26.5 F
Friday, January 27, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsRoskam says his support for CHIP program was reason he opposed H.R....

Roskam says his support for CHIP program was reason he opposed H.R. 3



Image-fullWASHINGTON DC – Congressman Peter Roskam (IL-06) was the only Republican from Illinois to vote against H.R. 3 Thursday night, and his office issued the following explanation: 

Representative Peter Roskam (IL-06) voted today against H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act, due to a provision which would rescind the $7 billion in funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) which was passed earlier this year. Rep. Roskam has been a strong advocate for the CHIP program and does not believe that cutting funding for this critical program is in the best interest of our country or the children that rely on the program.

“When I voted for the Championing Healthy Kids Act last year, which funded CHIP, I did so to ensure our children’s health would not be put in jeopardy. It’s important to preserve the bipartisan progress we made just a few short months ago,” said Representative Roskam. “Negotiating a spending bill of this magnitude is an extensive process, but we need to take caution that our children do not become collateral damage of our efforts to provide funding to other important programs.”

In November of last year, Congress voted to pass a 10-year extension of CHIP. It’s essential that children retain access to healthcare at the most developmentally critical phases of their lives and CHIP allows thousands of children to across the country access to that care.

“I believe we can come together to develop a package that does not jeopardize healthcare for our children,” said Roskam. “We need to put our children first and ensure that their well-being is prioritized above all else.”


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories


  1. whats important war mongering or children?
    Top 10 Most Expensive Military Planes
    F/A-18 Hornet: $94 million
    EA-18G Growler: $102 million
    V-22 Osprey: $118 million
    F-35 Lightning II: $122 million
    nd its allies and were criticized as underpowered and overweight — and therefore easy targets. Making matters worse, from 2007 to 2008, cyberspies infiltrated the 7.5 million lines of computer code that powered the Joint Strike Fighter, raising concerns that enemies could copy the F-35’s design and exploit its weaknesses. In April 2009, Lockheed Martin said it did not believe the program had been compromised.
    The X-48B E-2D Advanced Hawkeye:
    $232 million – planes grounded for up to 2 years
    VH-71 Kestrel: $241 million
    The President’s Brand new helicopter(s) ordered up and approved by congress.
    P-8A Poseidon: $290 million
    C17A Globemaster III: $328 million
    F-22 Raptor: $350 million
    B-2 Spirit: $2.4 billion
    If we can’t afford 9 Billion to provide healthcare for children who need it we don’t deserve to exist as country anymore. All morality thrown out in favor of war.

  2. Interesting. DuPage County is really supportive of CHIP. Tell me again what a “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” Republican is? I’ve never met one in my life. Roskam at least has been pretty conservative, but it’s disgusting that to get reelected there he has to take positions that Mark Kirk took. I pity DuPage “Republicans.”

  3. We can afford $9 billion, but the question is, is that the best way to fund healthcare services for children? One system for millions of children (and their mothers)with diverse needs from all over the country is not the most effective way to ensure basic healthcare. I would argue anyone in favor of such a model without even considering the argument for a more federalist model is doing so for political and ideological reasons such as increased centralized power. I would go so far to say that a centralized system is immoral and is doing more harm than good for these children. Studies show patients on Medicaid have a lower life expectancy than those with no health insurance.

  4. And by the way, our federal government is responsible for protection from foreign threats and should do everything it can to protect us. This is not something better left to the states, unlike health insurance and the endless list of other power grabs the left loves to nationalize.