[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1447-1449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         ISSUES FACING AMERICA

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is the first full week of our new 
administration, and many of us sense things have changed for the 
better, and we are hopeful. We can't assume anything because there is a 
lot of hard work ahead, and we are going to have to try everything we 
can to resolve some of the major issues that face our country that we 
can address in the Senate.
  We were successful last week, in passing with 61 votes--bipartisan 
rollcall--the Lilly Ledbetter legislation. This was a bill which tried 
to cure a problem created by a Supreme Court decision that was 
questioned about whether women should be entitled to equal pay for 
equal work. Lilly Ledbetter, after 15 or 16 years working at a tire 
company in Alabama, discovered that within her job classification men 
were being paid more than she as a woman. She did not discover this 
until she was about to retire. So she filed a lawsuit and the Supreme 
Court across the street reached a conclusion which no other court had 
reached and said Ms. Ledbetter could not recover because she didn't 
report the first discriminatory paycheck paid to her in--I think it was 
180 days. Her answer, which most people who work in the private sector 
would say, is, How am I supposed to know what the fellow next to me is 
getting in his paycheck? They don't publish these things. So when she 
did discover it and filed it, they said she was too late.
  So we changed the law so, if there is discrimination, a person will 
have their day in court. They will have a fair hearing. The reasonable 
attempts to discover the information are enough. The Supreme Court 
standard was unreasonable. So that is the first thing

[[Page 1448]]

