Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, remember that 212 Republicans and 180
Democrats supported H.R. 2. The decision to extend CHIP for 2 years
with the current payment rate was part of the House bipartisan
agreement. This amendment seeks to rewrite that amendment.
This amendment is not a vote to show who really cares more about
children's health because H.R. 2 extends the CHIP program for 2 years.
Everyone who supports the underlying bill is supporting children's
health. If my colleagues oppose this amendment, they are no less a
supporter of children's health than the 392 Members of the House who
supported H.R. 2, including 180 Democrats and Leader Pelosi. Are my
colleagues really saying that Leader Pelosi didn't care enough about
kids in forging this agreement?
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I am a supporter of the Children's Health Insurance Program having
participated in the initial creation of CHIP in 1997 and the
reauthorization started in 2007. And while I am a supporter of
children's health, this is not a CHIP vote in a vacuum. This vote is in
the context of the underlying bill and cannot be ignored.
An overwhelming majority of the House supported H.R. 2. 392 Members
of the House vote for H.R. 2; 212 Republicans and 180 Democrats
supported the bill. That is a sign of bipartisanship that is, on a
major issue, extremely rare in the House.
The decision to extend CHIP for 2 years with the current payment rate
was a part of the House bipartisan agreement. It is an agreement
between House Republicans and House Democrats. This amendment seeks to
rewrite that agreement.
So let's talk for a moment about what this amendment is not. This
amendment is not a vote to show who cares more about children's health.
H.R. 2 extends the CHIP program for 2 years. Everyone who supports the
underlying bill is supporting children's health. Mr. President, 392
members of the House voted for this bill which extends CHIP for 2
years.
If you oppose this amendment, you are no less a supporter of
children's health than the 392 Members of the House who supported H.R.
2 including 180 Democrats and Leader Pelosi. Are you really saying
Leader Pelosi didn't care enough about kids in forging this agreement?
Again, no one should accuse anyone who votes against this amendment as
being insufficiently supportive of children's health.
I have also heard it said that Congress only authorizes 2 years now,
there is little chance Congress will authorize two more years in 2017.
That is a prediction, and as we all know, Congress can be hard to
predict some times.
In two years, we will be back to consider CHIP. We will also be back
to consider therapy caps, rural hospital programs, home visiting, the
special diabetes program, and community health center funding, to name
a few programs extended in this bill. The House agreement intentionally
aligned these programs to be considered in tandem in 2017.
This amendment pulls one very specific provision out of that
compromise. I have no concerns that CHIP can stand without the SGR.
What we need to do is spend the next two years thinking about the
future of health care coverage for children.
MAC-PAC has done some very good work examining what CHIP provides for
children that is different than the private market. The pediatricians
are in town this week for a conference, and as they will tell you, kids
are not just little adults. Benefits and services need to be tailored
to make sure that kids grow into healthy productive adults. This is
something we need to settle in the next two years. It is something we
can and should do. Voting against this amendment does nothing to
jeopardize that process.
We have a choice here. We can pass the House bill without changes or
we can amend its bill and send it back to the House. I urge Senators to
support the agreement and vote against this amendment.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source