[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6948-S6950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Healthcare
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Children's Health
Insurance Program. We all know that healthcare is the most important
thing in any person's life and in their family's life, and there is
probably no healthcare issue that is more intense than a parents'
concern about the health of their children. I think all of the offices
in this building have heard from parents about the health of their kids
over the course of the number of months we have been debating what to
do about the Affordable Care Act.
I rise today to talk about another critical program, which I hope we
will act in a bipartisan way to reauthorize: the Children's Health
Program, or CHIP. CHIP builds on Medicaid, and it gives families who
earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid an insurance option for their
kids. In talking to families who avail themselves of this option--in
Virginia, years ago we didn't do a very good job of enrolling kids in
CHIP, and we have become an awful lot better at it. It is interesting
to hear the way parents talk about it. They will often talk about how
important CHIP is to them when their child is sick or when their child
is injured, but what is interesting to me is how important it is to
them when their child is perfectly fine--not sick, not injured. But if
you are a parent, you are going to have anxiety when you go to bed
every night if your child doesn't have insurance or coverage: What if
something happens tomorrow? This is a program that provides not just
healthcare but peace of mind for parents and their kids.
Between Virginia's separate CHIP program and the Family Access to
Medical Insurance Security and CHIP-funded Medicaid, the State provides
coverage to nearly 193,000 children. CHIP alone--the specific CHIP
program--covers 66,000 kids in Virginia and also pregnant moms; 1,100
pregnant moms are covered right now. The coverage is important. It
includes doctor visits, hospital care, prescription medicines,
eyeglasses--which are critical to being successful in school--
immunizations, and checkups for kids up to age
[[Page S6949]]
19, with minimal cost sharing and without premiums.
In Virginia, since 2009, when I was Governor, we extended CHIP to
also allow dental coverage. That has been really important to children
and their families. The program is one of the success stories in this
body because it has been strongly bipartisan in support since its
creation in 1997. But as the President knows, this program expired on
September 30. Despite bipartisan work on the Finance Committee, we
still have not seen a reauthorization bill come to the Senate floor.
The uncertainty surrounding CHIP has already started to have an
influence on my constituents and the constituents of every Member of
this body. According to our Virginia Department of Medical Assistance
Services, the State will be forced to send letters on December 1, 2017,
notifying families that there is an impending loss of coverage. If
there is not a reauthorization bill done by that time, imagine the
anxiety of all these families in the weeks before Christmas getting a
letter in the mailbox saying that this CHIP program, which covers
66,000 kids and 1,100 pregnant women, is about to expire. This will, at
a minimum, cause a great deal of anxiety and confusion, even if we then
come back and fix it. But if we don't fix it, obviously, the anxiety
and confusion becomes much more catastrophic for the families.
After we send out letters on December 1 telling families that they
have to prepare for the elimination of this program, enrollment will
freeze on January 1. No new children can come into the program. By the
end of January--and this differs in different States--Virginia will
have insufficient funds to continue the program. There are some States
that are already experiencing running out of the funds they have for
the program. Virginia has a little cushion, but that will take us only
through the end of January if we don't reauthorize.
Here is something that makes matters worse in Virginia, and I think
it is the case in most States. Our legislature is a part-time
legislature. The legislature is not in session. The legislature does
not come back in until January, and that will make it really difficult.
We can't find time for solutions before then because the legislature is
not in session. When the legislature comes back, that would be a lot to
face in 2 weeks, which is when this program is going to expire.
Needless to say, the kids who use CHIP in Virginia are in all parts
of the State. Just to give you some examples, the Hampton Roads area,
the second largest metropolitan area in the State--Virginia Beach,
Norfolk, and the Northern Neck--has over 5,000 kids who rely on CHIP.
In far southwest Virginia, where my wife's family is from--Appalachia--
nearly 6,000 kids rely on CHIP. It is a high poverty area, and in those
parts of the State where poverty is high, CHIP is used in a very
important way by families. The Shenandoah Valley, an agricultural area
in western Virginia, has about 6,400 kids who rely on CHIP. There is
not a county, there is not a city in Virginia where there isn't a child
and a pregnant woman who rely on this program.
On September 18--now to the good part of my talk, the positive words
from my colleagues--Senators Hatch and Wyden introduced the bipartisan
Keeping Kids' Insurance Dependable and Secure Act, which is a
bipartisan compromise in the best traditions of this body, to extend
the CHIP program for 5 years to give States sufficient time to plan
their budgets and make sure that families don't face the uncertainty
related to getting notice letters saying that the program may
terminate.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to strongly support bringing this
bill to the floor and providing certainty to the families and children
who rely on CHIP. The possibility of all these families getting letters
on December 1 saying that the program is possibly going to expire is
just a needless uncertainty, and we should try to avoid that if we can,
not just in Virginia but in every State.
My senior Senator, Mr. Warner, is also a strong supporter of the
program. I will give him some props. When he was Governor of Virginia--
he preceded me as Governor--he was the one who focused on doing a
better job of enrolling kids in the program. I give him credit for
that, and I will take credit for my teamwork and for adding dental
coverage to CHIP. But he was a great leader. He and I have together
sent a letter to the Senate leader, Mr. McConnell, asking if he would
bring a bipartisan bill to the floor quickly on behalf of Virginia's
children.
This bill was bipartisan in its introduction, and with the number of
cosponsors and the historic, bipartisan nature of support for this
program, if we can get a floor vote on this bill, I think we can pass
it today and send it to the House and do so in a way that we would
avoid the need to start sending out termination letters to families,
needlessly increasing their anxiety.
