[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 23 (Thursday, February 9, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S999-S1001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a simple unanimous consent request, 
but before I do, I congratulate the new Senator from Alabama. It is 
unusual that I have someone here taller than I am.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield 
the remainder of my time on the issue before us to the senior Senator 
from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to resume my remarks following 
the swearing in.
  I also offer my congratulations to my new colleague.
  Ann Odenhal, Richmond, VA:

       On New Year's Eve, 2013, we were informed that our youngest 
     son, Patrick, 18 years old, had Type 1 Diabetes (T1D), an 
     incurable disease that comes with a lifetime of insulin 
     dependence, injecting oneself six to eight times a day. The 
     cause is unknown, it is not a lifestyle disease and there is 
     no escaping it once diagnosed. The beta cells on our son's 
     pancreas just stopped working. T1D is extremely dangerous and 
     when not managed can cause blindness, kidney failure, limb 
     loss, other issues and death. We were knocked off our feet, 
     numb, confused and overwhelmed by the danger and the medical 
     requirements to stay within an acceptable insulin range. 
     People with the disease must balance insulin doses with 
     eating and other activities throughout the day and night. 
     They must also measure their blood-glucose level by pricking 
     their fingers for blood six or more times a day. Our son 
     still can have dangerous high or low blood-glucose levels, 
     both of which can be life threatening. He will die without 
     insulin; he could die from too much insulin. In the midst of 
     our fog of sadness and confusion, we remembered the ACA. ``At 
     least the ACA will be there when Patrick is on his own. He 
     will be able to get health insurance regardless of his prior 
     condition,'' was our mantra. One day, Patrick came home and 
     announced, ``Great news! The ACA allows me to stay on your 
     health insurance until I'm 26!''

  I changed my retirement schedule. I can do that. I have watched and 
worried as insulin prices soar. Pat takes two types of insulin, a 
single carton of which costs between $400 and $500 retail. I run the 
math in my head and I worry some more about lack of insurance. We are 
covered by my employer's insurance, which pays for most of the drugs, 
equipment and the additional health care he needs, but what would 
happen if we found ourselves without insurance? What if I lose my job? 
Public service runs deep in our family. My husband is a retired teacher 
and our older son is a policeman. It appears Pat may be moving toward 
nonprofit or public service work as well. Will he have health 
insurance? Will he have it without the ACA? I can promise anyone 
reading this that you know someone whose life has been or will be 
positively impacted by the ACA. There are 20 million people like our 
son, Patrick. Don't allow a repeal of the ACA. Fix the problems, work 
the issues, but don't play politics with our son's life.
  Linda Crist, Lynchburg, VA:

       I had employer provided health care for 38 years. In 2013 I 
     lost my eyesight to macular degeneration and could no longer 
     work. An insurance company covered me for $695 a month (just 
     me). With the lost income, I could no longer afford 
     insurance. I contacted them and was told there was a new plan 
     I could apply for. I applied and was denied due to a ``pre-
     existing condition.'' You see, in 1984--

  Decades before--

       I was diagnosed with kidney disease. I was treated and, 
     according to my physician, cured. The insurance company 
     didn't care. I applied for insurance under ACA and got a 
     silver plan that cost me $345 a month. I was given a tax 
     credit of $500 monthly and I chose to only use a portion of 
     it. The ACA saved me while I was waiting for Medicare to kick 
     in after receiving Disability. I am sure my premium would 
     have gone up with the ACA but it saved me when I needed it.''

