[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 202 (Tuesday, December 12, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7954-S7957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHIP and Community Health Centers
Mr. President, let me go to the subject I am here to talk about; that
is, the fact that we are now on day 73 since the Children's Health
Insurance Program and community health center funding has stopped. The
Federal funding stopped on September 30.
I am very concerned. I was reading today that the House leadership
has essentially been saying they don't want to see this continued as
part of a year-end package in 2 weeks. My assumption was, we were going
to see the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health
centers wrapped into the bill in a couple of weeks that would set the
priorities for our country.
If it is true what was reported, there ought to be an alarm going out
all across the country. The Children's Health Insurance Program--which
we call MIChild in Michigan--covers 9 million children across the
country. These are working families. These are working families who
need some help to have insurance for their children--children who now
go to the doctor instead of an emergency room. This actually saves
dollars by children being able to have a regular relationship with a
doctor, parents knowing they can take their children to the doctor
instead of having to figure out how to address their concerns in the
middle of the night in the emergency room.
So 9 million children right now are at risk because of inaction. It
has been 73 days. I am very concerned that as soon as February, the
MIChild Program will be running out of funding. In fact, this month,
there are three States that are losing funding for the Children's
Health Insurance Program: Arizona, with over 88,000 children who
receive health insurance and are able to go to the doctor. Their moms
and dads know that at least the kids are going to be able to see the
doctor for their juvenile diabetes, their asthma, or simple things like
a cold, flu, or serious things like cancer.
New Hampshire has 17,000--almost 18,000 children. In Oregon, 140,000
children right now receive their healthcare through the Children's
Health Insurance Program. Starting in January, if there is no action,
we will see millions of children losing their health insurance:
California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Each month, we will see
funding that will be eliminated. In total, we are talking about 9
million children.
This has been a bipartisan program. This came out of committee on a
bipartisan vote in September with Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden. I
was pleased to join them in putting together a 5-year extension. It
came out of committee with strong bipartisan support and only one
``no'' vote.
I assumed it was going to be brought up on the floor before September
30 and passed. Yet 73 days later, children and families across the
country are still waiting.
The other piece of healthcare that has been so critical to families--
to children and individuals across our country--is funding for
community health centers, which, by the way, also has strong bipartisan
support. Senator Roy Blunt and I have put in legislation with
Republicans and Democrats cosponsoring it. We have a letter that 70
different Members signed to our leadership saying they support
extending community health center funding. Yet, again, there has been
no action for 73 days.
Our assumption had been that the Children's Health Insurance Program
would come to the floor, we would amend it to add health centers, and
get
[[Page S7955]]
it done before September 30. It has not happened. The community health
centers serve 25 million patients in every part of our country. So
300,000 veterans rely on community health centers, and 7.5 million
children, as well, rely on community health centers. I should add, we
have 260 sites all across Michigan serving 681,000 people. Again,
almost 13,000 Michigan veterans use our community health centers.
We have bipartisan support to continue funding, but the funding ended
September 30. So what happens? Well, starting in January, Michigan's
community health centers will lose $12.8 million in funding because
about 70 percent of the funding for health centers comes through the
legislation we are now offering with bipartisan support. About 20,000
people will lose their healthcare. By June, Michigan's health centers
will lose over $80 million in funding, and almost 100,000 patients will
lose healthcare. This is critically important as well. We are talking
about 25 million people across the country.
Community health centers and the Children's Health Insurance Program
is something we have come together on, on a bipartisan basis, over the
years. There has to be a sense of urgency about this. We cannot leave
at Christmas--we can't leave for the holidays without having a
guarantee that children and families and individuals across our country
will be able to have the health insurance and the medical care they
have been receiving.
The best Christmas present--the best New Year's present we could give
families--is to guarantee that moms and dads can take their kids to the
doctor, if we have the Children's Health Insurance Program, and that
people young and old across the country who use community health
centers will still know they can count on them.
Let me close by just sharing a story from John, who is one of the
more than 12,700 veterans served by Michigan's community health
centers.
John had always been healthy. He didn't have health insurance. In
fact, the last time he had seen a doctor was when he was still in the
service back in 1975.
Last summer, he started having symptoms. He tried to ignore them, but
his wife knew something was wrong. They tried to get help but faced
long waits for him to be seen. That is when they contacted the Traverse
Health Clinic.
The clinic was able to get John in right away, and his wife's fears
were confirmed. He was diagnosed with congestive heart failure.
