Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Jan 29th, 2009 :: 4:22:00 to 4:39:25
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:299 Duration: 0:17:25 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Orrin Hatch

4:21:58 to 4:22:20( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: this republican, faced by aye and sticking together because we thought that we were doing good policy, watching ayes turn to noes on the very same policy is a bitter, bter pill to s

Orrin Hatch

4:22:00 to 4:39:25( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Orrin Hatch

Orrin Hatch

4:22:21 to 4:22:41( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: in order to bring my amendment, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call amendment 83. the presiding officer: is there objection to setting aside the pending amendments? if not, without objection, the pending amendments are set the amendment. the clerk: the senator from

Orrin Hatch

4:22:42 to 4:23:05( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: iowa, mr. grassley -- mr. grassley: reading thus far -- the presidingfficer: without objection, so ordered. mr. grassley: i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, thank you. i strongly support this amendment of the distinguished senator from iowa. essentially, what we are doing

Orrin Hatch

4:23:06 to 4:23:26( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: here is striking being considered on the floor and replacing it with chipra 2, the chipra 2 bill which thank you passed overwhelmingly in this body -- which passed overwhelmingly in this body there 2007. enough votes to override the presidential veto, and not one democrat voted against this bill. not one.

Orrin Hatch

4:23:27 to 4:23:47( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: not one. bu senator grassley and i are offering is a bill that represents a solid bipartisan agreement that we worked out with senators rockefeller and baucus. i don't blame senator baucus for the mess we're in right now, this partisanship approach to

Orrin Hatch

4:23:48 to 4:24:08( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: chip, because he represents his side. but, i do feel like there have been -- there's been a real lack of effort by some on the democrat side to work with us after all the time that we spent trying to make something that would work in the last congress.

Orrin Hatch

4:24:09 to 4:24:30( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: what we had was a true bipartisan agreement where we were there from start to finish. senator grassley and i, senator baucus and rockefeller and those in the house, we spent hours together, months together working out the details of this bill. we spent morning, noon, and night for six months to get this bill to this point.

Orrin Hatch

4:24:31 to 4:24:51( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: it was built on a foundation of tough agreements and tough decisions. we were part of the process from the very beginning and stayed with the process until the very end. and that resulted in a true bipartisan agreement. the bill passe in both the house and the s by a veto-proof margin in the

Orrin Hatch

4:24:52 to 4:25:12( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: senate. senator grassley and i worked our guts out, put our souls into both chip are a 1 and chip are a 2. and we were proud of our work with senators rockefeller and baucus because that work not only authorized the chip program for five additional years, it covered more low-income uninsured children.

Orrin Hatch

4:25:13 to 4:25:33( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: it retained the original goals of the original chip program, which by anybody's measure has worked very, very well over the prior ten years. the bill before us today does not represent that agreement. we talked to our colleagues at the beginning, and were not included in the discussions that evolved into this chip bill

Orrin Hatch

4:25:34 to 4:25:55( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: considered by the finance committee. we were not even invited. it seems to me that once we were not needed anymore, we were more or less thrown by the wayside because our votes were no longer needed. this is not the way to start off the 111th congress especially after this campaign where our president said he wants to work in a bipartisan way, he wants us

Orrin Hatch

4:25:56 to 4:26:17( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: to work together, he wants us to feel good towards each other, he wants us to accomplish a great deal for this country. and i think i've known -- i'm known for bipartisan work around lot of flak for some of the president's cabinet people that i've supported and supported right off the bat because they were qualified people, and i believe the president should

Orrin Hatch

4:26:18 to 4:26:40( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: have his choice. as long as they're qualified and not otherwise disqualified. well, i'm going to support this amendment of senator grassley which represents the true bipartisan agreement of the truth were known, even 2008. let me just mention a few of the

Orrin Hatch

4:26:41 to 4:27:01( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: highlights in the chipra 2. the amendment states there will be no federal schip dollars for coverage of children over 300% of poverty. 3,000 for a family of four. to be honest with you, when we did the original chip bill, we wanted it to be 200% of poverty, because these were the only kids left out of the health care system, children of the working poor.

Orrin Hatch

4:27:02 to 4:27:23( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: and we did it so that we'd have enough money to try and get all the kids who really qualified under the program. even with that, we found we weren't able to get to all of them. so you can imagine with the current difficulties, economic difficulties, we're going to have to more and more kids. and if we start allowing people

Orrin Hatch

4:27:24 to 4:27:45( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: to go over 300% of poverty, which at least two states are now in the process of doing, it isn't going to be long until this just becomes the federal government boondoggle where erybody is going to expect money from the federal government to take care of things that they can take care of themselves. this amendment eliminates the earmark to allow new york to cover children up to 400% of poverty.

