[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25995-25997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  CHIP

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, the Senate voted 
overwhelmingly to approve the bipartisan agreement to reauthorize the 
Children's Health Insurance Program. On Saturday, on television I saw 
that the President called our agreement--our bipartisan agreement, I 
want to emphasize--he called it irresponsible.
  Specifically, in his radio address, the President said we ``put 
forward an irresponsible plan that would dramatically

[[Page 25996]]

expand this program beyond its original intent.''
  Well, I am here to respond to that accusation by President Bush. To 
call what we agreed to as irresponsible is an insult to an agreement we 
reached and is an insult to 67 Members of the Senate and 265 Members of 
the House who voted in favor of it.
  Calling our bipartisan proposal irresponsible ignores reality. The 
reality is that the current program--the program of the last 10 years, 
sunsetting yesterday--is out of control. The present program is 
failing. That is--to emphasize--the reason for passing the bipartisan 
bill that we passed. Because the present program is not working the way 
it was intended, and with this legislation we corrected a lot of 
problems to turn that around.
  So the President is about to veto a bill that fixes the problems and 
improves the program for the future without having put a credible 
alternative on the table. We have not heard from the President as to 
what he would do about the SCHIP program except he wanted to save it 
and expand it.
  The current program does not have adequate funding just to keep 
running with no changes. Under current law, the current program is 
authorized to spend $25 billion over the next 5 years. That is the 
baseline amount. But the Congressional Budget Office says the $25 
billion baseline amount will not fully fund the program. So the 
President says he wants to keep the program going. You cannot do it the 
way it is funded right now.
  Now, what does the Congressional Budget Office say? It says that 
without more funding, 840,000 kids would lose coverage. Without 
changes, as many as 22 States will not have any funding to run the 
program next year, and Iowa is one of those States--my home State. 
Senator Harkin is on the floor; he would agree with that, I am sure.
  Anyway, the President never said he wanted this program to lose kids, 
but the Congressional Budget Office says, doing what we are doing now, 
840,000 kids would lose coverage. So keeping the current level of 
funding is not responsible, but if the President vetoes that bill, that 
is what we are doing. Of course, to the President, ignoring that fact 
is ignoring reality.
  Let's look at what the President proposed. The President proposed a 
$5 billion increase in funding in his budget, but that is also 
insufficient funding. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
President's proposal would cause 840,000 children to lose coverage. 
That is right. The President's proposed $5 billion of new funding, 
without doing anything to get more kids covered, I think is hardly the 
responsible thing to do.
  The proposal put forward by Senator Lott and Senator Kyl that we 
voted on 2 months ago--now maybe 3 months ago; I guess it was in July 
we voted on it--was an alternative to the bipartisan product we 
eventually passed. The proposal by Senators Lott and Kyl devoted twice 
as much funding as what the President did. To me, that is recognition 
enough that the President's thinking on the Children's Health Insurance 
Program is off track. The Lott-Kyl proposal was the alternative 
children's health insurance proposal offered during floor debate in 
July. My good friends put some serious thought into what they 
developed. They proposed about $10 billion in new Children's Health 
Insurance Program funding. That proposal covered 900,000 additional 
uninsured children, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but 
the Lott-Kyl proposal only received 35 votes--barely a third of the 
Senate.
  There are good ideas in the Lott-Kyl proposal. They took a serious 
look at what populations should be covered by the SCHIP program, and it 
doesn't result in kids losing coverage as the President's proposals do, 
as the President's budget does, and that for sure is going to happen 
with a veto. But with all due respect to my friends, 35 votes is hardly 
a ringing success.
  So how much funding is really needed to keep the program afloat? 
Well, the Congressional Budget Office says $24 billion of additional 
funding is needed to provide States with funding so that States can 
operate their programs as intended. That means $24 billion is needed to 
make sure there are no funding shortfalls, and $24 billion is needed 
just to fill the hole in the baseline and cover the kids whom States 
would like to cover if they had sufficient funding. The compromise 
agreement provides that level of funding and then goes an additional 
step by offering States incentives to cover more low-income kids, 
meaning kids and families under 200 percent of poverty. Now, that is 
the goal of reauthorization--to cover more low-income kids.
  The bill we passed last week makes other important improvements to 
the program. Those improvements include better dental benefits, 
improves mental health coverage, with an outreach program to get the 
word out to kids for the kids to enroll. A bipartisan compromise is a 
responsible approach to funding the program and returning it to its 
original intent--covering lower income kids--and not covering more 
adults in 3 of our 50 States than our kids are being covered in those 
States.
  Now let me shift gears and talk about the alternative to authorizing 
the program. The alternative to a reauthorization of SCHIP is a simple 
extension of current law, and calling for a simple extension of the 
current program without addressing the many problems it has--and I just 
suggested one: 3 States out of 50 cover more adults in the children's 
program than they cover children. Now, if you want to talk about the 
word ``responsible'' and whether Congress is responsible in this bill, 
I would say anybody who wants to leave the program the way it is--and 
that is what is going to happen with a veto--that is an irresponsible 
position to take, to keep a program going that is covering adults in a 
children's program. We want to cover kids, low-income kids. So the 
SCHIP program today, which is the way it has been for the last 10 
years, is far off track.
  The President has it backward when he says our bipartisan proposal 
``expands the program beyond its original intent.'' With no changes, it 
is the current SCHIP program that has strayed far from the original 
intent. I wish to remind my colleagues of 1997, passing the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program. There is no ``A'' in SCHIP. It was 
never meant to cover adults, but adults are being covered. We want to 
get back to the original intent of this program being for kids.
  First of all, the current program covers kids at incomes far above 
what was considered low income in 1997. It covers parents, and in some 
States it even covers adults who have no kids. Under the bipartisan 
agreement passed last week, this program will return to its roots: 
covering kids, covering low-income kids. Even though the administration 
approved of States covering childless adults--now, I want to emphasize 
that: This administration approved the States covering childless 
adults. Under our bill, childless adults will be phased completely out 
of the program. This is a responsible thing for Congress to do. This is 
one of the reasons the President should sign the bill, because the 
present policies are irresponsible.
  Even though the administration approved of States covering parents, 
under our bill States will no longer be able to get enhanced Federal 
funding for covering parents. Even though the administration approved 
of States covering childless adults, under our bill States will only be 
able to cover higher income kids if they demonstrate they have covered 
their lowest income kids first.
  The agreement passed last week creates new financial incentives to 
discourage States from spending a penny to cover anyone other than low-
income children. All the financial incentives in the agreement are 
entirely focused on low-income children and, let me emphasize, families 
of under 200 percent of poverty.
  The administration has done nothing to turn around this irresponsible 
program which is now on the books. In fact, they have made it worse. 
Yet they have the audacity to call our bill irresponsible. Those who 
say our bill is irresponsible clearly haven't read the bill. This 
bipartisan compromise provides coverage for more than 3 million

