Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007
Floor Speech
SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - August 01, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there are legitimate issues being raised about how adults are dealt with in this SCHIP bill. First of all, adding adults to SCHIP should have never been allowed. It was wrong when the Clinton administration started it. It was wrong when the Bush administration continued it. Stopping it is the right thing to do.
However, I think this amendment goes too far, too fast, and I encourage my colleagues to consider how the Finance Committee bill deals with adults. Let me be clear, in some States, the problem is extreme. Some States cover more adults than children. The even bigger problem is that several States that cover large numbers of adults have very high rates of uninsured children. This problem started under the Clinton administration but the Bush administration made it worse. Both the Clinton and the Bush administrations helped push Humpty-Dumpty off the wall. Now, it is our job to try to put the piece back together.
Advocates for parent coverage under SCHIP argue that in order to get kids covered, you have to cover the parents. I don't buy that argument; too many States that are covering parents are still among the worst in the country at covering kids. But the Congressional Budget Office does buy the argument that covering parents will get a few more kids covered. And they estimate that a reduction in parent coverage will lead to a reduction in children covered, so we have to be cautious. This amendment will lead to children losing coverage.
So what we have done in the Finance Committee bill is to say to States covering parents: put up or shut up. You either cover the kids or you get a far smaller Federal match for the parents you want to cover.
The bill before us eliminates coverage under SCHIP for childless adults by 2009. It eliminates the enhanced match for parents currently covered under SCHIP and prohibits new state waivers for parents. CBO estimates that it would reduce spending on adults by $1.1 billion. Furthermore, the easiest way to put the emphasis back on lower-income kids is to refocus the SCHIP program away from adults. The Finance Committee bill redirects States' efforts to low-income children.
Our bill covers 1.7 million kids in Medicaid who are currently uninsured. We are not talking about adults. We are not talking about middle-income kids. We are talking about 1.7 million of the poorest uninsured kids in this country.
As a former Governor, I am sure the Senator from New Hampshire can appreciate that concept. If your States will only get a lower matching rate for covering adults in SCHIP but significant financial incentives for covering low-income kids, where will you direct your energies? The parent policy in the Senate bill represents a reasonable compromise and I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gregg amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for two reasons: one, to give the compromise that is before the Senate a defense against Senator Kerry's amendment; and then to comment on the bill generally, and mostly to comment to some of my fellow colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle in relation to what I consider unfair criticism of this compromise.
I do not rise to find fault with the goals Senator Kerry has put forth. I do not even find fault with some of his arguments about loophole closings. I might feel compelled to argue against the marginal tax increases he might want to have, but right now I will concentrate on his view of expanding this compromise, not questioning his motives, and not raising any question about the sincerity of his wanting to do more--except reflecting on the 4 or 5 months Senator Baucus and I have been putting this bill together, we have all had some rude awakenings.
Those rude awakenings are that what we put together as a $50 billion package, when it was first scored came back much higher than $50 billion. So to get everything everybody wants in $50 billion is very difficult. The other thing is a philosophy I had, that somehow with something less than $50 billion we would be able to cover every kid under 200 percent of poverty, and we found out that was not possible.
I am sure we both--from Senator Kerry's point of view and from my point of view--went into this whole discussion with a great deal of good intent and finding out that it may be a little more difficult than we anticipated.
So only with that caveat I ask Senator Kerry to consider, I now want to say why we ought to defend the compromise that is before the Senate.
I appreciate Senator Kerry's goal of covering more kids. The bill we have today insures 3.2 million kids who do not have coverage today. I am very proud of that effort, and I am not going to warm to any suggestion that we have not done enough. The Finance Committee bill does so through a new incentive fund, and it is a proposal both sides of the aisle support. It is a compromise.
The incentive fund is a product of months of work. We built on ideas that were formed by another bipartisan couple--Senator Rockefeller on one hand for Democrats, Senator Snowe on the other hand for Republicans. We took those ideas that Senator Rockefeller and Senator Snowe had and reshaped them into what we think represents a very efficient and cost-effective way to increase coverage for children.
As Senator Kerry may recall, during the markup of the Senate Finance Committee, the Congressional Budget Office Director Peter Orszag characterized the incentive fund ``as efficient as you can possibly get per new dollar spent.''