Orrin Hatch

4:27:46 to 4:28:06( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: that's 4,800 for a family of four. by the time they waivers, some estimate that families could be getting over 00,000 a year and still qualify for the chip program. what does at that do? that takes money from the 6 million kids we can't cover, that we don't have enough money to cover. it's crazy.

Orrin Hatch

4:28:07 to 4:28:29( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: and yet, that's what this bill does. and we have that resolved. we did, senator toyed agree to go to 300%, which is over 3,000 for a family of four. but to go to 400% of pover, admittedly, new york city is a tough place to live in. but the rural areas are not

Orrin Hatch

4:28:30 to 4:28:50( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: really different from other states ath in the state of new york. but that shouldn't be the problem of everybody in the country. there ought to be me way of resolving that problem in new york. this amendment includes the bipartisan -- quote -- "crowd-out" policy addressing

Orrin Hatch

4:28:51 to 4:29:11( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: the issue that families give up private coverage in order to enroll in a public program which would require a numbe studies on crowd-out, improves data collection on the coverage of low-income children, require all states to adopt -- owd-out and would provide the secretary with the authority to hold states accountable for

Orrin Hatch

4:29:12 to 4:29:32( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: covering low-income children. with regard to crowd-out, we did our best to stop crowd-out, to not get people to just drop their health insurance that they could afford so their kids could qualify under the chip bill. and that's one of the problems with going to these higher percentages of the federal

Orrin Hatch

4:29:33 to 4:29:53( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: poverty level, because naturally if parents find that they're going to be better off crowding out of the insurance sysm because they qualify, because they're earning more money as a family, because we've gone up so high, then they're going to crowd out. and that's what in bill really does.

Orrin Hatch

4:29:54 to 4:30:15( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: and it's a shame because it just means less money for those who are truly needy, for those for whom this bill was meant. the working poor, the only ones that were formerly left out of the health care system, we could probably do a much better job if

Orrin Hatch

4:30:16 to 4:30:38( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: we kept it at 200% of poverty. senator grassley and i agreed to go interest of bipartisan agreement even though each of probably was a mistake. this amendment doe the controversial legal immigrant pro sition allowing states to have a federal match

Orrin Hatch

4:30:39 to 4:31:01( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: for legal imgrent children and -- imgrent women and children. i brought hispanic leaders from the country back here at least twice a year to help us understand how we can help hispanic people better. they were democrats, independents, and republicans that we brought together. so i have a long reputation of

Orrin Hatch

4:31:02 to 4:31:23( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: trying to help hispanic people. and i've got to say what's happening here, well, what we had worked out is that under our immigration laws families, or sponsoring families that brought other families in this country, they entered an

Orrin Hatch

4:31:24 to 4:31:44( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: agreement to take ce of those family membe for five years. that seemed reasonable. it was the right thing to do. it h worked. the current bill on the floor, the partisan bill wipes that all out. it was a way of working while

Orrin Hatch

4:31:45 to 4:32:05( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: would ultimately be helped by the united states government, but with the hope that they wouldn't need the help once they got on their feet and really earned a living here in this country. but now that's gone. and in the process how many ci

Orrin Hatch

4:32:06 to 4:32:27( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: left out because we've expanded this program in ways that will not take care of them but will take care of those who are not the citizen mr. durbin: will the senator yield for a mr. hatch: sure. mr. durbin: i know he has an amendment pending with providing

Orrin Hatch

4:32:28 to 4:32:48( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: prenatal care to make certain that children are born healthy in the united states. i would like to ask the senate if he is arguing now that we should not provide maternal care for pregnant women who are legal immigrants to the united states with the full knowledge that the lack of that care may mean that the child will be born sick and

Orrin Hatch

4:32:49 to 4:33:09( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: the child will be a sis glent of the united states of the united states. is the senator arguing that we should not provide car pregnant, legal immigrant women? mr. hatch: certainly not. as the senator knows they get the care whether it is through chip or otherwise. i have to tell you that care was supposed to be provided by the sponsong families for five

Orrin Hatch

4:33:10 to 4:33:32( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: years. if that -- if that was the wrong time or it should have been shortened, i would have worked with the distinguished senator to do that. but that was the deal. that was the rule. that was what we worked on. that's what we thought would work. that's what we thought was fair. what i don't want to do is have our own covered while we people that were supposed to be

