Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007--Continued

Floor Speech

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - July 31, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank Chairman Baucus for his leadership and for the way he has conducted the debate on this bill.

I wish to make a couple of points that probably haven't been made yet--some have, in different ways--and the first thing I wish to say is that this bill, overall, provides what a lot of Americans expect us to provide in a bill such as this: It lowers the rates of uninsured children in America, just as the original Children's Health Insurance Program did some 10 years ago now; it strengthens the program by increasing and targeting funding for our children; and it also gives States the tools they need to do the outreach that is required to get our children enrolled and to do that in a way that spends money wisely.

One of the things that has been missed in this debate is that this is really about all of America. This isn't simply about one State or one community. One of the population sectors that I think has been ignored often in this discussion by some people who have talked about this is rural children. You can see on this chart to my right what children's health insurance--this program--means to rural children.

Rural children are far less likely to have access to employer-based health care plans because most of these families that have had to struggle are not getting jobs that offer affordable health insurance. That number has gone far too high in terms of the number of rural families that have lost jobs or are seeking jobs with health insurance.

Secondly, rural children are difficult to enroll in children's health insurance even when they are clearly eligible. Outreach and enrollment efforts are critically important to those communities. That is why the features of this bill that deal with outreach--television advertising and other kinds of advertising--are critically important.

The second point about children who live in rural communities across America--and I have to say in Pennsylvania we have literally millions of Pennsylvanians who live in communities that are defined demographically as rural--is that they are more likely to be poor. Nearly half of rural children live in low-income families at or below 200 percent of the poverty level. So you are talking about a doubling of the number, just a little more than $40,000 of family income.

Additionally, rural children increasingly rely upon children's health insurance, this program. In rural America, more than one-third of all children--one-third of all rural children--rely upon the Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid.

Another point on benefits, if we can go to the next chart. There has been a lot of talk about what this program means and how much it costs. It is interesting to debate that, but let us get back to what this program means to families. It means immunizations, routine checkups, prescription drugs, dental care, maternity care, mental health benefits, and down the list. You can see what this means to the life of a family and to the health of a nation. I think it bears repeating just how important those benefits are.

In the next chart, we focus on an example from Pennsylvania. There has been a lot of talk on this floor already, some of it inaccurate talk, so let's get back to the facts. This is what the children's health insurance income levels mean in Pennsylvania. What we are talking about here is $41,300 of income and below, under 200 percent of the FPL, the federal poverty level. Care is free for those families, and the average premium is, of course, zero. But the next category, $41,301 to $61,950, above 200 percent of poverty, up to 300 percent, care is provided at a low cost but a cost nonetheless. They pay a premium--a range of a premium.

Finally, looking at the higher income groups and some people, it is very misleading. For those with incomes of $61,951 and above, at that income level care is provided at cost, and the average premium is $150. We should stop misleading people, talking about wealthier families making $80,500. Others will discuss this later. We have already had a lot of misleading--and I hope it is not deliberate, but there has been misleading rhetoric on the Senate floor already about those families.

Just for the record, not only are there no families at $80,000 in the Children's Health Insurance Program, there are only about 3,000 kids enrolled in the health care program today out of 6.6 million who have a family income of 300 percent of poverty or more. Let's speak the truth and adhere to the facts instead of what we have heard already: misleading statements on this floor about these income levels.

One more point about minority children in America. We have heard a lot about what this means and whether it is working. We have lots of proof already that minority children have already been helped. Since the inception of this program 10 years ago, the percent of uninsured Hispanic children has decreased by nearly one-third; for African-American children by almost one-half. So don't tell us this is not working. Some people on the other side have made that point. This is working for rural kids, and it is working for minority children all across the country, not to mention what I have seen in Pennsylvania.

This will be our last chart. We have heard a lot about what this means for the broad spectrum of America. Here is the fact again: 78 percent of the kids covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program are from working families. I think that is an important point to make when we talk about who is helped by this program.

If we want to go the way the President has taken us and cut off kids from children's health insurance--1.4 million kids will lose their coverage under the President's plan--here is what happens when a child doesn't get dental care. We heard this story a couple of months ago. It bears repeating again--12-year-old Deamonte Driver, from Prince George's County here in Maryland, died because he didn't have coverage for a routine $80 dental procedure for his infected tooth. Without that simple treatment, the infection spread to Deamonte Driver's brain and killed him.

Let's put aside some of the mythology about what we have heard from some people--not everyone but some people in this Chamber--about what this means. If that child had received an $80 dental procedure he might be alive today. But, of course, we hear political rhetoric in here to back up the President. I think it is important to remember why we are here.

I have two more points to make, to keep within my time. John Dilulio, Jr., a distinguished Ph.D., worked for President Bush to lead his faith-based initiatives in the early part of the administration. He wrote an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer a few months ago.

I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASEY. I will not read it, but I want to highlight some of what he said. He talked about the President and what has been happening with this debate on children's health insurance. He made this point in the second to the last paragraph:

Treating health insurance for needy children as a political bargaining chip--

And he's referring to the President's other health care ideas----would be wrong.

He talks about the fact that Mitch Daniels, who worked in a Republican administration--he is the Governor now, Governor of Indiana, also a great supporter of this program. Mr. Dilulio concludes this way. He says:

For compassion's sake, the President should compromise on SCHIP .....

And allow this to move forward.

I have to say, some of what we heard in the last couple of days has been misleading. In the end it is about this: It is about whether we are going to be fair to families across America, not whether the Senate likes a program or doesn't like it. This is about whether we are going to be fair to families.

Anyone who has had the experience of being a parent knows when their child is born, that parent, whoever they are, falls in love again. My wife and I have four daughters, and we know that feeling. So many others here do as well. As a parent, you always want to love your children and protect them. When a child is injured or gets sick, the first instinct of any parent, but especially a mother, is to hug that child, to dry their tears, and to soothe their pain immediately--not months later, not days later, but immediately. Of course if it is more serious you want to get them to a doctor or a hospital.

But for millions of parents--that is why this bill is so important to get done--for millions of parents that hug that they give their son or daughter, that warm embrace and the comfort that a hug can bring to a child--that will often be all that they have at the end of the road because their son or daughter has no health insurance, like the millions of children we have talked about in the last couple of days. If that child cries in the dark of night from pain or if they endure the slow ache of disease or sickness, the mother cannot bring the full measure of her love to that child. In essence, the mother is rendered powerless because of that. Just think of what that does to a mother and to a family.

When we have debates on this floor about this bill, none of it matters--none of the debate in the last couple of days will have mattered if it does not result in a total commitment to the children of America. Unfortunately, if the President gets his way, we will have failed that basic test about a full commitment to our children.

I will conclude with one line. When my father served as Governor of Pennsylvania, it was one of the first States to have a children's health insurance program. He knew the benefits of it. His test for every public official in every difficult fight was very simple, but it is a very tough test: What did you do when you had the power?

This Senate has the power this week to tell the President that he is wrong about children's health insurance, but more important to tell America that we have made a full commitment to the children of America. If we pass that test we will have done our job. If this body does not, it will have failed that test when we had the power to positively impact millions of children, to have exercised that power on behalf of that child, his or her family, and all of America.

I yield the floor.

Source