we will pass, sending that to our new President, President Obama. It is 
a bill which we considered before under President Bush but did not have 
the votes to pass before. So now a bipartisan group is sending it to 
the President.
  This week we are on a new issue, and the new issue is another matter 
that has come before us in previous Congresses and is returning. It is 
the Children's Health Insurance Program. This was a program that was 
started back in 1997 under President Clinton and a Republican Congress. 
The object was a good one.
  We know across America there are some 15 million children who are 
uninsured, and we need to find a way to bring them insurance. If these 
children are in the poorest families in America, we take care of them. 
The Medicaid Program for the poorest kids in America provides for these 
children. However, if they are not among the poorest and their parents 
are not lucky enough to have health insurance, they fall right in the 
middle.
  Here are kids whose parents get up and go to work every day where the 
work does not provide health insurance. So we said to the States: We 
will give you a special deal because we think it is important for 
America to provide health insurance for as many kids as possible. What 
we will do is give you more Federal funds than usual as an incentive to 
bring these kids in, get them insured.
  The States got involved, and it has been a success. More and more 
kids have been brought into the program. In my State of Illinois, about 
65 percent of the cost is paid by the Federal Government, 35 percent by 
the State. So whenever a Governor comes up with an idea to bring more 
kids in, that Governor knows he has to put the money on the table, at 
least 35 percent of the cost, to bring in more kids.
  Unfortunately, the program was expiring and many of the kids had not 
been reached. Currently, we have 9 million children under the age of 18 
who are uninsured and 6 million of them are eligible for CHIP and a 
combination with Medicaid. We wanted to try to bring up this number. It 
costs money because we are putting Federal money into it. So we said: 
What is a reasonable way to pay for it? It happens to be a way I voted 
for consistently and that is raising the tax on tobacco products.
  Some people may see this a little differently, but, by and large, I 
know, and our life experience proves, that when the cost of tobacco 
products goes up, fewer kids will buy them. If we can stop a kid from 
starting to smoke before the age of 18, there is a better than 50-50 
chance they never will smoke. Expensive products with the taxes that 
are imposed discourage kids from buying them and provide the revenue 
for this program. So the 61-cent new Federal tax was going to be used 
to provide health insurance for kids.
  I think it is a fair tradeoff. I will vote for that proposal. I have 
voted for it. We passed the bill twice and sent it to President Bush. 
He vetoed it both times. So now it is coming back.
  We are going to consider this bill in this week's debate. I have had 
reports about my Republican colleagues who have come to the floor 
critical of this bill. It is their right to oppose it. I have opposed 
bills they supported in the past. That is what the Senate is all about. 
But I would like to address each of the arguments they are making.
  First, there is no doubt in my mind this is important. How important 
is it for a parent to know their kids have access to a doctor? I think 
it is one of the most important things. If you have ever had a sick 
child, particularly one who needed care, it breaks your heart to know 
you cannot take them to the best doctor or hospital, maybe not to any 
doctor or hospital.
  We all know that if you can reach a child with a problem such as 
asthma at an early age and start treating the child, it is less likely 
that child will have serious problems later on.
  Most of us understand intuitively that providing health insurance for 
kids is not only compassionate, it is the smart thing to do. Those kids 
are more likely to be healthy. They are more likely to go to school and 
not be absentees. They are more likely to grow up to be healthy adults. 
That is a pretty good outcome for this country.
  The opposite is true as well. Without health care, these kids may 
have little problems that grow into big problems. They will start 
missing school, and they may become chronically ill at a point where 
they become extremely expensive, not to mention compromising their 
quality of life.
  So here we are trying to expand the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, and the argument on the other side is we should not do it, at 
least not the way we have proposed.
  I think it is priority. I am glad President Obama has asked us to 
send him this bill as quickly as we can. I want to get these kids 
covered. The sooner we do, the better for them and their families and 
the better for our country.
  We know when this policy was instituted 10 years ago, more and more 
kids received the basic care that people want them to receive.
  There are some other considerations too. Here is how we define 
``eligibility.'' We say that if you are no higher than 200 percent of 
what we call the poverty income, then your kids are eligible. What does 
that mean? It is about $42,000 a year in income. Then we say to the 
States: If you want to expand that to a higher level, up to 300 
percent, a family income of $63,000--each State has that option, but if 
you expand it, you have to put State money on the table. You do not get 
this free.
  Some of the Republicans and columnist George Will have argued we are 
being too generous, that we are providing health insurance to families 
who ought to be able to pay for it themselves. I disagree, and I think 
some people making this argument are out of touch with what these 
families face.
  Imagine if you are a family making $42,000 a year, and by way of 
speculation, most people pay about 40 percent of their gross pay in 
FICA and taxes. So you are likely to see about $26,000 a year in take-
home pay out of $42,000--maybe a little bit more but $26,000. That 
comes out to a little more than $2,000 a month to live on for 
everything--for your mortgage or rent, your utilities, putting gas in 
the car, automobile insurance, food, clothing--the list goes on. A 
little more than $2,000 a month.
  I have a niece who is a part-time worker. She works here and there 
where she can. She is a mother whose child is now an adult. I asked her 
recently: Paula, what do you pay? What would you pay for health 
insurance?
  She said: It is $400 a month. That is what they quote me. She said: I 
can't pay that. And I understand why she cannot pay it.
  If we use that as a hypothetical figure, $400 a month, out of a take-
home pay of $2,000 or $2,200 a month, that is a big piece of the 
paycheck. So to help these people with children's health insurance, at 
least to cover their kids, is not unreasonable. It is not like we are 
giving a subsidy to rich people.
  Elizabeth Warren is a Harvard professor of law whom I respect. She 
may be one of the best speakers for consumers, particularly middle-
income consumers, across America. She took a look at people making 
about $49,000 a year, smack dab in the middle of the middle class, and 
what happened to them over the last 8 years. What she found was their 
income did not keep pace with the cost of inflation. We know that is 
true. People were not getting paycheck increases to keep up with the 
cost of living.
  She calculated that between 2000 and 2007, these people lost about 
$1,100 because the cost of living went up and their paychecks did not 
go up. Food costs were up $205; telephone bills $142; appliance costs, 
gas bills--the list goes on and on, including mortgage payments, 
gasoline, and childcare costs.
  It turned out those people smack dab in the middle of the middle 
class, making what middle-income families made at $49,000 a year, had 
actually fallen behind over 7 years by $5,000.
  The point I am getting to is this: I think it is hard for us as 
Members of the Senate who get paid pretty nicely, I might add, and have 
some benefits to go with it, to stand here and say, if you have $42,000 
coming in, even if you have $63,000 gross pay coming in, you don't