[[Page 25997]]

low-income children who don't have coverage today.
  If this bill is vetoed and if at the end of the day all we do is 
simply extend the program that has now been on the books for 10 years, 
what will we have accomplished? Will adults be gone from the program? 
No. Will States have a disincentive to cover parents? No. Will States 
be encouraged to cover low-income kids before higher income kids? No. 
Will the funding formula be fixed so that States are not constantly 
challenged by funding shortfalls? No. Finally, will we have done 
anything to cover kids out there who are not covered today? The answer 
is no. No, no, no, no. Is that responsible? No. It is continuing 
current law. Let me emphasize, it is a continuation of the current law 
that is the irresponsible thing to do. The program is broken as 
evidenced in just one way: the 3 out of 50 States covering more adults 
than kids, in some instances covering adults who don't have any kids.
  The program has strayed. It needs fixing. In fact, the bipartisan 
agreement follows the path laid down by the President himself. I have 
said this repeatedly. The President made a promise at the Republican 
Convention in New York:

       We will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of 
     poor children who are eligible but not signed up for the 
     government's health insurance programs.

  President Bush said that. An extension of current law will not do 
that. He may not want to hear this quote again and again, but until he 
honors the commitment he made in that speech by making a proposal to 
cover more low-income kids, I intend to keep repeating it.
  The President can keep his commitment by signing the bill we passed 
last week. But if he is going to veto it, he owes those of us who tried 
to keep his commitment with our bill a sense of what serious policies 
Congress can adopt to cover more kids.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 2 minutes to pay tribute to a great Louisianan who 
passed away.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has that right. We are 
in morning business.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. And that Senator Harkin would follow me for 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, first let me associate myself with the 
remarks of the Senator from Iowa who just spoke so eloquently, 
strongly, and forcefully about the need for our children's health 
program in the country. I will be speaking later on that subject 
throughout the week as we all battle to get a better plan to cover more 
children at such a critical time now in that debate.

                          ____________________