The team at Traverse Health Clinic helped get John admitted to the
hospital, coordinated services with the cardiologist, and got him
signed up for health coverage. That is what community health centers
do--connect people with the services they need to be treated or provide
preventive care so that they can stay healthy.
In John's case, he says it changed his life. John said this:
There are a lot of people like me who were doing fine and
now they're not. There are a lot of people like me who need a
place like Traverse Health Clinic. I consider myself
extremely fortunate. Now I have a doctor. I'm so thankful.
On behalf of the 25 million people who use community health centers
and the 9 million children covered by the Children's Health Insurance
Program, it is time that we act. They have been waiting for 73 days. We
could do this in a few hours, in a day, on the Senate floor. I urge us
to get this done.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I rise today in continued support of Steve
Grasz's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Some of those who have been attacking Mr. Grasz have claimed that he
doesn't have the character or the temperament to treat litigants fairly
and decide cases based on the facts and the law.
In evaluating those claims, I hope my colleagues in this body will
listen to the hundreds of Nebraskans of all partisan and ideological
stripes who have stood up in support of Steve's nomination. I urge
everyone to listen to what those Nebraskans have to say specifically
about his character and about his temperament.
One Nebraskan wrote to Mrs. Fischer, the senior Senator from
Nebraska, and to me, as well as to the Judiciary Committee:
I was the plaintiff in a First Amendment defamation and
political speech action against the Nebraska Republican
Party. . . . Mr. Grasz represented the Nebraska Republican
Party. I was not successful in my lawsuit. However, I did
have the opportunity to meet and interact with Mr. Grasz
during the case and found him to be . . . a consummate
professional. Based on my observations I believe his judicial
temperament would be of the highest quality and all parties
would be given equal opportunity. . . . I can think of no one
better qualified or suited to be appointed to this
prestigious judgeship than Steven Grasz.
Another Nebraskan wrote to us:
I know Steve personally having served as opposing counsel
to him on cases. . . . Steve was a formidable opponent. . . .
While he zealously advocated for his clients, he did so in a
level-headed and even-keeled manner.
Yet another Nebraskan writes:
I . . . have . . . represented clients in cases where Mr.
Grasz was opposing counsel. In all circumstances he
demonstrates the utmost professionalism. . . . I am a
registered Democrat and, quite frankly, am not a strong
supporter of the current administration. However, as a
practicing attorney dealing with complex litigation and
appearing regularly in the federal courts of appeals, I want
intelligent, thoughtful individuals appointed to the Bench
who will administer the law and apply existing precedent. I
have no doubt that Mr. Grasz can do that very effectively.
Also, consider the words of this Nebraskan:
Steve does not allow his role as an advocate to cloud his
analyses and judgment. He reviews statutes, regulations, rule
and common law with a clear eye, and he applies these
authorities to the facts presented to him. . . . [H]is
respect for precedent and his high regard for the works of
other branches of government show his dedication to following
the Constitution and our nation's laws as they are written.
Steve Grasz is a Nebraskan through and through. As I said here on the
floor yesterday, Steve bleeds Husker red, but he is a guy who is well
suited to take on the black robes of the judge, for he understands that
we do not have blue or red partisan jerseys on our article III branch
of government, the independent judiciary.
Steve is well suited to serve as a judge on the Eighth Circuit. I
think that not just Nebraskans but folks across all the States
represented in the Eighth Circuit are going to find a man of
unbelievable temperament.
The ABA is a liberal advocacy organization. That is absolutely their
right. What is not OK is for the ABA to masquerade as a neutral arbiter
of professional qualifications.
Attacks on Steve's character have come out of this process because
the two reviewers from the ABA cite again and again and again anonymous
sources of his supposed rudeness. We have seen none of that in
Nebraska. Again, hundreds of people have written to the senior Senator
and to me and now to the Judiciary Committee in support of the
President's decision to nominate Steve Grasz to the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the specific letters I have just cited.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Moats Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O.,
Elkhorn, NE, September 21, 2017.
Re Nomination of Steven Grasz for 8th Circuit Appellate
Judgeship.
Chairman Chuck Grassley,
Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein,
Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Grassley and Feinstein: Steven Grasz has been
nominated as an appellate judge for the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I write this letter of
recommendation in support of his nomination and confirmation.
I am a lifelong member of the Democratic party.
