Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. It is true.

Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator is correct. That is correct. Is it also true that, on average, the differential is about 30 percent? That is, the match rate that States get under the Children's Health Insurance Program is about 30 percent better, from the State's perspective, than the State gets from Medicaid; is that also true?

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator to engage in a dialogue. Is it true, first, that the match rates States are getting; that is, the Federal proportion and the State proportion, are more favorable to States under the CHIP program than it is under Medicaid?

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. BAUCUS. Actually, I would not say it is 100 percent incorrect, but HHS has discretion, as HHS had discretion granting other waivers which the Senator is concerned with, and, frankly, this Senator is concerned with. As the Senator knows, this bill is designed to crack down on the effect of those waivers and prevent any future waivers with a lot of the adults I know the Senator is concerned about. I wished to make the point that no State covers at 400 percent of poverty today. Secondly, if New York does seek 400 percent--if any State seeks 400 percent, it has to get the concurrence of the Secretary of HHS.

Mr. BAUCUS. Has New York received that concurrence?

Mr. BAUCUS. No. Is it true if a State wants to cover, say, above 300 percent of poverty, is it true the State has to get concurrence with the Secretary of HHS?

Mr. BAUCUS. No, that is not correct.

Mr. BAUCUS. That cover children at 400 percent of poverty.

Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I know Senator Hatch wishes to speak on the underlying bill, the Children's Health Insurance Program. He is on his way to the floor. In the meantime, I see the Senator from Michigan is here, a very valuable member of the Finance Committee. She works very hard. She would like to speak on this bill. I thank her for coming to the floor. I urge the Chair to recognize the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we now have had three speakers from the Republican side of the aisle, three in a row, so I ask unanimous consent that the following speakers be recognized: Senator Harkin immediately, and following Senator Harkin, Senator Cantwell will speak, and that would be the request at this point.

Mr. BAUCUS. It may be.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand Senator Gregg is ready for a vote with respect to his amendment, so I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided in the usual form for debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, that no amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and that upon the use of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, with no intervening action.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest we get back to business.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, you do.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I had the floor, and I yielded to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BAUCUS. I would object to that.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very happy to see the Committee on Homeland Security doing its work. I think the country is very pleased. Thank you.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. BAUCUS. I do.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. I don't want to belabor the issue, so I will use all my time. Mr. President, the hallmark of the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, is block grants, not entitlements. That is first. Second, it gives the States flexibility. States design their own program. This is a State Children's Health Insurance Program. Different States are different. Different States have different needs. Different States have different costs of living. Different States are different. Many States find themselves in a situation where a law might restrict them. If the States did not have flexibility, many people who earn a little too much might find they cannot get health insurance, and so they quit their jobs. The goal is to get people to work. People want to work. The goal is to make sure people have health insurance. People need health insurance. But in many States, people are just above the level here, and if they can't find health insurance, they quit their jobs so they can be in the Children's Health Insurance Program. I think States should have the right to make some adjustment to keep people working so they get health insurance. Now, if this amendment passes, 30 States will be adversely affected. Children in 30 States will be adversely affected. I don't think we want to do that. States need flexibility. Many Senators in this body have said many times, we shouldn't have one size fits all. We need flexibility. There are very definite Federal limits on how much States can make an adjustment--that is, not include a certain amount of income--so those people don't have to quit their jobs and can keep their private health insurance. So I would say I understand the basic theory, but we can't let perfection be the enemy of the good. We cannot. We cannot take away health insurance coverage from kids in 30 States. I do think the goal is for people to work. We want people to work. We should not adopt policies, which this amendment in effect would do, and say: OK, people, sorry, you can't work. You can't work so you can qualify for children's health insurance. I think we want people to work in States so they can get health insurance. I strongly urge Members to not agree to this amendment. It has surface appeal but only surface appeal. If you dig down and find out what is happening in many States, I think Senators will realize this is not the right thing to do and will oppose the amendment.