[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 122 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5099-S5100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               HEALTHCARE

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am proud of the advancements we have 
made in healthcare in this country--advancements that have been made, 
including those in the Affordable Care Act.
  At lunch today we had an opportunity to see one of the faces of the 
progress that we have made. Elena Hung brought her daughter to our 
caucus lunch today, and we had a chance to see how a young girl has 
been able to literally survive as a result of the coverage provided 
under our healthcare system.
  Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have found that more 
and more Americans have not only been able to get health insurance but 
they have been able to get quality health insurance that covers their 
essential health benefits and provides them protection against 
discriminatory insurance company practices. We are clearly moving to 
where healthcare is a right, not a privilege.
  I say that fully aware that President Trump's policies have reversed 
some of this progress and that he is trying to reverse even more of 
this progress. The President's policies have sabotaged the individual 
marketplace. As a result, we have seen significant premium increases 
caused by actions taken by the Trump administration in eliminating the 
individual responsibility, not providing the cost-sharing, and making 
it difficult for reinsurance to take place. All those add to the 
instability within the individual marketplace, turning it into more of 
a high-risk pool, increasing premiums, and causing a lot of insurance 
companies to wonder whether they should be in that market at all.
  Recently, the Trump administration went one step further--and I would 
hope all Americans would be very much outraged--and that is the 
protection against preexisting conditions that were included in 
insurance policies prior to the adoption of the Affordable Care Act.
  With regard to preexisting conditions, most of us have some form of 
preexisting condition. You may have high blood pressure, high 
cholesterol, asthma, heart condition, or diabetes. You may have had 
cancer, or you may have had behavioral health issues. All of those are 
preexisting conditions.
  According to a recent study by Health and Human Services, there are 
as many as 133 million Americans, nonelderly, who would qualify for 
preexisting conditions and would be subject to discriminatory actions 
by private insurance companies if the protections under the Affordable 
Care Act were to vanish.
  In my own State of Maryland, that number is about 2.5 million 
Americans, nonelderly, that could be subject to discriminatory 
practices by insurance companies--320,000 of whom are children.
  In June 2018, President Trump's administration broke a longstanding 
tradition and practice in this country and announced that it would not 
defend the court challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In the case of 
Texas v. United States, not only did the Trump administration say that 
they would not intervene to protect the constitutionality of the act 
passed by Congress but that they would submit a brief to the Court 
recommending that protections such as the preexisting conditions 
protections that we have under existing law should be held invalid.
  Well, the Trump administration is going to the courts asking them to 
allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against people in 
this country based upon preexisting conditions. That is why we have 
insurance, to protect you for what you need.
  This is now in the courts, and we will see what will happen with 
Texas v. United States in that court, but it could very well end up in 
the Supreme Court of the United States. It is very clear that as we 
evaluate our judicial appointments, we need to understand the 
importance of the decisions they will be called upon to make.
  We had a circuit court appointment this afternoon that we were 
supposed to vote on, and it has been withdrawn. I am pleased about that 
because that individual would not have been sensitive to the rights of 
the people of our country.
  Now we have a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States, 
Judge Brett Kavanaugh. It is critically

[[Page S5100]]

important that we understand that the Supreme Court of the United 
States may very well be considering the case of Texas v. United States 
and may very well be considering whether preexisting condition 
restrictions that currently exist in law are valid or not.
  I think what we should be doing in our evaluation of President 
Trump's nominee is to determine whether that person will be an 
independent voice on the Supreme Court of the United States, 
representing the people of this country, protecting their 
constitutional rights against the abuses of power, whether that power 
comes from the White House or Capitol Hill or corporate America.
  There are so many areas that we should be concerned about. Today, I 
am going to talk about healthcare.

  Yes, it is very possible that this particular nominee, if confirmed, 
could be a deciding vote on preexisting condition restrictions. Judge 
Kavanaugh dealt with the Affordable Care Act in 2011 on the DC Circuit, 
where there was a challenge to the constitutionality of the Affordable 
Care Act. The Court did not hold it invalid, but Judge Kavanaugh was in 
the dissent on that opinion, raising concerns to us as to whether he 
will side with consumers or special interests as it relates to 
protecting consumers and policyholders in this country against the 
abusive practices of health insurance companies.
  We also, of course, have the concern over women's healthcare issues 
and whether women's right of choice will be protected--Roe v. Wade. 
Judge Kavanaugh has raised questions as to whether he will follow 
precedent. Roe v. Wade is well established, but I have little comfort 
as to whether Judge Kavanaugh, in fact, will follow that precedent. 
These are issues that, as we start the vetting process with our 
interviews and our committee hearings, we really need to drill down on 
and understand where Judge Kavanaugh is on these issues.
  Then I will bring up the high cost of prescription drugs. One of the 
basic protections I would hope our Court would do is to protect 
consumers against powerful special interests. We have to make sure, as 
we vet Judge Kavanaugh, whether he will side with the people of this 
country or with the powerful special interests.
  Now, we have a greater role than just vetting the next Supreme Court 
nominee. There are things that we can do to protect our healthcare 
system. I am talking to many of my colleagues, and many have said, on 
both sides of the aisle, that we want to protect against the 
preexisting condition restrictions in insurance policies. So why don't 
we take action? Let's make sure that we protect the Affordable Care Act 
as it relates to denying insurance companies the ability to deny 
coverage based upon preexisting conditions.
  We could also intervene in the lawsuit that is pending to tell the 
Court that we meant what we said: Insurance companies cannot impose 
preexisting restrictions on coverage.
  Yes, we should deal with the high cost of prescription drugs. There 
are things that we can do. We have had suggestions on both sides of the 
aisle. The President talked about this during his campaign, but he has 
done little to deal with the cost of prescription drugs.
  One of the basic things that can be done--economics 101--is to use 
the collective purchasing power of the government and the larger market 
share to bring down costs. Why are we paying two to three times what 
consumers in industrialized nations in the world are paying for the 
same drugs? Let's organize our markets so that our consumers can get a 
better price. We can pass legislation to make that a reality.
  Then, yes, we should take the necessary time in the process of 
considering President Trump's nominations to the courts, particularly 
for the Supreme Court of the United States. To make sure that we 
recognize that the balance of the Court is at stake, let's make sure 
that we use as our barometer whether Judge Kavanaugh will represent 
your constitutional rights over the powerful, over the abuses of any 
President, Congress, or corporate America. We don't want to be a 
rubberstamp for President Trump, particularly in these times, when we 
have the sensitive Mueller investigation going on, when we have the 
President taking so much power.
  We saw what he is doing with the borders and what he is doing in so 
many ways, violating the basic values of this country. We want to make 
sure there is an independent court that will not be beholden to the 
President of the United States.
  We need to protect the advancements we have made in healthcare, 
including protections against preexisting conditions, women's right to 
choice, and continue with the work on the high costs of healthcare.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________