Simply throwing money at States is not an effective strategy for covering more kids. Cost is an object. The bill that is moving in the House does cover 1 million more kids who are not currently covered than the Senate bill. But they do so while spending $12.2 billion more than we do--getting back to the efficiency and effectiveness statement of the CBO Director Peter Orszag. I will leave it to my colleagues to decide for themselves whether they think $12.2 billion for a million kids is cost effective. But I can assure you, the cost will leave us then--if we do that--without a bipartisan bill, and maybe not the chance of getting anything through, other than an extension. It has been stated, even from our Republican colleagues who do not like the waiver process, that is bad policy.
The Finance Committee bill then--I am begging Senator Kerry to understand--is the best of the possible. The left wants more; the right wanted a lot less. We can make speeches or make legislation. Making speeches does not get any kids covered. Making legislation does. Our compromise does that.
I urge my colleagues to keep on the right track for making legislation; that is, doing the art of the possible. I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Now, Mr. President, I would like to speak on the bill. I start out by referring to a chart that I hope we have in the Chamber that has been used by a lot of Republican colleagues over the last 2 or 3 days. This was in relation to speeches that were given yesterday by many of my colleagues who are sincere in their approach.
They refer to this as the ``cliff chart.'' Everything to the right of the green is after this legislation expires. They want you to believe we do not take into consideration anything about the future. They are making out this is an unrealistic proposal we have before you, because following that red line up into the future, they maintain it is going to cost more than we can afford. I want to say how this approach is intellectually dishonest.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Senators who have been giving these speeches, and I can identify a couple. There are probably more who have been giving these speeches, but I want my colleagues to know I respect Senator Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. The Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Trent Lott, our assistant minority leader, I think has referred to it. I respect his views. But I think everybody ought to take into consideration what we are going to do. I have a chart that is going to lay this out.
In this particular instance, we clearly are on different sides of this argument. There has been a lot of talk around here about how the Senate Finance Committee bill is funded. This chart was used in that discussion. Taking a hard look at how bills are financed is a good thing. Maybe we do not do that often enough. So let me focus on the criticism that has been made about how this SCHIP bill is financed. We need to step back and look at the whole picture. That is what I am begging my colleagues to do. The SCHIP program is a pretty small part of that picture.
The thing about SCHIP is that it is not like Medicaid or Medicare. How many times have you heard the people using this chart refer to it as if it is an entitlement? It is not an entitlement we are discussing today. Or maybe if people do not understand the term ``entitlement''--it is not a permanent program, such as Medicare and Medicaid because they are entitlements. SCHIP is not. So when the program expires, it truly ends. The day after the authorization ends, poof, there is no more SCHIP program. That is true of any program that sunsets. But Medicare and Medicaid do not sunset. They are entitlements. SCHIP is reauthorized for 5 years. That is 5 years on top of the original 10 years it was authorized. So this year it is sunsetting. That is not an entitlement. It is an expiring program.
While I know most of us in this Chamber would no sooner let the Department of Defense expire than we would let SCHIP expire, that is a simple fact. And because it is an expiring program, it is subject to a very particular budget rule. That budget rule does not fit this chart. That budget rule says the Congressional Budget Office must score future spending for the program based upon the last year of the program's current authorization. So the baseline for SCHIP for the next year is $5 billion. That is under existing law. If we pass this legislation, that would not be true. But for what is law right now, in the future, they are going to score that at $5 billion. For the next 5 years, the baseline--let me say again--is $5 billion. For the next 10 years, the baseline for SCHIP is $5 billion. It is actually $5 billion a year forever.
Does anyone in this Chamber think the budget rule governing SCHIP is realistic? Well, of course it is not realistic. But that is the way the budget process and the Budget Office must work under existing law. So I am not here to kid anybody.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, 1.4 million children would lose coverage if we simply reauthorized SCHIP at the baseline of $5 billion into the future. Who among us would go home and tell our constituents that we individually voted to reauthorize the SCHIP program--reauthorize it, yes. If you stopped there, they would think: Well, you did a good thing. What you are doing right now, you continue to do. But if you did that, what you would be doing, without telling them--but they would soon find out; you do not fool the American people--1.4 million kids would lose coverage.
So when the Finance Committee went to work to reauthorize this bill--Senator Baucus and I, with the help of Senators Hatch and Rockefeller--we had this problem: The baseline only assured $5 billion a year in spending into the future. It was unrealistic.
Let me digress and point to a problem the Agriculture Committee has this year exactly the same way. We did not spend all the money in the agriculture bill last year, so we are working on a baseline that is $15 billion less than it was in 2002, the last time we wrote a farm bill. So this is not just the case of health care for kids. A lot of committees get caught this way.
But we do have the realistic fact that costs continue to increase in SCHIP, even though the $5 billion was frozen in the baseline because of the budget rules.
So what did we have to do? We had to come up with the money to keep the current program afloat. That meant we had to find at least $14 billion to keep the current program afloat. That is right, of the $35 billion in funding in this bill, $14 billion is put into SCHIP to maintain the current program. That is $14 billion to maintain coverage for kids who are currently enrolled.
Do you know what the White House wanted us to believe all this year since they submitted their budget? That you could do that $14 billion--maintaining the current program--for the $5 billion they put in their budget.
Now, those people down at OMB have to be smart enough in advising the President that you cannot do for $5 billion a policy of doing what we are doing now, and even expanding a little bit, for $5 billion when, in fact, it costs $14 billion. To a very real extent, this is the same kind of situation my good friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg--when he was speaking--was complaining about.
The current baseline was not realistic. That created a hole in the budget we had to fill. In our case, it was a $14 billion hole to fill, if you want to maintain current policy.
So what did we do? Well, we did what you have to do if you are responsible and deliver on what you say you are going to do. We filled it. It is that simple. We had to comply with the budget rules.
What people forget around here is the Director of the Congressional Budget Office is like God, and everybody who works in the Budget Office can also be little Gods because what they say has to be followed, and if you don't follow it, you know what you have to do? You have to do almost the impossible around here. You have to have 60 votes to get around it. Should they have that much power? Well, if you are going to have any budget discipline, they have to have that kind of power. But it is that simple. We had to fill that hole. We had to comply with the budget rules, so we did. Do those budget rules make sense? Well, I think I have indicated they probably don't, but that is a question for the Budget Committee to answer, Senator Gregg's committee, Senator Conrad's committee, not the Finance Committee. We have to abide by it.
There is another budget rule that the Finance Committee was required to follow. That rule is called pay-go, which people around here know is short for pay-as-you-go financing. It means the bill needs to cover its 6-year costs and 11-year costs, and that makes sense after all. This bill proposes new spending, and because it proposes new spending, you have to pay for it, or have 60 votes. This bill does pay for it. This bill complies with the budget rules. It complies with the pay-go requirements.
Now, the SCHIP reauthorization we are debating is only a 5-year authorization. That means 5 years from now it will sunset. Congress will have to go through the process of reviewing it. To remind people it is not an entitlement, Medicare and Medicaid doesn't get a review every so often forced upon them. They may get a review by Congress but instituted by Congress, not forced upon Congress by a sunset.
As I think everyone knows, this bill is paid for with an increase in the tobacco tax. This is similar to the original SCHIP bill when it was created under the Republican-controlled Congress in 1997. Now, similar to 1997, when the Republicans did it, we had a problem with how the tobacco tax works. The revenue from the cigarette tax is not growing as fast as health care costs, so that means the revenue-raiser is not going to grow as fast as the cost of health care, generally, and specifically in this instance, the costs associated with the Children's Health Insurance Program.
So the Finance Committee did what was required to do to comply with the pay-go budget rule. The Finance Committee bill reduces SCHIP funding to just below the funding that is in the current baseline. That means the Finance Committee in 5 years will have the same problem we face in putting this bill together today. They will have to come up with the funds to keep the program running because the tobacco tax over the years is not going to bring in enough revenue to keep up with the increased costs of health care. That is just like the $14 billion we had to keep and find to keep the current program running with no changes.
It is true we are covering even more low-income kids in this bill. That is a good thing. But it also means the Finance Committee in 5 years will have a bigger job to keep the program running at that rate. They will have more kids to keep covering and health care costs will be even higher than they are today. This is for the Finance Committee to face in the next 5 years. Of course, during that 5-year period of time, I hope we get a lot of reform of health care in the United States that reduces costs, gets the uninsured covered, so we are not just dealing with SCHIP. Of course, what we have to face in 5 years is similar to the job the Finance Committee had today to continue the SCHIP program. So it is nothing new. But I think some are getting the impression from some of my colleagues who use this chart that this is something new--some gimmick to get around budget rules. But my good friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, has expressed serious concern about the bill, and I think we should at least take a moment and look at his concerns in proper perspective.