  John Carl Setzer, Winchester, VA:

       My son was born in 2009 with a severe congenital heart 
     defect, called Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS). 
     Basically, he was born with half a heart and required three 
     open-heart surgeries. All of his treatment is considered 
     palliative. In 2009, he had the first two heart surgeries, in 
     addition to another on his diaphragm. He was hospitalized for 
     many weeks. He had insurance under my employer-based 
     coverage. Clearly he had a pre-

[[Page S1000]]

     existing condition. But the other issue is that he almost 
     maxed out his insurance coverage in the first year of life. 
     My understanding is that the ACA eliminated the lifetime caps 
     on insurance coverage, and my wife and I blew a major sigh of 
     relief. Otherwise, we would have had to switch his coverage 
     from my insurance to hers. However, he required another 
     surgery a couple years later and will at some point likely 
     require a heart transplant. Thus, the insurance games would 
     have continued. The ACA eliminated that burden on us, at 
     least until he is an adult. The lifetime cap is not something 
     I hear debated much these days, but it is something to 
     consider for people that have major health complications. 
     Please consider this in future legislation, in addition to 
     coverage for pre-existing conditions.

  I will read one more story and then cede to my colleague. I have so 
many more that I want to read, and this is just 1 or 2 percent of the 
1,654 stories that my office has received in 3 weeks.
  Jennifer Smouse, Midlothian:

       In 2008, my husband started his own construction company 
     after the national home building company he worked for pulled 
     out of Richmond. It was our first time being self-employed 
     and along with adjusting to the idea of not receiving a 
     paychecks on the 15th and 30th of each month, we needed to 
     secure our own healthcare coverage for our family of 5. We 
     submitted our applications for insurance, and were notified a 
     short time later that we would not be offered coverage for 
     our oldest child. He is on the autism spectrum and they were 
     denying him coverage based on his Autism diagnosis. We were 
     shocked--our son was high functioning and was not in need of 
     any special medical services. . . .

  And he still received this denial.

       With the passage of the ACA, we no longer had to worry 
     about being denied coverage due to a medical diagnosis. The 
     system is not without its flaws. Our premiums were extremely 
     high in addition to the high deductible, and it was a stretch 
     to afford the plans even with the credits available to us. 
     But at least we felt on even ground. That in addition to 
     parenting a child on the autism spectrum, we didn't also have 
     the challenge of securing healthcare coverage for him.

  I have other stories. I may resume my seat, but I will now cede time 
to my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, just like the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, I, too, have had so many Floridians reach out to me. And 
sometime in the next 12 hours--literally in the next 12 hours--we are 
going to vote on the confirmation of the President's nominee for the 
Health and Human Services Secretary. The reason so many people are 
reaching out to us, giving us these personal stories, is that HHS is 
the primary agency for protecting the health of all Americans as an 
agency. You could certainly say we ourselves are primarily responsible 
for our health, or in the case of children, their parents, but when you 
get to an agency of the U.S. Government, it is HHS. It provides health 
coverage through Medicare and Medicaid, the Federal marketplace, and 
the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  I don't want it to be lost on the Senators--you know a little bit 
about Florida and that the percentage of our population that is elderly 
is very high, which translates into 4 million people in my State on 
Medicare for access to health services, and another 3.5 million 
Floridians rely on Medicaid and CHIP for care. So that alone is reason 
to be concerned about this appointment.
  Another nearly 2 million Americans signed up for coverage under 
healthcare.gov--specifically 1.8 million in the State of Florida. That 
is more signing up under the ACA under healthcare.gov than any other 
State. Nine million other Floridians get their health coverage from 
their employers and benefit from some of the ACA protections, such as 
prohibiting insurers from imposing lifetime limits or discriminating 
against people with preexisting conditions. That is another 9 million 
Floridians.
  I am concerned that, if confirmed, Congressman Price would be the 
President's top adviser on these important issues and that he would be 
responsible for upholding President Trump's promise to protect Medicare 
and Medicaid. He would be responsible for upholding President Trump's 
promise that any ACA replacement plan will ``have insurance for 
everyone.'' That is what Candidate Trump said.
  This nominee would be responsible for upholding President Trump's 
promise to keep in place the protections that prevent insurance 
companies from discriminating against individuals with preexisting 
conditions. How many times before the ACA did we have some of our 
constituents tell us they were denied coverage because they had a 
preexisting condition--a rash. Because of the law, no one can be denied 
health insurance now.
  Yet Congressman Price's record and the policies he has supported 
throughout his seven terms in Congress are in direct conflict with 
President Trump's stated goals. In fact, Congressman Price's proposed 
budget in the House cuts nearly $500 billion from Medicare and turns it 
into a voucher program. His plan would give seniors a fixed dollar 
amount--that is the voucher--to buy insurance. Most every economist 
would tell us that means higher monthly premiums. According to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, turning Medicare into a 
voucher program would cause seniors to pay 11 percent more out of their 
pockets. Is that what we want to do to our senior citizens? I don't 
think so. We better think about it.
  I can state that the seniors in my State are petrified when folks 
start messing with their Medicare. One of my constituents said in a 
letter that he wrote to me:

       I hear that Congress is proposing changes to Medicare, 
     which would provide a fixed-dollar amount to purchase medical 
     insurance in the private sector. This monumental shift would 
     put an undue financial burden on fixed income retirees.

  Linda, another constituent from Tampa, wrote to me back in January 
and said:

       I am 68 years old. I am a woman who depends on Social 
     Security and Medicare. My years in the workforce were meant 
     to help cushion my retirement with money I invested from 
     dollars earned, and now my living and my access to health 
     care are threatened. Please, please, do all you can to 
     prevent the loss of these important hard-earned necessities.

  That is what she wrote to me.
  These are just two examples of seniors for whom we need to stand up 
and fight.
  Half of all Medicare beneficiaries have incomes of less than $24,000, 
and they have savings of less than $63,000. I want to say that again 
because that is the condition of many senior citizens. Half of all 
Medicare beneficiaries have incomes of less than $24,000, and half of 
those beneficiaries have savings of less than $63,000. Based on these 
numbers, seniors simply can't afford to pay 11 percent more out of 
their pocketbooks for benefits. Seniors can't take a chance on 
Congressman Price as their HHS Secretary by virtue of what he has 
already said and what his record is in the Congress.
  The Congressman also supports raising the Medicare eligibility age to 
67, forcing seniors to wait for benefits they earned during their 
working years. They have been waiting patiently until they reach age 
65, and now it is being pushed up another 2 years. By increasing the 
age from 65 to 67, Congressman Price is forcing Americans to work 
longer to maintain the health coverage they were promised or forcing 
them to go without insurance.
  Approximately 92 percent of older adults have at least one chronic 
disease, and 77 percent of older adults have at least two chronic 
diseases. Forgoing critical health coverage is not an option for these 
folks, and who is going to stand up and fight for them? I know Senator 
Kaine and I will.
  The Congressman refused to answer my question in the Finance 
Committee on whether he supports the ACA that saved seniors money on 
the cost of their prescription drugs by closing the Medicare D gap that 
we call the doughnut hole. Under the ACA, more prescription drugs were 
paid for by Medicare than had been the case before. What that 
translates into in Florida is seniors saved $1,000 a year, thanks to 
the reduction of the gap in the prescription drug coverage. So why in 
the world would we want to get rid of something that is saving our 
seniors money and is doing exactly what it was intended to do--save 
them money on their prescriptions? We should be looking for ways to 
lower, not raise, the cost of prescription drugs for our senior 
citizens.
  In November of last year, Congressman Price said that he wants to 
overhaul Medicare in the first 6 to 8 months of the Trump 
administration using a fast-track procedure known as reconciliation--
getting around the 60-vote threshold requirement that forces us to have 
bipartisan compromise on the floor of the Senate in legislation. That

[[Page S1001]]

is what he said he wanted to do to force it through on a reconciliation 
bill. Well, I don't think that sounds too good.
  So when you look at all of this, what is the conclusion? The 
Congressman's record and statements made as recently as 3 months ago do 
not match President Trump's promises. Our country deserves an HHS 
Secretary who will uphold those promises, not inflict deep, harmful 
cuts that fundamentally alter the health and financial security 
Medicare provides Americans in their later years.
  For these reasons and others, sometime in this next 11\1/2\ hours 
when we vote, I am going to vote no on this nominee. There is too much 
at stake for our seniors to give this nominee control over these 
programs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.