Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we are now commencing debate on the Children's Health Insurance Program. I wish to speak to the amendment that has been offered by Senator McConnell, as well as the pending legislation.

It is a grim reality in America that each day, 17,000 Americans are losing their jobs. Each day, 9,000 Americans are facing new mortgage foreclosure notices. Madam President, 17,000 lost jobs and 9,000 have lost homes. In the process, some 11,000 Americans are losing their health insurance every single day. So the issue that was before us when we created the Children's Health Insurance Program has become gravely worse, and we are finding more and more Americans who are being squeezed out of health insurance coverage--46 million uninsured Americans today, including 9 million children.

We decided to make children a priority in terms of providing health insurance. What the Federal Government said to the States was: We will come up with a program, but we will give you more than the normal Medicaid share; we are going to give you a share that is enhanced so that you will consider covering these uninsured children. In that situation, many States took advantage of it.

I might just say, Madam President, that I understand Senator Grassley is in the Chamber and has a 10:30 a.m. Finance Committee meeting and I have a 10:30 a.m. Appropriations Committee meeting. Let me do my best to share the time so I can leave him with the remaining 10 minutes or so. Is that fair? I want to make sure Senator Grassley has a chance because we have to go to important meetings.

The difficulty we face today, the reality is we wanted this program primarily to help families making up to 200 percent of what we call median family income. That would basically mean they would be making roughly up to $42,000 a year. So if you are making $42,000 or less, we want those kids covered.

Then we said to the States: You can go as high as 300 percent, and that would take it up to $63,000. You would have to pay more for that out of State funds if you think that group of kids of families making between $42,000 and $63,000 need the help. And some States took advantage of it.

Then there were two exceptions, as I understand it. High cost of living States--New York and New Jersey--asked for permission to go even higher, up to $77,000 to $83,000 I think was the annual income. When many of the critics of this legislation, including the Republican leader, who just spoke, talk about what is wrong with it, they point to New York and New Jersey. I can tell you those are rare exceptions to the rule across America. By and large, this program is geared for people with incomes below $42,000 a year, and in some cases below $63,000, with only two exceptions that I know, New York and New Jersey. And I will stand corrected if there is another State.

But the point is, to argue that this is a program that is for the wealthiest among us is to ignore the obvious. Those two States notwithstanding, people making $63,000 a year I do not put in the category of wealthy. Certainly, those making $42,000 I wouldn't at all. In fact, they are almost smack dab in the middle of the middle-income families in America. When they face the cost of insurance not covered by their employer, it can be an extraordinarily high expense. That is why many of them opt out of coverage for the family, which means mothers, fathers, and children go without health insurance.

Imagine making $42,000 a year and seeing a third or 40 percent of your income going into FICA and taxes. What does that leave you with, about $2,000 a month? And with $2,000 a month, how many families can realistically turn around and buy a health insurance plan on the private market?

I also worry about this argument that we want to trap people into private health insurance that could be a bad policy that is very expensive, instead of giving them an option of coming into the Children's Health Insurance Program. If our goal is to give these families affordable health insurance, then why do we want to trap them in a private plan? Some will stay with the private plan because they are happy with it; others have a plan that, frankly, has a high deductible, high copay, limited coverage, and high cost. We want to trap those families in that plan?

Sadly, the amendment that is offered by Senator McConnell has a mandatory 6-month waiting period between leaving private health insurance and enrolling in CHIP. What kind of benefit is that for the families of Illinois or Kentucky who are in a bad private health insurance plan--the only one they can afford? We want to give them real insurance that can be there when they need it.

We know there are families who desperately will need help. I have here the photograph of a family from Illinois. It is a classic story. This is a family, Steve and Katie Avalos and their son Manolo. In 2005, Katie became pregnant while Steve was still in law school, and because of Federal programs such as CHIP and Medicaid, the State of Illinois was able to provide health coverage for Katie through the All Kids Program. With help from St. Joe's Hospital, Katie was enrolled in the Illinois Moms & Babies Program. She received excellent prenatal care. In February 2006, her beautiful little baby boy Manolo was born with a rare neurologic condition that affects his balance, coordination, and speech. He was living with something called Dandy Walker Syndrome and as a result has had slow motor development and progressive enlargement of his skull.

Because Manolo has a preexisting condition, his options for health insurance are very limited. Yet with All Kids, our version of the Children's Health Insurance Program in Illinois, Katie can give her child the services that are important building blocks for his future success. Katie is grateful for reliable health insurance. Without it, Manolo would not have experienced his many successes. He was able to walk at age 2 1/2 , and the family is so happy. Without that helping hand, without the rehab and the special medical care, that might never have happened. Manolo turns 3 in a few days, on February 2, and he has his whole life in front of him.

Was this a bad investment, investing in this family, investing in this child, giving them a chance for the medical care they needed so this little boy has a normal life? When I hear from critics who argue that this is something we can't afford, or unfortunately it is going to crowd out private health insurance, I wonder if they know what a private health insurance plan would have cost this family with a child with a preexisting condition. They would have been lucky to find one they could afford, and it would have had many exclusions and many riders.

Now Senator McConnell says to this poor family, stick with it for 6 months no matter what it is costing, no matter the fact that it doesn't cover what your child needs. I don't think that is the way to go. I think what we have to understand is that many people came together, Democrats and Republicans, to pass this bill initially--to pass it twice, though it ended up with President Bush's veto--and in all of these instances we were affirming the bottom line. And the bottom line, as President Obama and others have said, is health insurance is critically important for all of us.

President Obama said:

People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they sense deep in their bones that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. They know we can do better.

Those are the words of President Obama in his speech to the 2004 Democratic convention. I know deep in our bones the Senate will stand together to give an additional 4 million kids coverage with health insurance. A bill that had been vetoed twice by President Bush can become the law of the land so this family--this loving family with a beautiful little boy--and thousands of others like them have a chance at quality health insurance.

I might conclude by saying that this debate is important for the course of the Senate, because all of us understand we have had some tough times on the Senate floor over the last couple of years--95 filibusters, a record-breaking number. What we want to do this week is to prove, as we did last week, that we can have amendments offered constructively; that we can debate them, deliberate them, and vote on them in an expeditious way. We can have a fair hearing on these amendments and come to a vote and not face a cloture vote and 30 hours of the Senate sitting in quorum calls with nothing happening. But it takes a cooperative effort on both sides. I think we can reach that again, and I hope we will prove it this week and by the end of the week pass this critical legislation to give 4 million kids, such as Manolo here, a chance for a better life.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source