So I go back to one of the charts Senator Gregg has used. Here is the chart used to raise the issue. It shows only the funding in the Finance Committee bill. I think looking at it like this paints a distorted picture. As we all know, the SCHIP program was created to supplement the Medicaid Program. The goal of the program was to encourage States to provide coverage to uninsured children with incomes just above Medicaid eligibility. So to put my colleagues' concerns in perspective, we should look at SCHIP spending as it relates to Medicaid spending. So I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a new chart that represents figures for the future from SCHIP, as well as from Medicaid, so everyone can fully appreciate the consequences of our SCHIP bill in the context of the Medicaid Program, which SCHIP supplements. So take a closer look.
Let's start with this little green line at the bottom. That is current law, the green line that goes along the very bottom of the chart. It is a pretty straight line across the chart. The green line represents the SCHIP baseline under current law. As I have already discussed, it is $5 billion each year for the next 10 years and as far into the future as you can go. If you don't change the law, that is the way it is.
Now let's look more closely and honestly at the actual problems we are facing. The massive orange area, as indicated, above the green line is Medicaid. This is the projected Medicaid spending for the next 10 years. It is a lot bigger than SCHIP. Then, on top of that, we are looking to add new spending for the SCHIP bill, and that is the blue line above the Medicaid indicated by the orange. Again, it is not very big. It is quite obvious it is not very big. As you can clearly see, costs are growing at a rapid pace overall. The overwhelming driver of the costs is what? It is Medicaid. We have a very big problem. Entitlement spending is growing, and in future years we are going to struggle to keep these programs afloat. That is why I would not agree to do a $50 billion SCHIP bill. I thought it was too much spending. I am not particularly happy with spending $35 billion, but as I have said, this bill is a compromise, and it is $15 billion less than what the Democratic budget approved.
So let's focus on the total obligations of the Federal program. This chart, when you look at the whole picture, puts things in perspective. Now, remember, all that fire and brimstone about the awful cliff that was on the previous chart, the awful cliff that this bill brings before the Senate, where is that cliff, you might ask, on the chart I put before my colleagues. If you look closely, right here where the blue line on top goes down gradually to beyond the green line, if you look at the blue there where it dips down a little bit, that little dip to the right of the dotted vertical line is what my good friend from New Hampshire is so exercised about. So this little blue line is what the debate is all about. The little blue line is this legislation before us. The little blue line is creating all this rancor. But it looks a little bit different here, doesn't it, than it did on that cliff chart I showed you ahead of time.
Let me tell my colleagues then what the Finance Committee bill--this little blue line--is not; not what it is but what it is not. Looking at this dip, this is not a government takeover of health care. Looking at this dip, this is not bringing the Canadian health care system to America. Looking at this dip in the blue line, this is not the end of the world as we know it.
While I concede that allotments under our bill in the years beyond the 5-year reauthorization do not behave as described in my friend's chart, I don't think it warrants the heated rhetoric we are hearing during this debate yesterday and today and probably tomorrow. SCHIP is not the real fiscal problem we have. The problem is the big orange area. That is Medicaid. The ranking member and I worked together--I am referring now to Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He and I worked together last year on the Deficit Reduction Act to try to rein in Medicaid, and I am proud of the work we did. We also found out how hard it is to dial back entitlement spending, even in a Republican-controlled Congress and even with special procedural protections we call reconciliation. We only succeeded in shaving $26 billion over a 10-year period on Medicaid spending.
The problem of entitlement spending is still there, and SCHIP is a pebble next to the boulders of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Do we have a funding issue? Yes. There is no denying that. We had one today that was the $14 billion hole that we had to fill if we were going to do what the President said he wanted to do with $5 billion. The Republican Congress created that hole in 1997, I am sad to say, but the Finance Committee filled that hole and produced a bill that complies with the budget rules. I am confident the Finance Committee in 5 years will do the same thing.
I think it is also important to point out we have so many far bigger problems in health care today that we need to deal with. If I am supposed to infer from Senator Gregg's speech that this is supposed to be the opportunity to do something about the problems of entitlement spending, I should point out the obvious: The substitute we expect to vote on does absolutely nothing about the entitlement spending but make a big deal out of it.
So I appreciate Senator Gregg's remarks. They are not without some merit, but you have to put them in context. I don't think they fit the crime we are accused of committing.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the alternative Senator Craig just spoke about is the amendment I wish to speak against. I am a Republican, but I am part of the bipartisan effort to pass this SCHIP bill. So I will tell my colleagues on both sides of the aisle why the Lott amendment, or the Republican alternative, should not be accepted.
First of all, I commend the people who authored the alternative because all ideas ought to be considered. It is creative, and it is thoughtful. It certainly contributes to the debate. In reading through it, I am struck by the similarities between this proposal and the bipartisan bill before the Senate that I am backing. Both proposals increase funding for State allotments. Both proposals largely base the new allotments on State projections. Both proposals limit the availability of allotments to 2 years. Both proposals restrict coverage for nonpregnant adults. Both proposals prohibit new waivers for adult coverage. Both proposals provide funds for outreach and enrollment activities. Both proposals include additional State options for premium assistance.
Lest my colleagues think I am attacking them with faint praise, I do acknowledge there are significant differences in the approaches between the Republican alternative and our bipartisan bill that is before the Senate.
The position taken by the Lott amendment is that SCHIP has been a successful small program that covers about 6 million kids in 2007 and should not cover many, if any, more. The position of the Lott amendment is that any increase in the enrollment of children should be limited to the relatively better off SCHIP kids and not cover the poorer Medicaid kids. That is a perfectly reasonable position for them to take, but that is the biggest difference between the Lott amendment and the bipartisan proposal that is referred to as Grassley-Baucus.
The difference is that the amendment supporters cannot claim that it increases coverage for any of the 4 million uninsured children who are eligible and entitled to Medicaid, the kids who need it most. In fact, not only does the Lott amendment do virtually nothing to improve coverage for the 4 million children eligible for Medicaid, but it adds insult to injury by reducing the Medicaid Program by over $10 billion to pay for an expansion of SCHIP.
Let me put this another way. The Lott amendment drains billions out of the Medicaid Program, which is a program that covers the poorest of the poor, and it redirects that funding to SCHIP, a program that covers kids and families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid. It is the old issue of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Senate Finance Committee bill, on the other hand, covers 1.7 million kids eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled.
At this point, it is important to reiterate for colleagues that the Senate Finance Committee bill does not expand Medicaid. The bill does not change eligibility for Medicaid one single bit.
The Senate Finance Committee bill does include the very precise and targeted incentive funds that Director Peter Orszag of CBO concluded is ``as efficient as you can possibly get per new dollar spent.'' This incentive fund helps increase coverage of 3.2 million uninsured children. The Lott amendment, however, does not increase coverage for the lowest income children and actually causes some individuals, including children currently enrolled in SCHIP, to lose coverage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield whatever time the Senator from Iowa desires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we simply, then, have an honest disagreement on whether we want to cover additional low-income kids. Some Members do; some Members do not. I am on the side that wants to cover additional low-income children who are eligible for coverage. It is as simple as that.
The other main difference is the income eligibility for children. Right now, 91 percent of the SCHIP funds are being spent on kids at or below 200 percent of poverty. Under current law, States have the flexibility to adjust their income eligibility to respond to rising health care costs and the cost of living within a particular State because it differs so much between California and Iowa, to name two States.
The Lott amendment imposes a ``Washington knows best'' mentality regarding a State's ability to determine what income within that State is most appropriate. And then it goes one step further: It reduces the Federal match for covering kids above 200 percent of poverty. There are 18 States that currently cover kids above 200 percent of poverty. Under this proposal, a State currently receiving the enhanced match under SCHIP for coverage of eligible children would see that match reduced for those very same children.
While I would prefer that all States focus on children at or below 200 percent of poverty, the fact remains that $42,000 a year for a family of four is a lot harder to get by on in some States than in other States. By imposing this new requirement that States limit eligibility, the Lott amendment would cause kids to lose coverage. The table CBO sent us on the Lott amendment confirms that. I am sorry, but in a bill designed to cover kids, cutting them off is a step in the wrong direction.
