraordinary work. This effort represents great legislating based upon principled compromise to achieve a noble objective, which is to provide health coverage to the children of America. I can't think of a more laudable effort than that which has been led and spearheaded by both Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. They deserve our praise and our support.
I am here today to lend my support to the expansion of the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, to support this endeavor which is so critical to the health of the country, literally and figuratively. It is not only a sensible policy in terms of investing in children, it is also morally compelling.
What more lofty objective can we have than to give children access to health care, to be able to grow up in this country knowing they can receive medical attention when they need it?
We are in a situation now where, remarkably, the Nation's level of poverty is growing. It is higher now than it was in 1970. We have not had a President since Lyndon Johnson try to tackle this issue head on. This bill recognizes that there are families who don't have the resources to buy health insurance, but they have a claim as Americans and as citizens to at least have their children covered. I hope we can do that by passing this legislation.
It is estimated there are 37 million Americans in poverty, 13 million of whom are children. These are not merely statistics; they are our neighbors in every State in the Union. They are youngsters who we hope one day will grow up healthy and strong to participate not just as workers in this economy but as productive citizens of this great land. To do that they need access to health care.
We also know that children without access to health care fare very poorly in school and have difficulties. These difficulties become more and more complex, and they compound over the years. In fact, one of the strongest arguments for this legislation is that it makes sense as an investment. It is better to pay now rather than later, in terms of social disruption and serious health problems. That is something I hope even the most hard-nosed colleague in the Senate will appreciate.
One of the consequences of this issue of growing poverty and the bifurcation of income between the rich and the rest of us in what we all consider to be the ``land of opportunity,'' sadly, is that opportunity is not as evident or as palpable as it was in the past. One of the great engines of opportunity for any individual, in addition to education, is health and the ability to seize these opportunities--work, education, and service to others.
Again, I think this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. We have to do more. We have to recognize there are families who are working two jobs--mothers and fathers working 50, 60, 70 hours a week--and still they don't have the resources necessary to pay for the increasing cost of health care for their children or themselves. They are squeezed between paying the rent, providing food for the family, and are looking, many times, for ways to cover the cost of health care for their children.
I am very proud to have been one of the original cosponsors of CHIP in 1997. We were fortunate in Rhode Island to have on the Finance Committee Senator John Chafee, who was one of the leading advocates of the program. As Senator Grassley suggested, this program was crafted with a bipartisan effort in 1997, and one of the great leaders in that was John Chafee. In many respects, we are here today--both of us--to renew his commitment to the children of America.
Over the past decade, this program has been an unequivocal success. It has reduced the number of low-income uninsured children in this country. It has done what it said it would do, and it has done it well. In Rhode Island, we have a combined Medicaid/CHIP program called RIteCare. Our program has been instrumental in reducing uninsured children, and it made a difference for hard-working families in my State. While this program made great strides, there is still much more work to be done.
I want to take a few moments to address some of the issues raised about the Senate Finance Committee agreement and talk to some of the points raised in this Chamber criticizing that agreement. I believe this agreement is not only sound policy, but it addresses a major concern in the country. The proposal before us would achieve several key objectives supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans.
First, it preserves coverage for all 6.6 million children presently covered under the CHIP program. Second, it renews the original intent of the program by making a real commitment to cover an additional 3.2 million children who are eligible for coverage but not enrolled. These two important goals are achieved by allocating $35 billion over 5 years. The original program was financed through the Federal cigarette excise tax, and the proposal before us continues to use this mechanism.
The bill also addresses a problem with the formula that was beginning to plague a growing number of States, including my State of Rhode Island. Last December, I joined a number of my colleagues in crafting an agreement to redistribute unexpended funds from some States and redirect them to States, such as Rhode Island and Georgia and New Jersey, that were rapidly approaching budget shortfalls because they exceeded their CHIP allotment.
The Finance Committee, recognizing this issue, has made a proposal that institutes needed changes in the formula used to calculate State CHIP allotments so Congress is not required to resort to eleventh hour deals to shift money from one State that hasn't used it to other States. That is an important change to the legislation. The bill sets aside a portion of funds in case of contingencies, such as what was experienced during Hurricane Katrina.
Lastly, the bill tackles a challenge that States have been struggling with since the CHIP program began 10 years ago; that is, reaching children who are uninsured and eligible for coverage but are not enrolled. The bill provides incentive funds and flexibility for States to overcome the many economic, social, and geographic barriers that hinder millions of uninsured children who deserve health insurance coverage.
My home State of Rhode Island is a perfect case in point. While Rhode Island ranks 10th nationally in the lowest number of uninsured children--we are very proud of that; in fact, we would like to move up in the ranking from 10 to 1--a recent report by Rhode Island Kids Count indicates that of the estimated 18,680 uninsured children in the State, 11,275 of them were eligible for children's health
insurance coverage but were not enrolled. We should enroll all eligible children; that should be our goal. We have to reach these children and, frankly, this legislation will help States become more proactive and successful in enrolling children.
There has been criticism directed at the bill. Let me take a moment to respond to some of the criticism. There has been concern about the cost of the package. I understand that alternative versions of the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization will be offered by others in the Chamber during this debate. Some of these bills will have very enticing names, like Kids First, but we should not be fooled by it. The substance of these amendments does everything but put kids first. It won't even maintain the minimum coverage that we have today. Some of the 6.6 million children who are enrolled today will lose out in these alternatives. Rather than expanding coverage, it will contract coverage. We don't want to head in the other direction; we want to move forward.