I have known Mr. Grasz since 2009 when we were involved in
common litigation to the Nebraska Supreme Court (Moats v.
Republican Party of Nebraska, 281 Neb. 411, 796 N.W.2d 584
(2011)) which was subsequently appealed to the United States
Supreme Court where certiorari was denied. I was the
plaintiff in a First Amendment defamation and political
speech action against the Nebraska Republican Party arising
out of a non-partisan office I sought in the Nebraska
Unicameral in the fall of 2008. Mr. Grasz represented the
Nebraska Republican Party.
I was not successful in my lawsuit. However I did have the
opportunity to meet and interact with Mr. Grasz during the
case and found him to be polite and courteous and extremely
well informed and educated on this complicated subject
matter. At no time did
[[Page S7956]]
he ever show any inappropriate actions or behavior towards me
or my family and was a consummate professional. Based on my
observations I believe his judicial temperament would be of
the highest quality and all parties would be given equal
opportunity.
In life there is always another chapter to each of our
collective stories. I am pleased to inform you, that my
dealings with Mr. Grasz and his family extended beyond the
case we were involved in. Our children were involved in
competitive dance for the pest four years and my wife and our
children had the opportunity to interact with Mr. Grasz and
his family in a social setting. My observations and
interactions with him were always positive and productive
notwithstanding him haying been on opposite side of a very
emotional case. He is a terrific husband and father, a
brilliant legal scholar and oaring human being. I can think
of no one better qualified or suited to be appointed to this
prestigious judgeship than Steven Grasz.
Sincerely,
Rex J. Moats.
____
September 18, 2017.
Re Nomination of L. Steven Grasz.
Chairman Chuck Grassley,
Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein,
Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: I write in
support of the nomination of Steve Grasz to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I know Steve
personally having served as opposing counsel to him on cases.
I also know him by reputation in the Omaha legal community
through his work on significant litigation.
Steve was a formidable opponent. He was willing to go the
extra step to advance his clients' interests. While he
zealously advocated for his clients, he did so in a level-
headed and even-keeled manner. I've never seen him raise his
voice. He listens and asks good questions. His temperament is
well suited for the position to which he has been nominated.
There is no question Steve has the intellect to do the
important work of a federal appellate court judge. He has
published multiple law review articles which have contributed
to the practice of law. Steve's pleadings and briefs are
clear, thoughtful, and well written. He did not attempt to
advance frivolous claims. In my experience with him, he works
diligently and was always well prepared.
Unfortunately, with some lawyers, every conversation has to
be memorialized in a letter out of fear that the lawyer will
reverse course. That was not the case with Steve. His word
was good.
Steve has both represented the government and represented
individuals in claims against the government. He has valuable
litigation experience in cases involving Section 1983 claims
and qualified immunity which make up a significant portion of
the cases handled by federal appellate judges. His experience
will serve him well while sitting on the other side of the
bench.
I believe Steve is committed to upholding the laws and
Constitution of the United States, and will do so as a member
of the Eighth Circuit. I urge the Judiciary Committee to
advance his nomination.
Respectfully Submitted,
Timothy J. Thalken.
____
September 9, 2017.
Re Confirmation Hearing for L. Steven Grasz for Judge of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Chairman Chuck Grassley,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley and Senator Feinstein: I am writing
to express my support for Steven (Steve) Grasz to be
confirmed as judge for the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit. I have been a lawyer for twenty-one
years, and had the good fortune to spend five of those years
working with Steve on a variety of matters spanning from
local litigation to federal regulatory and administrative
actions. While Steve ably represented clients in state and
federal venues, I observed firsthand the qualities that would
make him an outstanding federal appellate court judge.
Steve possesses admirable analytical skills an ability to
grasp complex and often highly abstract concepts in a manner
that allows to communicate these concepts in a plain,
understandable way. From a practical perspective, this is
very important skill for any judge to possess because it is
the vanishingly rare lawsuit in which the underlying dispute
is so very narrow that the judge's ruling is limited only to
the parties before the Court. Instead, judges' resolutions of
disputes serve as guidelines for many other lawyers and their
respective clients to follow in future transactions. This is
especially true for Circuit-level opinions, which are widely
disseminated. Well-reasoned, cogent judicial opinions are an
invaluable resource for lawyers to turn to when advising
Clients who may or may not be overly familiar with our
justice system. Lawyers rely upon judicial opinions when
advising clients about the relative risks and benefits of a
particular course of action. Steve's ability to communicate
difficult, often abstract concepts in plain terms will
contribute greatly to this very important function of our
legal system.
