[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.