Orrin Hatch

4:33:33 to 4:33:54( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: covered by their families. mr. durbin: if the senator would yield, if a though not being a citizen, is a legal immigrant mother, is it not true that her child born here will be a legal citizen? mr. hatch: yes, it is true. and they would beovered by chip. mr. durbin: that if we deny care --

Orrin Hatch

4:33:55 to 4:34:15( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: mr. hatch: what about those that were brought in that were not legal citizens -- mr. durbin: i don't think there should be a provision for undocumented -- mr. hatch: if i could take my time back. i'm not against any children getting help. a lot of these children get help through our -- through our system of health care, but i'm

Orrin Hatch

4:34:16 to 4:34:37( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: talking about a chip bill that cannot take care o citizen children, but would be able to after five y care of noncitizen childr and i have no problem with that. because the families who bring them in said they would take care of them for five years or at least we're told they should have to take care of them.

Orrin Hatch

4:34:38 to 4:34:58( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: i might add many states today provide cov immigrant children. many states do that. and i commend them for doing it. but i'm worried about having a bill that can give broad bipartisan support that literally first cover our citize does not do that.

Orrin Hatch

4:34:59 to 4:35:19( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: you know, let's be honest about it. it doesn't. there may be as many million or more that probably will not be covered by this. while, hopefully, getting the family sponsors that have brought other kids in to take care of them and, if not, they're still going to be taken care of by the states and many of them -- i don't know of any pregnant w

Orrin Hatch

4:35:20 to 4:35:42( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: to the emergency room that isn't going to be taken care of. i think that this is a principle that is a very important one. that we should be living within what but what's more important is that we agreed to do ithis way. -- this way in chipra2.

Orrin Hatch

4:35:43 to 4:36:03( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: and it overwhelmingly passed an every democrat voted for it and w we come up with a partisan approach that und and does not d only for immigrant children, but citizen children -- that can't get it because we're spending the money on too many other things that really are outside what the original chip bill was supposed to do.

Orrin Hatch

4:36:04 to 4:36:24( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: so i'm very concerned about it. and, frankly, i think senator grassley is right in bringing this amendment up. but don't let anybody fool you. there isn't a child i don't want to take care of. when we originally came up with the way this -- the way this bill arose, two families from

Orrin Hatch

4:36:25 to 4:36:46( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: provo, utah came to me. both husbands worked, both wives worked. both husbands and wives worked. neither family at that time in 1994 combined income a year. and, yet, they were working poor who wanted to work and not be on the dole, but they couldn't afford insurance for their

Orrin Hatch

4:36:47 to 4:37:07( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: children, who were the only kids -- the working poor kids, they're the only kids left out of the process. i might say illegal immigrant children got better care than these kids. and so we came try to resolve that issue. and even when what we came up with, we were not able to do give -- to do everything that we wanted to do.

Orrin Hatch

4:37:08 to 4:37:29( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: but it worked amazingly well. i don't know anybody who denies that. i don't know anybody who would dispute me on this. i'd like t see them try. the fact of the matter is that -- is that the bill worked well. now over the last two years in a bipartisan way we worked to try and solve some of

Orrin Hatch

4:37:30 to 4:37:51( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: that arose even with the good-working chip bill. and we worked in good faith to do that. and all of add sudden we find a bill brought up here without any input from us that is a partisan bill that makes it even more difficult to cover all of these kids. everybody knows that i believe in health care. i believe we ought to cover everybody.

Orrin Hatch

4:37:52 to 4:38:14( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: i'd like to do it, b want to do it by bankrupting the country or making those who do work have to take care who don't all the time. and i think the way we should do this is -- and i'm a very strong believer in helping those who cannot help themselves, but would if they but i'm not very excited about helping those who can't help -- who can help themselves, but

Orrin Hatch

4:38:15 to 4:38:37( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: woafnlt unfortunately we -- but won't. unfortunately we have a few of those in this country as well. but what galls me is that i know the president wants to work in a but the house just what, we're just going to do what we want to do. and i can understand that te

Orrin Hatch

4:38:38 to 4:39:00( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: of thinking because they were irritated with some in the house, even though we got a very strong vote in the house, it just wasn't enough the veto. and they were irritated with some of those who didn't agree with chipra1 or chipra2, but in the senate we had 69 votes, more

Orrin Hatch

4:39:01 to 4:39:21( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: than we needed to override a veto. the reason we did, it was bipartisan. i don't know how many will vet for chipra2 this time, but eve democrat voted for it when it came up. frankly, even if we didn't get it passed because o because the house sustained the

Orrin Hatch

4:39:22 to 4:39:25( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: veto, it was a tremendous victory and it is the reason

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