Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Jan 29th, 2009 :: 4:12:55 to 4:21:55
Total video length: 5 hours 7 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:239 Duration: 0:09:00 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Chuck Grassley

4:12:52 to 4:13:12( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: waiver, and it's probably why the republican health and human services granted that waiver. that's -- that's where we are. that's history. it makes sense. but the fact of this a is,, no we're not going to do that. even though new jersey is used to it, even though new jersey

Chuck Grassley

4:12:55 to 4:21:55( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Chuck Grassley

Chuck Grassley

4:13:13 to 4:13:34( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: applied for the waiver and lawfully granted the waiver. this amendment says no, no, no, none of that anymore. we're going to ra that you, new jersey, get and it' the pressure of taking -- hurting kids in that state and take kids off the children's health insurance program. that's just not the right thing to do. and i, therefore, respectfully urge senators to not support this restrictive amendment

Chuck Grassley

4:13:35 to 4:14:00( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: doesn't add to kids -- kids to the children's health insurance program, rather, it takes kids off the children's health insurance program. mr. grassley: the presidin senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i rise for the purpose of supporting e bunning amendment and what i say will have some rebuttal to what the distinguished chairman of

Chuck Grassley

4:14:01 to 4:14:23( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the committee has said just now. medicaid andhildren's health insurance programere created to cover low-income an income of more than 3,000 for a family of income. i know the senators from states of new york and new jersey will

Chuck Grassley

4:14:24 to 4:14:44( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: argue that 3,000 is low income in their i know that they will talk about the cost of states. well, just as an example, the median home price in des moines is greater than that in binghamton, buffalo, or roch chester in the state of new york.

Chuck Grassley

4:14:45 to 4:15:05( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the underlying bill says that all states can cover above 300% of the federal poverty level. second bill that was a bipartisan bill passing the senate in 2007. but if we're going

Chuck Grassley

4:15:06 to 4:15:29( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: states to cover above 300%, all states should be treated equally. an exception for two states -- and i might states -- isn't fair, and it isn't right. this amendment exception so that all states are treated eally. so i urge support for the bunning amendment that we will

Chuck Grassley

4:15:30 to 4:15:52( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: vote on in just a little over an hour, and i hope senators coming to the floor will take that into consideration, that treating all states favorably is essential. mr. president, i want to speak about an amendment that i'm going to introduce.

Chuck Grassley

4:15:53 to 4:16:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the amendment that i'm going to introduce is the exact contents of the bill that we call the 2007 bipartisan bill number 2, because that's number 2 veto by president bush.

Chuck Grassley

4:16:15 to 4:16:36( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: this amendment that i'm offering today, i'm doing so with senator hatch, because there he was with me through all of that discussion in 2007 that brought us to a bipartisan bill. the amendment is the bill that two years ago speaker pelosi

Chuck Grassley

4:16:37 to 4:16:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: called -- quote, unquote -- a definite improvement on the first bill, mning the first bill that the president vetoed. this amendment that i'm going soon lay before the senate is a bill that i believe is the best bipartisan compromise we could put together to cover as many

Chuck Grassley

4:16:58 to 4:17:20( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: low-income children as this amendment is that 2007 bill that told states they couldn't cover children above 300% of poverty level in the children's health insurance program. why do we concentrate so much on that level and not above that level? in 2007, we thought letting

Chuck Grassley

4:17:21 to 4:17:43( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: states cover children above the national median attention away from the mission of medicaid and children's health insurance program, which is obvious then and still obvious today. and that is that we ought to be putting the low-income children. the underlying bill allows

Chuck Grassley

4:17:44 to 4:18:04( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: states to cover children up to any income level. and as i just said, includes a special grandfathering exclusion for new york to cover children in families with incomes up to 3,000 per year. the second bipartisan children's

Chuck Grassley

4:18:05 to 4:18:25( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: health insurance bill that is the amendment before us, or that i'm going to put before us, now returns the focus where it has been bill, is emphasis upon getting low-income children int a plan

Chuck Grassley

4:18:26 to 4:18:46( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: so that they have the health care they need. this amendment is the bill that includes a policy to address the problem of crowd-out that was the subject of an amendment yesterday. it is a policy that is n the underlying

Chuck Grassley

4:18:47 to 4:19:08( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: underlying bill, which bri to the question: what exactly went wrong with the crowd-out policy that so many of us voted for in 2007? certainly it's not because the democrats have put forward a policy that addressed c in a better or more manner. certainly it's not because the

Chuck Grassley

4:19:09 to 4:19:30( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: democrats have new analysis that crowd-out is no longer occurring, especially in the expansion of public programs. when the children's health insurance program dollars go to higher-income children who already have private coverage, that money could have gone to low-income children.

Chuck Grassley

4:19:31 to 4:19:53( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: and make no doubt about it, 4 million new people being covered doesn't take care of the problem of covering low-income children. there are still going to be millions out there that will not be covered that we ought to have a focus the second bipartisan children's health insurance bill of 2007 that is now the amendment i'm

Chuck Grassley

4:19:54 to 4:20:14( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: going to lay before the senate returns the focus to low-income children. finally, this amendment to-be is the bill that we voted on in 2007 which didn't have the divisive legal immigrant issue in it.

Chuck Grassley

4:20:15 to 4:20:35( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: the underlying bill today has .3 billion for coverage of legal immigrants, more than 100,000 of whom already have private or public coverage, dollars that could have gone cover more low-income children. the second bipartisan children's

Chuck Grassley

4:20:36 to 4:20:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: health insurance bill that is the amendment i'm going to lay before the senate now returns the focus to low-income children. now, today in the senate, there are 43 democrats and 12 republicans, of kwh one --

Chuck Grassley

4:20:58 to 4:21:18( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: i'm -- of which one, i'm one them, who were members of the senate in 2007 and voted for this bill that my amendment is going to represent. those 43 and 12 democrats are still here. that's 55 of us. if w

Chuck Grassley

4:21:19 to 4:21:40( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: still do great things. we could show that bipartisan amendments still mean something in the senate. when the vote count ended, we would probably have more than 70 votes for this amendment. instead, i know if i call for a

Chuck Grassley

4:21:41 to 4:21:57( Edit History Discussion )

Chuck Grassley: vote on this amendment, that were cast in 2007 would become "no" votes. after watching the difficulty those 12 republicans, including

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid