Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007

Floor Speech

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - August 01, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program and why we need to reauthorize the program that is about to expire in September. I thank Chairman Baucus and Senators Grassley, Rockefeller, and Hatch for their countless hours of meetings before the Senate Finance Committee, which met to mark up this bipartisan package. The fact that the bill passed out of committee with such a bipartisan effort shows people are working on both sides of the aisle to make children's health care a priority.

While my colleagues have talked a lot about what the administration has threatened to do in vetoing this legislation, in fact, as my colleague from Iowa mentioned on the floor, the President's own budget request doesn't put enough money on the table to take care of those currently enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program. In a bipartisan effort in the Senate, we are working across the aisle to say we want to do more, we want to cover about 3.2 million more children.

I thank my colleagues and their staff for coming up with this comprehensive bill and moving us further down the way to covering more children in America, as it is such a priority.

Some of my colleagues have mentioned why this is such important timing, and many have mentioned the fact that the bill's authorization is expiring in September. I think there is a more important reason. The important reason is we are seeing the cost of health care continue to rise; the fact that premiums have doubled, probably, in the last 5 to 6 years; the fact that insurance now is somewhere between $12,000 and $14,000 a year. A family who is at an income of $40,000 a year for a family of four is finding it very hard to keep pace. Those premiums may have doubled, but I guarantee you their wages and salaries have not doubled. So more and more people are finding themselves in the unfortunate situation of not being able to provide health care for their children.

I can tell you, in talking to people from all over Washington State, there is nothing more concerning to the parents than the health of their child and nothing more scary than to think they may not be able to get the health care attention their child needs.

So for us, we have a choice--a very smart choice. This is a cost-effective bill. If you think about the costs of providing children's health insurance under this proposal, we are helping families who cannot afford private insurance, or cannot find it available in the marketplace, or maybe their employer is not providing it. Now, under this program, with State and Federal matching dollars, these families can provide health insurance for roughly $2,000 a year per child--maybe a little more or a little less, in some instances, for those currently on the program to the new enrollees.

Think about that. Think about the fact that if you don't have health insurance and a child is delayed in getting that health care or has to wait until the last minute to go into an emergency room, I guarantee the cost of a child's visit to an emergency room is probably going to be at least $3,000. The fact that we can make this prudent investment for 3.2 million more children; not only is this about their health and safety for the future, but it is about a plan that helps us in making sure we have an efficient health care system, giving those children their due need.

Too many families, as I said, are being forced to go without this coverage. What does that mean? We talk about preventive care and maintenance care. It means that these children are going without regular checkups, that they are missing more school than other children, and that they have to wait in the emergency room to get an answer about something that is a basic illness. It means that if simple infections--such as an ear infection or cavities or asthma or diabetes--go untreated and they spiral out of control, that child may fall further and further behind in their academic career. I believe no child should be forced into a special education program because their health care needs haven't been provided for.

This bill provides better coverage so we can treat things such as injuries and infections, detect far worse things such as chronic illnesses and make sure we are managing the conditions of children before they get out of control.

I know it is upsetting to my colleagues to read things such as: Uninsured children are four times more likely to delay their health care or that uninsured children are four times more likely to go without a doctor visit for 2 years or that uninsured children admitted to hospitals due to injuries are twice as likely to die while in the hospital as their insured counterparts.

Those are horrible statistics that point to the dilemma of not providing health care coverage for children.

I know my colleagues have been out here on the floor debating this issue as it relates to fairness and geography. I tell you, no child knows they are somehow prohibited from getting access to health insurance because of geography. Nor should the Senate make the mistake in thinking we are making geographic choices.

This bill is about flexibility. It starts with the flexibility of individual States because this is a partnership between the States and Federal Government in deciding what percentage of the Federal poverty line they are going to cover.

You can see on this chart the States in white have been more aggressive in covering a higher percentage of the Federal poverty line, and those in the gold color are obviously below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why certain States are more aggressive or active in covering their area. If you look at the income and cost of living in these areas, they are challenged by what it takes to maintain a household, to put their children in school, and to take care of their health care needs. For example, there are parts of the country such as New Jersey, which the Presiding Officer is from. If you look at what it takes to provide the same goods and services in New Jersey and compare that with someplace like Arkansas, you are talking about a $13,000 difference in what it costs to provide the same services. In Little Rock, it may cost $30,000 for those goods and services, compared to $43,000 in New Jersey. That is why this flexibility is so important in the program. The fact that we allow States to determine its costs and we match that with Federal dollars.

The second thing we have not focused enough on is the fact that we also have disparity in insurance costs. Look at what it costs to provide insurance. For example, it is expensive to provide health insurance in Seattle, which costs about $13,000 a year. If you look at New York, it is $16,542. So the notion that somehow New York or New Jersey are getting a better deal because they live in a high-expense area of the United States and somehow, even with that extra cost of insurance, we should prejudice legislation from serving those children, I say that is a mistake. Every child in America who is covered by this health insurance program will be healthier, and every child who is covered and healthy will not only be a more contributing citizen to our society, but also we are going to reduce our own health care costs in the future.

So it is a wise and prudent plan to have such diversity in this proposal. I ask my colleagues, before they come out and look at formulas and offer amendments that basically cut States from having the flexibility in these formulas, to consider the geographic disparity and the challenges those individual States face.

I believe the Children's Health Insurance Program provides a critical backstop to families. They would rather be in a situation where they could provide the health insurance and care, I am sure, for themselves. I have certainly met Washingtonians who have given up their own health insurance to provide health insurance for their children.

We need to prevent the number of uninsured children in this Nation from growing, and this bill, the Children's Health Insurance Program, should be reauthorized and expanded to make sure we do stop the number from growing and that we attach our principles of covering at least 3.2 million now and, as we see brighter budget days coming back, covering the rest of the children in America.

I yield the floor.

Source