[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 144 (Wednesday, September 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12127-S12128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              HATE CRIMES

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, first, I wanted to make some comments 
about the hate crimes bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that bill. 
Actually, this came out of my work as a prosecutor in Minnesota. We had 
a number of cases that involved crimes that were motivated by hate. 
Sometimes they were found to be hate crimes under our law; sometimes 
they were not. The ones I remember most--the little 14-year-old boy 
shot in the middle of the day by a guy who said he wanted to go out and 
kill a Black kid on Martin Luther King Day.
  We had a Hispanic young man who could only speak Spanish, working in 
a factory, and his boss got mad at him because he didn't speak English 
and he was speaking Spanish and he took a 2 by 4 and hit him over the 
head.
  We had a temple that was desecrated. We had a number of cases, but 
what I most remember about this was when the hate crimes bill was first 
introduced in Washington, I had the honor of introducing President 
Clinton when he announced his support for the hate crimes bill.
  Before we went into the event, I got to meet the investigators in the 
Matthew Shepard case, two burly cops from Wyoming. They talked about 
the fact that until they had investigated that case, they had not dealt 
with ideas of what this victim's life was like. They did not want to 
think what his life was like. And then they got to know the family in 
that case, they got to know the mom, and they got to know the people 
surrounding Matthew Shepard, and their own lives were changed forever. 
I hope that by passing this bill, by doing the right thing, we can 
change the lives of other Matthew Shepards, and other victims of hate 
crimes.


                                 SCHIP

  I did come tonight, Mr. President, on the eve of what I hope will be 
a victory for the children and families in Minnesota and the Nation--
passage of the children's health insurance reauthorization bill.
  I come to remind my colleague of the weight of the situation 
presented to us. We have the opportunity to better the lives for 
millions of children, children and low-income families. We can do it by 
lifting the burden and lessening the struggle that confronts those who 
are uninsured.
  Today, 45 million Americans are living without access to affordable 
health care. The worst part of it, the saddest part of it, is that 9 
million of them are children and they are uninsured. Kids without 
access to affordable health care are at an enormous risk, an enormous 
disadvantage as they grow up and start to make their life in this 
world. Children without health coverage are less likely to get basic 
preventive care, less likely to see a doctor regularly, and less likely 
to perform well in school. Children without health coverage are often 
more likely to show up at the hospital sicker and more likely to 
develop costly chronic diseases.
  I used to represent the biggest emergency health care center in our 
State, Hennepin County Medical Center, when I was Hennepin County 
Attorney. I can tell you this, when people do not have health care, 
when children do not have health care, they do have a doctor. The 
doctor is the emergency room, and we all pay for it. That is why making 
sure that people have health insurance, that these children have health 
insurance, is actually, in the end, better for all of us, better for 
taxpayers and certainly better for the kids.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program was established to reverse 
the troubling problem of uninsured youth. It is a successful program 
that deserves to reach even more children. This is important because, 
first, it is the decent thing to do for American kids, who, through no 
fault of their own, are growing up in families who simply cannot afford 
health care. But it is also important because it is something that is 
good for all of us, and something that is important because it is a 
smart investment. It is a smart investment to make sure these kids get 
preventive care. It is a smart investment to help America's children 
grow up as healthy as they can be.
  I was at a senior center the other day, and I told the seniors: The 
reason you should care about this is you need someone who is going to 
pay your Social Security in the end. We need kids who grow up who can 
participate in our economy and can work. It is a smart investment to 
have America's children in school, focused on learning, rather than 
distracted by sickness or injury. It is a smart investment to have 
America's children get medical care through a sensible system of health 
insurance rather than having them end up in a hospital emergency room 
at the taxpayers' expense.
  When my daughter was born, she was very sick. She couldn't swallow. 
We did not know how long she was going to be in the hospital. She 
actually could not swallow for about a year and a half, and she was fed 
through a tube. So I saw firsthand the struggle these families go 
through. She is doing so well today, and it was because she had good, 
excellent health care at Minneapolis Children's Hospital.
  Well, not all families have access to that health care. When I think 
of what happened to her and how she was able to get stronger and 
stronger, even though she was this tiny little baby on an x-ray 
machine, I think all kids should have that right.
  Unfortunately, President Bush and his administration continue to 
fight efforts to expand SCHIP, a popular and effective program. The 
administration recently put in place a restrictive rule that makes it 
nearly impossible for States such as Minnesota to expand their program.
  I want to remind the President this issue is not about scoring 
political points or pushing an ideology. It is about bettering the 
lives of America's future generation. Today we are making a choice, 
either to support a proven, effective program that has helped children 
in all States or supporting the status quo which could lead to more 
kids losing health care coverage as States struggle to make ends meet.
  If the Children's Health Insurance Program fails to pass the Senate 
or the President chooses to veto its reauthorization and deny children 
access to this vital program, the consequences could prove dire for 
Minnesota's children and families. It is estimated that an additional 
35,000 Minnesotans who would otherwise be uninsured would be enrolled 
in this program should this bill be signed into law. If the President 
uses his veto power, he will deny health care to 86,000 uninsured 
Minnesotan children who may have been enrolled with the passage of this 
bill. From a fiscal standpoint, our State once again loses out if this 
bill fails to pass. With changes in the allotment program and the 
formula, Minnesota would receive an increase of over $50 million in 
fiscal year 2008 to fund our children's health insurance and Medicaid 
Program. If the bill fails, Minnesota would be presented with a funding 
shortfall leaving low-income families in a frightening situation.
  This program is very important to our State. Our Governor, a 
Republican Governor, supports it, as has the Governors Association. He 
has written letters asking us to approve this bill.
  We are proud to have one of the lowest rates of uninsured in our 
State in the Nation, partially because of this program, and partly 
because we have been innovative in bolstering coverage for low-income 
kids and their parents. Since Minnesota was ahead of the curve in 
covering kids before this program was created, Minnesota uses a portion 
of these Federal dollars to provide coverage to their parents. This is 
because ample evidence proves that when parents get coverage, kids are 
more likely to have health coverage. I am glad to see that the 
compromise