I will conclude by saying that if we can bring this to the floor, I
think we can get it passed. It is an urgent issue for children across
the country--and even more than children in some ways. The children
aren't wandering around every day thinking about their healthcare, but
their parents are wondering every day, worrying desperately about their
healthcare. This would be a bill that would help both children and
parents.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this week we are moving to confirm four
Federal circuit judges. Because of that, it is a good week to talk
about the critical role the judiciary plays and actually about the
unique power our Constitution gave the courts to do the job they are
supposed to do.
They are to provide a check and balance on the other two coequal
branches of government--the executive branch and the legislative
branch. Most importantly, the Federal judiciary provides Americans with
an avenue with which to seek the rule of law, an avenue to know that
one is going to be impacted by what the law says and what the
Constitution says. It is a fundamental right of how we conduct
ourselves, how we seek justice, how people should be able to make
decisions about their families and about their businesses and about
their financial futures as well as their personal futures.
That is why judges who believe in the rule of law and what the law
says and what the Constitution says are so important and why it is
important to have qualified and well-grounded judges--not just people
who are really good lawyers but people who have an appreciation for how
important it is that others can absolutely rely on the law and the
Constitution. Those can be changed. There is a way to change them, but
the way to change them is seldom on the Federal bench.
According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as of this
morning, there are 148 vacancies on the Federal judiciary. That
includes two vacancies on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. It
includes the circuit judges of whose nominations we have not yet fully
complied and approved this week, but there are 148 vacancies--jobs that
are to be filled for as long as the people are able to serve. That is
why healthy judges, younger judges, and judges who are well grounded
can have such an impact for so long. The first major judicial
accomplishment this year, in terms of the nominating process, was Judge
Gorsuch, who 29 years from now will be younger than three of the judges
with whom he is currently serving. These are decisions that will last
well beyond a Presidency and well beyond the tenure of the Senators who
will vote to confirm, and we have a chance to do that.
Of these judicial circuits, the Eighth Circuit is one my State of
Missouri is in. As a matter of fact, the most recent data shows that
while there are a handful of States in that circuit, one-third of all
the cases that had been filed in the Eighth Circuit from September 2015
to September 2016 had come from our State, and I imagine that number
will be about the same again this year. Reshaping the judiciary,
generally, as well as what happens in the Eighth Circuit are important.
At the start of President Trump's term, 12 percent of all of the
positions
[[Page S6950]]
in the Federal judiciary were vacant. The Congressional Research
Service found that not since President Clinton took office has a
President had the constitutional obligation to fill more judicial
vacancies at the start of his term than President Trump. I, certainly,
believe he made the right choice when he selected Judge Gorsuch to
serve on the Court, and I have been enthusiastic about the other judges
whom he has nominated, including the four we have had a chance to talk
about and will continue to have a chance to talk about this week.
I think President Trump will continue to nominate judges who will,
first of all, pay attention to the Constitution and what it says, who
will apply the rule of law, and will not legislate from the bench.
Those three hallmarks of how this Senate should define, and how this
President has so far defined, what a judge is supposed to do not only
can happen but can happen at this moment for--or at least as of January
20--12 percent of the judicial positions, and that number will continue
to grow as judges, for whatever reason, leave the bench as judges
decide to take early retirement. If at the end of the 4 years of this
administration we have filled all of the vacancies that will have
occurred, we will have filled more than 12 percent of those lifetime
appointments. So it is really important that the Senate act to confirm
these nominees and fill as many vacancies as are there to be filled.
Last month, the Federalist reported: ``Democrats are forcing more
cloture votes than any early Presidency and demanding the full 30 hours
of floor time per nominee that the Senate rules allow.''
Yesterday, at the press stakeout that we had outside of this room, I
said that the Senate was designed to protect the rights of the
minority, and that is a good thing. Just the fact that it would take 6
years to replace the entire Senate means that the country has to stay
focused on one set of ideas if all of the Senators are going to reflect
that one set of ideas much longer than the 2-year opportunity to change
everybody in the House. Also, the understanding that the Senate
provides that protection for minorities to be heard in a big and
diverse democracy like we have is a good thing. In the points that we
were making yesterday, I also said that the protections for the
minority are always held onto, appreciated, and protected until the
minority decides to abuse those protections. When that happens, the
minority always loses the protection.
What we have had over and over again--47 times this year as compared
to 1 time with President Obama for nonjudicial appointments, 5 times in
the entire first Obama year up until this time in October, I believe,
no times for either President Bush, and 1 time for President Clinton--
is that the minority has taken a judicial nomination or another
nomination and said we are going to insist on 30 hours of debate
because the rules allow for 30 hours of debate. Well, the rules allow
for 30 hours of debate for contentious nominees. The rules allow for 30
hours of debate when there is really going to be a debate. Last week,
we had 30 hours of debate on a judge, but 20 minutes were spent talking
in support of him while zero minutes were spent in opposing him. The 30
hours that could have been used for other purposes was gone.
Frankly, I think that was the reason the 30 hours was demanded--so
the other work of the Senate had to be set aside so we could do the
equally important work of letting the President put people in vacant
positions that needed to be filled. That 30 hours will be changed if
the minority continues to abuse it. It has happened in the entire
history of the Senate, but that is what happens when you abuse these
rules that protect you and give you rights. It will happen again here
if this does not change.
We see the same thing happening this week. We have had lots of time
this week--30 hours of debate, a final vote, and Democrats and
Republicans vote. In fact, regarding the judge I mentioned a minute
ago, 28 Democrats voted for that judge. There were 30 hours of debate,
and not a single critical word was spoken in debate about the judge. A
majority of the Democrats and virtually all of the Republicans voted
for that judge. That is not an acceptable way to stop the Senate from
getting to the other work the Senate needs to do. This is not
basketball without a clock, where they used to effectively play the
delay game. The delay game got abused, and the clock became part of the
system. The clock will run faster here, too, if our colleagues do not
begin to see the importance of what we do here.