The Finance Committee bill takes a different approach. The committee bill would lower the Federal payments to States that choose to cover kids over 300 percent of poverty level. States that go above that limit would only get the regular Medicaid match. Those States wouldn't get the enhanced Federal match under SCHIP for these higher income kids. So the Finance Committee bill creates a disincentive for States to go in that direction.
Some have alleged that the Senate Finance Committee bill would permit States to cover kids and families who make over $80,000. That is false. What the Finance Committee bill does is allow States that have passed State laws to increase eligibility to be grandfathered at the SCHIP match as it is right now.
There are no States that do that today. So it is incorrect to say that the Finance package expands coverage for these higher income kids. That just is not accurate.
Right now, the only State that is even proposing to go as high as 400 percent of poverty is New York, and their State plan amendment still must be approved by the Bush administration. The Bush administration, not Congress, has to decide whether to approve that coverage.
So let me repeat. The Senate Finance bill would only permit New York to get an enhanced match for kids and families over 83 percent a year if this administration approves their plan, and it gives my colleagues on this side of the aisle who don't want that to happen a chance to lobby the Secretary of HHS to make sure it doesn't happen.
Given the criticism they leveled against the Finance plan, I would be shocked if they did approve it. I will wait and see, however, if their actions match their rhetoric.
Wrapping up, let me just say again that the Lott amendment has many similarities that I have delineated for the Senate--many similarities to the Finance Committee package. I commend them for their work in putting together this proposal, and I would hope that since their amendment has so many similarities to the Senate Finance Committee bill, perhaps they will take another look at the policies in our bipartisan package. There are key differences in the two approaches, however. I appreciate my colleagues' work in pointing out these differences. I, for one, am happy to stand on the side of covering kids rather than cutting them out, and I support giving States flexibility.
AMENDMENTS NOS. 2540 AND 2541 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2530
Madam President, I call up for consideration two amendments by Senator Ensign, amendments Nos. 2541 and 2540.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, the clerk will report.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 2540
(Purpose: To prohibit a State from using SCHIP funds to provide coverage for nonpregnant adults until the State first demonstrates that it has adequately covered targeted low-income children who reside in the State)
On page 58, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(d) Cover Kids First Implementation Requirement.--Notwithstanding the preceding subsections of this section, no funds shall be available under this title for child health assistance or other health benefits coverage that is provided for any other adult other than a pregnant woman, and this title shall be applied with respect to a State without regard to such subsections, for each fiscal year quarter that begins prior to the date on which the State demonstrates to the Secretary that the State has enrolled in the State child health plan at least 95 percent of the targeted low-income children who reside in the State.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 2541
(Purpose: To prohibit a State from providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage to individuals whose family income exceeds 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level unless the State demonstrates that it has enrolled 95 percent of the targeted low-income children who reside in the State)
At the end of title I, add the following:
SEC. 112. COVER LOW-INCOME KIDS FIRST.
Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)), as amended by section 602, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(12) NO PAYMENTS FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE OR HEALTH BENEFITS COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHOSE GROSS FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 200 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE UNLESS AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF ELIGIBLE LOW-INCOME CHILDREN ENROLLED.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, no payments shall be made to a State under subsection (a)(1), or any other provision of this title, for any fiscal year quarter that begins prior to the date on which the State demonstrates to the Secretary that the State has enrolled in the State child health plan at least 95 percent of the low-income children who reside in the State and are eligible for child health assistance under this State child health plan with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for any individual whose gross family income exceeds 200 percent of the poverty line.''.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am not going to speak to the substance of the amendment but to the process. This bill is a bipartisan approach where a lot of different points of view were brought together to a bill that can pass this Senate. We have people on the left for whom $50 billion might not be enough money. We have people on the right for whom anything over $5 billion was too much money. We have come out at $35 billion. This is a well-balanced, well-thought-out compromise.
Compromise is the essence of getting things done. You have to bring people in the Senate to the center to get things done or nothing is going to get done. In order to get this job done, we have to defeat this amendment, regardless of the merits of it.
I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENTS NOS. 2558, 2537, AND 2562, EN BLOC
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, en bloc, I want to do for Senator Graham and for Senator Kyl three amendments, and I call up en bloc amendments Nos. 2558, 2537, and 2562.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source