[[Page S12128]]

bill we reached largely retains the parental coverage in these special 
cases.
  Many of my colleagues have expressed concern about the CHIP program 
replacing private insurance. I am reminded, though, of the testimony of 
CBO Director Orszag who reported to the Finance Committee this summer 
that this program is about as efficient as a program can be.
  That being said, this bipartisan legislation makes an effort to 
mitigate the replacement of private insurance by requiring GAO and the 
Institute of Medicine to report on best practices for enrolling low-
income children who need assistance the most. It requires the Secretary 
to help States implement those methods. I believe this rational 
approach will prove to be effective in reducing crowdout and will 
protect the State's flexibility, contrary to the Bush administration's 
overly restrictive rule that essentially bars States from expanding 
their program. I do not know why you would want to bar States from 
expanding their program when we are living in a time when more and more 
children have less and less health coverage.
  When I went around my State in the last 2 years, I would go to cafes 
and we would think maybe 10 people would show up, so we would set the 
table up with 10 chairs. Then 100 people would show up. These were 
middle-income people, lower income people. I finally realized when you 
have got less money in your pocket, when health care premiums go up 100 
percent, as they have in our State in the last decade, you feel it 
first in your pocket. When it costs 100 percent more to go to college, 
as it does at the University of Minnesota in the last 10 years, and you 
are a middle-class person, a low-income person, you feel it first in 
your pocket.
  That is what has been going on in this country. There has been an 
enormous shift of resources away from the great majority of people in 
this country who are just trying to get by, to the very top echelon of 
people in this country.
  We are trying to reverse that with this Congress. We are trying to 
change that with this Congress. We need vital programs such as 
children's health insurance more than ever, especially as these rising 
health care costs force families to tighten their budget.
  The President should reconsider his threat to veto, and my colleagues 
who say they are against this bipartisan compromise legislation should 
reconsider their opposition. I thank the Finance Committee for their 
efforts to bring this bill to the floor, and to expand this important, 
successful initiative. It is not only good for American kids, it is 
good for our families, it is good for all of us.
  When I think about the health care my daughter got when she could not 
even swallow and all of the doctors who were there to help her and the 
nurses who were there to help her, all kids should have that kind of 
beginning. That is what this bill is about.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for what time I might 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________