[[Page 1449]]

need any help in paying for health insurance. That is not true. I don't 
think it is accurate.
  This program should be in a position where it can look at families 
and say: We will give you a helping hand to make sure your kids are 
covered. That is reasonable.
  So as to needing the program, we certainly need it with 9 million 
uninsured kids under the age of 18. Whom it should reach: Certainly 
people making $42,000 a year gross income are not wealthy or not well 
off, even up to $63,000, 300 percent of poverty. It is hard to imagine 
they have so much money that they couldn't use a helping hand with 
health insurance.
  The final point that is made is a tougher one, and it is one we are 
going to be debating this week. Here is what it comes down to: Should 
we cover the children of people who are in the United States legally 
but not citizens for the first 5 years they are here? We have had this 
debate back and forth for 10 or 12 years. We have decided from time to 
time to extend food stamps to these people legally here but not 
citizens. The question is: Should their children receive health 
insurance coverage if they are legally in the United States?
  There will be some who will argue: No, don't do it. I am not one of 
those people. I honestly believe America is not better off with sick 
children. I do not believe we should be naive enough to think a sick 
child, who happens to be an American citizen sitting in the classroom 
with your own child, is not going to spread the germs, is not going to 
have problems that could reach other kids. I guess this betrays my own 
personal values. I would much rather see these kids healthy and given a 
chance. Yes, it is going to add some costs, but they are legally here. 
We are not talking about undocumented people. They are legally here, 
and they are in the status of on the way to citizenship or at least 
temporarily legal in the United States.
  That is an issue we will debate. This law does not require them to be 
covered. Each Governor has to decide. It is the State's decision. If 
the States don't want to cover them, that is their decision.
  These folks are likely to become tomorrow's citizens. Census data 
shows most immigrants who enter the United States when they are 
children become U.S. citizens. These are the children who will grow up 
to be the adults we need to be in our workforce and to be productive 
citizens, people who will make contributions to the U.S. economy, pay 
their taxes, start businesses, serve in the military, and participate 
in America's civic life.
  There are 18,000 legal immigrant children in my home State of 
Illinois. These are future adults who will go to school, make a career, 
and create families. How can we continue to support a policy that says 
to our future American citizens: You have to wait 5 years to see a 
doctor, to get your immunizations, to feel better. No child should have 
to wait 5 years for health care. Five years can be a lifetime to a 
little boy or girl.
  In the 5-year waiting period, we may miss an opportunity to diagnose 
and treat asthma, autism, hearing impairments, or vision problems. 
These are conditions that may have lifelong consequences for a child's 
health, educational attainment, and well-being.
  Our country is better than that. We will debate these amendments, as 
we should. That is what the Senate is about: deliberation, votes, and 
resolution of issues. Then I believe we will send this Children's 
Health Insurance Program to President Obama. Despite the two vetoes by 
President Bush, we are going to extend this program because our vision 
of America was articulated by President Obama at the beginning of his 
campaign. He used to talk--in fact, he spoke this way when he was a 
Senator from Illinois and even a candidate for the senate in Illinois--
that the misfortune of a child in East St. Louis had an impact on his 
life in Chicago; the misfortune and lack of education of a child on the 
south side of Chicago affects people living in better-off suburbs.
  Bottom line, in a few words, we are in this together. If we improve 
the quality of life for our children, give them a fighting chance to be 
healthy and well educated, to become participants in America, we will 
be a better nation. To turn our back on them, to shun and push aside 
millions of kids, for whatever reason, is not good for our country in 
the long run. It is not the value system we are all about.
  We provide foreign aid, and I support that, to countries around the 
world to help kids who may never set foot in the United States. We do 
it because we are caring people. Shouldn't our care be extended first 
to our own children to make sure they have basic health insurance?
  I am looking forward to this debate. I hope it is the beginning of a 
good debate and a good outcome and that this bill will be sent to 
President Obama, who will have a chance to sign it into law to give 
these kids a fighting chance for decent health care.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________