[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.