CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - January 29, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 74
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak again on behalf of children of New Jersey and others in the country and the working families in my home State who seem to be under attack by some of our colleagues here on the floor. I did not know there are different values to the importance of the health care of a child regardless of the happenstance of where they live, but it seems some think so.
On behalf of these children and families, I rise strongly to object to Senator Bunning's amendment. In New Jersey, we cover over 130,000 children and, yes, we cover children to a higher percentage of the Federal poverty level. But there is a reason for that, and I will go through that right now. But there are only 3,300 New Jersey children who are covered under that higher Federal poverty level from the 130,000 who are covered below the poverty level Senator Bunning and others would want to maintain. So we are talking about 3,300 children but 3,300 children whose health and development and well-being depend upon the ability of States such as New Jersey to do this.
The families who are covered at this level are paying toward this. They are not getting a free ride. They are paying $128 each month in premiums and between $5 and $35 in copays each and every month. So this is not a free ride. These families in New Jersey are working, and they are working at some of the toughest jobs we have. But they work at jobs in which they do not have health care coverage, and they are working at jobs that do not give them enough in the context of what it costs to live in New Jersey to afford health care insurance. So somehow those people have to be penalized when you listen to the other side.
Now, let me talk to those who want to talk about fairness. New Jersey followed the law. The former administration approved New Jersey's waiver to continue insuring kids at up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level because they understood the reality that a family living in New Jersey--to make essential elements of their costs for housing, food, transportation, childcare, and, yes, insurance--just was far behind others in the Nation who, in fact, could achieve those goals for a lot less money. So the Bush administration gave a waiver. They gave a waiver. They understood it.
New Jersey needs to cover children up to 350 percent because New Jersey families face higher living costs and they get less return on their Federal dollar. Let me talk about that. I hear my colleagues bemoaning the fact that my State allegedly wants some sort of special treatment, that because we want to provide health benefits to children, we are somehow taking advantage of the Federal Government. That is simply ridiculous.
Let me put it in perspective. For every $1 a New Jersey taxpayer pays in Federal dollars toward the Federal Government, our State only gets back 65 cents. My colleague from Kentucky, who was on the floor and whose amendment we are debating now and who rails about New Jersey--his State gets $1.51 for every $1 Kentuckians send to the Federal Treasury. So they get more back than, in fact, they pay.
Let's talk about fairness. The reality: One size does not fit all. As shown on this chart, for a family in New Jersey, living in Middlesex County, whose monthly income is about, roughly, $4,600, for their housing, it is going to cost them $1,331; for food, it is about $645.70; for childcare, it is $844.80; for their transportation, it is $393.80; for their taxes, it is $479; and for their health insurance, it is almost $1,800. So what do they end up with? They end up with a negative amount in terms of their budget. These are people who are working--working--trying to sustain their families. But they end up in the negative if they try to provide health insurance for their families. So the answer is, they cannot provide health insurance for their families unless they get some help. Yes, one size does not fit all.
So let's look at that same family. For that family in New Jersey to get the same ability in terms of their purchasing power as a family in Louisville, KY, that needs about $55,808--for that same family, whose happenstance is that they live in New Jersey versus Louisville, KY, for the same exact things, they need $77,000, roughly, in purchasing power.
Now, why do I have to hear an argument that says those families, in fact, whether they be in Kentucky or Arizona or Oklahoma or Georgia or Tennessee or Utah or in all these other States, who, in fact, deserve to have their children covered--they deserve to have their children covered, and I am fighting for their children to be covered as well--but why do I have to listen to that, in fact, their children are more valuable than my children in New Jersey who need this amount of money to be able to meet the same goals and dreams and aspirations and health care that they have? So they can get benefits under the bill, but my children in New Jersey should be denied? That is the core of the argument here. One size does not fit all. I would love for a family in New Jersey at $55,000 to be able to make ends meet. That is simply not the fact. So we need to ensure all children are covered within this class.
I am simply baffled and I find it embarrassing that some in Washington--those who have some of the best health care coverage in the world--would propose to jeopardize coverage to some of America's neediest families.
In this economy, in this recession, we cannot allow our children to be the silent victims. It is morally wrong to jeopardize the health care of these children. What have they done? What have they done to deserve this? It is even more outrageous during a time when jobs and homes are being taken away from their parents.
Where is the moral compass in this Chamber? I hear my colleagues speaking eloquently about how our children are our most precious asset, and they certainly are. But they are also our most vulnerable asset. Is a child in New Jersey worth less than a child in other parts of the country simply because of the happenstance of where they live and the costs that are necessary in order for them to meet the same quality of life?
So I hope my colleagues, as other amendments have been rejected, will once again reject this amendment. This is about being for the value of life. You cannot fulfill your God-given potential if you do not have good health. You cannot say you are profamily when, in fact, you would take away the insurance necessary for that family to be able to realize their God-given potential. This is about all children, regardless of where they happen to reside, the happenstance of what station in life they were born into, that if they fall into this criteria that, in fact, they should be covered.
That is why this amendment should be defeated. I hope, after having considered amendment after amendment after amendment on the same fundamental issue, we can finally move to final passage of this bill.
Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT