[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S60-S62]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 28. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the permissible use of health savings accounts to include health
insurance payments and to increase the dollar limitation for
contributions to health savings accounts, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about legislation I
am introducing, the Health Savings Account Expansion Act.
Earlier this month, individuals across this country were once again
faced with fewer choices and increased costs when purchasing health
insurance coverage. Unfortunately, this has been a common occurrence
since the Affordable Care Act's inception, but no State, I can tell
you, is feeling the pinch more than my State of Arizona. Prior to the
flawed rollout of the exchanges in 2013, Arizona had 24 health
insurance companies offering plans in the individual market. Just last
year, residents in Arizona's most populous county Maricopa, where I
live, had only 8 private providers to choose from on the exchange--so
from 24 to 8. Then, if that wasn't bad enough, a few months ago,
individuals all across Arizona received notification that their
insurance plans were no longer being offered, despite the current
administration's hollow promise that they could keep their plans. Now
nearly stripped of their preferred health insurance, residents in 14 of
15 Arizona counties--14 out of 15 counties--logged into the ObamaCare
exchanges to shop for new plans only to discover that instead of the
vibrant marketplace they used to have, they were left with only one
insurer to choose from--so from 24 to 8, to 1 for 14 of Arizona's 15
counties.
So today, when I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle
talking about preserving this wonderful program, I am saying ``What
State of denial do you live in?'' because it is certainly not working
in Arizona. In fact, Pinal County in Arizona briefly held the
unfortunate distinction as the only county in America without a single
insurer willing to offer plans on its exchange, not a single one.
Fortunately, a few months later, one stepped in--just one. Of the plans
that were ultimately made available to Arizonans on the exchange, the
average policy came with a premium hike of nearly 50 percent--an
average of nearly 50 percent. With only one game in town, there was no
shopping around for a better deal.
To help put this in perspective, I would like to compare the average
cost of health care coverage in Arizona to one of the most important
purchases a family will ever make, and that is a home. Throughout most
counties in Arizona, it is now cheaper to put a roof over your family's
head than it is to pay your monthly health insurance premium under
ObamaCare.
Let me say that again. Throughout most counties in Arizona, it is now
cheaper to put a roof over your family's head than it is to pay your
monthly health insurance premium under ObamaCare. This is for Maricopa
County. It is the county in which I live and includes Phoenix.
Homeowners can expect to pay nearly $500 more per month on their health
insurance than they do on their house--$500 more on their health
insurance than they do on their house. This is for the ObamaCare silver
plan premium. This is a family--age 40 with two children. So that's
about the median, and this is the median mortgage payment with respect
to Maricopa County--$500 more.
Let's see the visual for Pima County. Pima County is home to Tucson.
Health care premiums ran an average family $100 more per month than
their mortgage. So in Pima County you are still paying more--$100 more
for your health insurance premium than you are for your mortgage.
Then there is Pinal County, the third largest in Arizona. According
to Arizona's Department of Insurance, the average premium for a silver
plan in Pinal County for the average family of four is over $1700. That
is double the median monthly mortgage payment for the same county. If
you live in Pinal County, AZ, you are paying twice as much for your
health insurance premium.
Keep in mind, we are talking about the premium, to say nothing of
what happens when you go to the hospital or to your doctor and you have
to pay deductibles that are through the roof or co-pays that people
have never experienced before. So when they utilize that coverage they
paid for with their premium, they realize they can't afford that
either.
The situation isn't unique to these counties, the three most populous
counties in Arizona. In all 15 of Arizona's counties, premiums for a
family of 4 dramatically exceed the median monthly mortgage.
It is unacceptable for the Federal Government to force families to
spend upwards of $1,700 per month of their hard-earned income on a
substandard product without options or choices, only to then slap them
with a draconian penalty that they simply can't afford to pay for an
untenable law.
Arizona is, without a doubt, ground zero for the structural failures
that are plaguing insurance markets around the country. Insurance
exchanges are on the verge of collapsing; premiums, deductibles, out-
of-pocket expenses are skyrocketing; and our health care system is in
desperate need of reform. That is why I stand here today to introduce
the Health Savings Account Expansion Act.
The Health Savings Account Expansion Act goes a long way toward
reforming our health care system by putting consumers back in charge of
their own health care. The bill provides individuals and families with
freedom to choose the health care that best meets their needs and
allows them to use their health savings accounts on medical products
and services they value most.
[[Page S61]]
HSAs give consumers greater control over their health care dollars by
providing them with a tax-advantaged savings option for their medical
expenses. This means that the dollars they work so hard to save can
grow over time, tax free, and can be withdrawn tax free for qualified
medical expenses. The HSA Expansion Act strengthens this important tool
by nearly tripling the arbitrarily low contribution limits, thus
allowing for greater tax equity and more universal participation in
HSAs. The bill would then allow individuals to use these expanded HSAs
to help cover the costs of their monthly health insurance premiums.
This is a critically important feature, particularly for middle-class
families whose incomes fall slightly above the qualified threshold for
subsidies but whose health insurance has become unaffordable.
In Arizona, I like to go to the gym in the morning, and I like to get
on an exercise bike. By that bike is kind of a hallway where people
will walk by. Inevitably, in the morning, I will have a lineup of
people who will stand to tell me their ObamaCare horror stories--how
much their premiums have gone up or that they no longer have any
options or that they have had to pay the penalty or that when they go
to utilize their care, they simply can't afford the co-pays and
deductibles. I can tell you, it is sobering to hear these stories again
and again and again.
In addition to further incentivizing prudent savings for health
expenses, this legislation repeals existing restrictions put in place
by ObamaCare on over-the-counter medications while also reducing the
penalty for withdrawing HSA funds for nonqualified purchases. These
reforms will help streamline HSAs while also making them more user-
friendly for consumers.
Arizonans are struggling. They are struggling under the weight of
bureaucracy that is complicating their health care decisions that are
some of the most personal and important decisions individuals make for
themselves and their families. If we hope to lift that burden off the
backs of our constituents, we have to recognize that the key to
reforming our health care system is not more government intervention;
rather, it is allowing individuals the freedom to take back control of
their health care and incentivizing prudent decisionmaking.
As the Senate looks to repeal this disastrous law and replace it with
real reforms that would successfully lower health care costs and
improve choice, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure
that this legislation is included in those negotiations.
______
By Mr. SCHUMER (for Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Cornyn, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Franken, Mr. Tillis, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Flake)):
S. 30. A bill to extend the civil statute of limitations for victims
of Federal sex offenses; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Extending
Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act, a bill to extend the time for minors
to seek justice against their perpetrators.
Sex crimes committed against children tragically remain a vile and
dangerous reality in communities across this country.
Just this past summer, as the world tuned into the 2016 Olympic Games
in Rio de Janeiro, the Indianapolis Star reported that USA Gymnastics
had failed to report to law enforcement allegations of child sexual
abuse committed by some of its coaches.
Due to these purported failures, athletes as young as 7 years old
were reported to have been abused for years, without any action taken
to prevent the abuse.
Since the initial Indianapolis Star report, more and more young
gymnasts have come forward about their abuse.
All over the world, and all over this country, sex abuse victims are
bravely coming forward to tell their stories of abuse when they were
children.
In my home state of California, numerous victims have contacted my
office. They have shared the amount of courage and strength it took to
finally come forward with their experiences.
These stories represent an untold amount of pain and suffering. They
also represent how difficult it is to come forward until later, in
adulthood.
It has been estimated that 90 percent of child sex crime victims
never go to the authorities concerning their abuse.
To put this into context, studies indicate that at least one in four
girls and about one in five boys is sexually abused. 90 percent of
those victims never go to the authorities.
A great number of victims don't ever disclose their abuse. If they
do, they do not come forward until many years later, after reaching
adulthood.
This bill extends the civil statute of limitations in two ways for
minor victims of Federal sex crimes to seek justice against their
perpetrators.
For one, the bill extends the statute of limitations for minor
victims until the age of 28, from age 21, for injuries stemming from
sex crimes such as sexual abuse and child pornography.
Second, for the two laws that provide civil remedies for sex abuse
and sex trafficking victims, the bill clarifies that the statute of
limitations does not begin to run until after the victim actually
discovers the injury or the violation.
This is significant because victims of sex crimes are sometimes
abused even before they can remember the abuse, some as young as 3
years old. Some victims are unable to connect their abuse to the
injurious symptoms they exhibit throughout their lives.
The bill therefore clarifies that the limitations period begins when
the victim first discovers the injury or the violation.
Through these provisions, the bill ensures that minor victims have an
extended period to seek justice against their perpetrators after
discovering their injury or violation.
I want to thank Senator Cornyn again for working so closely with me
on this issue. I also want to thank the cosponsors to this bill:
Senators Klobuchar, Inhofe, Franken, Flake, Gillibrand, Tillis, and
Markey.
I also want to acknowledge the support for this bill from the
National Center for Victims of Crime, Rape Abuse & Incest National
Network, the National Children's Advocacy Center, SGS for Healing,
National Crime Victim Law Institute, National Association of VOCA
Assistance Administrators, National Network to End Domestic Violence,
Stop the Silence, PROTECT, the National Association to Protect
Children, Rights4Girls, End Rape on Campus, National Children's
Alliance, Lauren's Kids, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault,
and Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Wyden, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Murray, and Ms. Harris)):
S. 31. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer
Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill, the West
Coast Ocean Protection Act, which would amend the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act to prohibit the Department of the Interior from issuing
a lease for offshore oil or gas in federal waters off the coast of
California, Oregon, or Washington.
I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Wyden, Merkley, Cantwell,
Murray, and Harris in sponsoring this bill, which has been reintroduced
in every Congress since 2010.
The original impetus for this bill was the Deepwater Horizon
catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico in April of 2010, which demonstrated
yet again the risks of offshore oil and gas extraction.
When the Deepwater Horizon well blew out, 11 people died and 17
others were injured. Oil and gas rushed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87
days.
Oil slicks spread across the Gulf of Mexico, tar balls spoiled the
pristine white sand beaches of Florida, wetlands were coated with toxic
sludge, and more than one-third of federal waters in the Gulf were
closed to fishing.
While Deepwater Horizon served as an important reminder, the dangers
of offshore oil and gas were already too well known to Californians. In
1969, the Santa Barbara oil spill leaked up to 100,000 barrels of oil,
and remains the third largest oil spill in the country to this day.
[[Page S62]]
Like the Deepwater Horizon, the Santa Barbara oil spill was caused by
a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated.
It took 11 days to plug the hole with mud and cement, but oil and gas
continued to seep for months.
Using containment technologies still in place today, the cleanup
effort relied on skimmers, detergent, and booms.
There has been no new drilling in waters controlled by the State of
California since then, and there has been no new drilling in Federal
waters off the coast of California since 1981.
Appropriately, the most recent plan from the Department of the
Interior for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing will not allow
new leasing off the Pacific Coast of California, Oregon or Washington
through 2022.
The fact is that those of us on the Pacific coast do not want any
further offshore oil or gas development.
In 2012 California's 19 coastal counties generated $662 billion in
wages and $1.7 trillion in GDP. This accounts for 80 percent of the
economic activity in the State.
California's Ocean economy, including tourism, recreation, and marine
transportation, accounts for over 489,000 jobs.
Unlike other areas of the country, any potential fossil fuel
resources off the coast of California are likely to be found within
only 50 miles of the coast, because of the narrow shelf off the
California coast. This means that any potential drilling, and any
potential spills, would be in direct conflict with the ocean
environment and economy that my state enjoys.
Enacting a permanent ban on offshore drilling would protect our coast
for generations to come.
____________________