Importantly, Steve does not allow his role as advocate to
cloud his analyses and judgment. He reviews statues,
regulations rule and common law with a clear eye, and applies
these authorities to the facts presented to him. Steve
advises clients and develops strategies based upon existing
authorities, showing his respect for our system of governance
and for each branch's contribution to it. His ability and
willingness to evaluate particular facts in light of various
authorities is a critical skill for judges to possess, and
shows his deep respect, for precedential law. Similarly, his
respect for precedent and his regard for the works of other
branches of government show his dedication to following the
Constitution and our nation's laws as they are written. This
quality is critically important for a judge to have following
the Constitution and our nation's laws as they are written is
part and parcel of the development and application of clear,
lasting legal principles upon which all members of the
public--not only lawyers and their clients--may rely in
conducting the transactions of everyday life.
Finally, Steve has a temperament very well-suited in the
bench. He is levelheaded and unfailingly courteous to
opposing lawyers their respective clients, and to judges. I
have seen Steve involved in challenging, stressful
situations, yet his demeanor consistently remains composed
and polite. He does not engage in personal criticism of
judges, fellow lawyers, or litigants, nor does he allow the
behavior of others to be anything other than courteous and
professional. While certainly not every lawyer possesses this
ability, it is a vital one for judges to have because our
system of justice depends upon judges' ability to maintain
decorum even when attorneys or litigants are not doing so.
Through trying situations, Steve has consistently shown his
ability and willingness to treat all attorneys and parties
with respect, and he has conducted himself in the
professional, composed manner that lawyers hope to see in
judges at every level. His treatment of others ultimately
honors the truth-seeking function our system of justice is
intended to fulfill since he does not engage in
obstructionist tactics or gamesmanship intended to drive up
litigation costs or designed to deny other parties access to
information bearing upon matter in dispute. As a lawyer,
Steve sets an excellent example of someone working toward
fair and just resolutions of disputes. This attribute would
serve him very well as a judge and would directly benefit all
persons impacted by the court's decisions.
Thank you for taking the time to review my letter of
support for Steve. If you have any questions or concerns
about my standpoint regarding his ample qualifications for
being confirmed as judge for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Tim Dolan.
____
Omaha, NE,
September 20, 2017.
Re Nomination of Steve Grasz, United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
U.S. Senator,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: I am writing to indicate my strong
support for President Trump's nomination of Steve Grasz to
the United State Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Mr. Grasz was employed by the Kutak Rock law firm when I
began working there right after law school. Mr. Grasz is very
intelligent and has the legal background and skill to be an
asset to the Court of Appeals. I have maintained my
acquaintance with Mr. Grasz and have also represented clients
in cases where Mr. Grasz was opposing counsel. In all
circumstances he demonstrates the utmost professionalism.
I have no hesitation in stating that litigants could
present to him the most complex legal issues and he would be
able to analyze them intelligently and coherently. I have
also had the opportunity to read materials he has written.
Opinions by him would be a credit to the judiciary.
Although I personally believe that an individual's personal
political, social, or religious practices and beliefs are
irrelevant to qualifications for a judicial position, I
realize that such considerations have been injected into
judicial confirmation proceedings over the past few years. I
expect that certain factions may attempt to raise such issues
regarding Mr. Grasz who has actively served both his
government and his community.
I am a registered Democrat and, quite frankly, am not a
strong supporter of the current administration. However, as a
practicing attorney dealing with complex litigation and
appearing regularly in the federal courts of appeals, I want
intelligent, thoughtful individuals appointed to the Bench
who will administer the law and apply existing precedent. I
have no doubt Mr. Grasz can do that very effectively.
I appreciate your consideration of my recommendation. If
there is any interest in further information, please feel
free to have your staff contact me.
Sincerely,
Diana J. Vogt,
For the Firm.
[[Page S7957]]
Mr. SASSE. I urge all of my colleagues to listen to all of the
Nebraskans, again, of all backgrounds and across the partisan spectrum,
as they have urged us to confirm Mr. Grasz today.
Thank you.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding rule XXII that at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, there
be 30 minutes of postcloture time remaining on the Grasz nomination,
equally divided between the leaders or their designees, and that
following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the
confirmation of the Grasz nomination and that, if confirmed, the motion
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.