Similarly, others have balked about the $35 billion price tag. I remind my colleagues that our Senate budget resolution allocated $50 million for children's health insurance coverage. The Senate Finance Committee, the chairman and ranking member, labored mightily and came up with the best possible proposal they could get through the committee, and it is a principled proposal. I salute it. But I was disappointed that the committee left on the table $15 billion that could have been used to insure more children. I have joined Senator Kerry in his amendment to restore it. Again, in terms of our budget priorities, the proposal before us today is even less than what was supported in the budget resolution. For those who say it is too expensive, that suggests this hasn't been very carefully considered and indeed it was, unfortunately, somewhat winnowed down.
Perhaps the most poignant reference is that, while we were talking about $35 billion over 5 years for children's health, we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. That says a lot about how we have to begin to reshape our priorities. I don't believe we are spending too much on children when it comes to this particular legislation.
Some have expressed displeasure over using the Federal cigarette excise tax to finance the package. The bill would gradually raise the tax 61 cents, up to $1, over a 5-year period. This is consistent with the original financing mechanism for the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997. But there is something else interesting here. Cigarette smoking has been identified for decades as one of the chief public health problems in this country, particularly when children start doing it. It is a threat to the health of the Nation, and I doubt if there is anyone in this Chamber who has not had at least one family member's health affected adversely by smoking. I listened to Senator Enzi speak passionately in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week about his father's smoking, which led to his demise, and it also affected his mother.
When you raise the price of a product, you curtail the amount of it that is purchased. We are using market forces to help us do something that we should do: reduce the rate of cigarette smoking. Using market mechanisms in this way, not only to raise resources for health insurance for children, but to lower the number of people who engage in smoking will save public health dollars that are being spent to care for people who have lung cancer, emphysema, and other respiratory diseases caused by smoking.
There is another concern that has been raised, which is that the agreement grossly expands the CHIP program to parents and childless adults, when in fact the bill does quite the opposite. The bipartisan agreement actually ends the administration's practice of providing States waivers to cover parents and childless adults. To date, 14 States have received waivers to cover parents and childless adults, including my State of Rhode Island. In fact, Secretary Leavitt just approved a 3-year extension of Wisconsin's waiver allowing adult coverage. Frankly, I believe that States deserve the ability to take these steps. I am disappointed that more States won't be able to do it. This bill acts as a check on that administrative authority. It deliberately, at this time, restricts the number of parents and childless adults who can join this coverage.
As my colleague, Senator Menendez, mentioned earlier, research shows a strong correlation between parental coverage and the enrollment of eligible children. Once again, the policy behind enrolling parents is sound. But this bill, rather than grossly expanding parental coverage, begins to restrict that coverage. Under the agreement, States with existing coverage expansion waivers will be given a period of transition, and no new States will be granted the opportunity to extend coverage under CHIP. This seems like a reasonable response to these concerns, but I hope as we go forward we might be able to look at the logic behind parental coverage policies as a way to ensure that the whole family--particularly children--are covered.
The proposal also rightly grants States the option to cover pregnant women. Good prenatal care is essential to overall child health and well-being, as well as reducing the number of low birth weight and premature babies. Given the fact that the United States is actually behind most developed countries, and even some developing countries, in terms of these indicators, this step is certainly warranted and overdue.
Finally, Members seem to have great consternation over the fact that children's health coverage produces some level of crowding out of private insurance coverage, and the bill is a giant step toward Government-run health care. Again, the rhetoric seems to be at odds with the reality of what is in this bill. I note that most enrollees in public insurance are actually covered through private plans, where States take the money and reimburse the private insurer. The Finance Committee proposal takes the additional step of including something called premium support. It essentially gives States the ability to offer subsidies for children who are eligible for CHIP coverage but have access to employer-sponsored coverage.
In my State, we have had this experience. We have a program called RIteShare. The program has enabled thousands of Rhode Island families who otherwise could not afford to remain in private insurance coverage to do so with a little help from the State. It is a marginal contribution to their private health insurance, which allows them to stay in the private market. This proposal, again, goes a long way toward addressing the issue of potential crowding out.
I believe this bipartisan agreement represents a very strong step forward to facilitate outreach and enrollment of low-income children. It is not a perfect legislative proposal, but it is an important one based on principled compromise. It reinforces our commitment to children's health. I am amazed the President is already suggesting he might veto it, despite overwhelming public support, and despite the compelling economics that are behind investing in children's health.
I hope that we will by our votes demonstrate that this is a bill which should not be vetoed but should be passed quickly so children can continue to enjoy access to health care in our country.
We all understand that our future is really about our children. They will be the leaders years from now, and we all hope and wish that they will grow up strong, able to seize the opportunities of this Nation. Beyond hoping and wishing today, we can help make that a reality by voting for this important legislation. I urge all my colleagues to join me in doing so.
Finally, I would like to take another moment. As colleagues, we come to the floor, we debate issues and legislation we have sponsored, but the details are worked out by staff members long into the wee hours of the morning. We read speeches prepared by very dedicated staff members.
I have the rare privilege of saluting someone who has worked with me for so many years. Lisa German Foster has been with me since January 1996 when I joined the Senate. She is leaving to pursue other endeavors.
She started in my office as an unpaid intern and has become recognized here as one of the preeminent staffers with respect to health care issues and one of the most decent and humane individuals one will ever meet. I salute her for her work on this bill, on child health and immunization, on the bone marrow registry, on tobacco legislation.
She is a native of my home State of Rhode Island, in Narragansett, but I think she is firmly ensconced in Washington, DC, with her husband Bill and children Aidan and Brady.
Lisa, on behalf of all of us here, thank you for your good work.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source