Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I support the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I think virtually every Member of the Senate does. I voted to create the program and believe we need to responsibly reauthorize it.

In its original form, the State Children's Health Insurance Program was meant to provide insurance to children from families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.

There is no doubt, as I indicated earlier, we all support providing insurance to low-income children. I am sure that is 100 Members of the Senate. In fact, this program originally passed on a broad bipartisan basis with 43 Republicans and 42 Democrats supporting it. It was enacted by a Republican Congress, signed by a Democratic President, and was a model of bipartisanship. Two of my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, reached across the aisle to craft a bipartisan compromise in the last Congress. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues have gone back on many of the prior agreements that were reached in creating that bill last year, making this issue more contentious than it ought to be and setting a troubling precedent for future discussions on health care reform.

The original purpose of the State Children's Health Insurance Program was to serve low-income, uninsured children. The bill we are being asked to consider sanctions a loophole that allows a few select States, such as New York, to provide insurance to children and families earning more than $80,000 a year--$80,000 a year--instead of insuring low-income children first. This is more than double the median household income in many States, including my State of Kentucky. It is grossly unfair that a family in Kentucky making $40,000 must pay for the health insurance of a family making double that, especially if the Kentuckian cannot afford it for his own family.

The bill before the Senate is not limited to children either. It preserves loopholes that allow adults to enroll in a program that is intended for children.

Earlier estimates of similar legislation found that nearly half of the new children added by this bill already have private health insurance. Let me say that again. Earlier estimates of similar legislation found that nearly half of the new children added by this bill already have private health insurance. Republicans, on the other hand, believe we ought to target scarce resources to uninsured children, not those who already have coverage.

Republicans will offer amendments to fix the shortcomings of this bill and to provide a responsible alternative that will return SCHIP to its intended purpose: serving the kids in struggling families who need the help most. That is whom we ought to be helping.

Our bill, the Kids First Act, will provide funding increases to State SCHIP programs and help them find those eligible children who are not yet enrolled, and our Kids First idea is better because it closes the loophole that allows some States to extend their program to higher income families, even while they have thousands of lower income children who still are not covered. The Kids First Act truly puts kids first, eliminating nearly all adults from a program designed for children so that more children can be covered. Finally, by responsibly allocating scarce resources, our bill increases funding for SCHIP without raising new taxes. We believe Republicans have a better alternative.

Madam President, I now send that alternative to the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source