[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 168 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6748-S6750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Jeffrey 
Bossert Clark, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                                S. 3021

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to convey my strong support for the 
America's Water Infrastructure Act, which passed Congress earlier 
today.
  With communities throughout Massachusetts and the country working to 
improve the quality of their drinking water, bracing for rising seas 
and more intense storms, and seeking to be more competitive in the 
global economy, this legislative package will provide welcome relief 
and support for critical infrastructure.
  I have long focused on providing resources needed to improve the 
maritime linchpin of my State's economy: Boston Harbor. But this 
economic engine needs direct Federal funding to fire on all cylinders, 
especially as we transition to a new, supersized shipping era.
  Two years ago, the Panama Canal completed an expansion project that 
allows bigger vessels, called post-Panamax ships, to pass through the 
canal. These ships, which are the length of aircraft carriers and can 
carry more than three times as much cargo as their competitors, are too 
large to dock at Boston Harbor today. That is why, in the 2014 Federal 
water resources bill, I fought to authorize $216 million in Federal 
funding for the Boston Harbor improvement project, which will deepen 
the harbor to accommodate those post-Panamax ships. I am pleased that 
my provision dedicating an additional $16 million to this crucial 
project was included in the 2016 water resources bill.
  The Boston Harbor improvement project is projected to double the 
harbor's container volume, protect and grow 7,000 jobs, and generate 
$4.6 billion in economic activity throughout the New England region. It 
is a simple formula: Larger ships mean more cargo, more cargo means 
more commerce, and more commerce means more jobs for Boston and the 
State of Massachusetts.
  I am pleased that the Corps has to date allocated $91 million of 
funding to this critical project thus far, but deepening the harbor 
alone does not ensure that the Port of Boston can accommodate these 
new, gargantuan giants of the seas. We must also deepen the berths, the 
area where the ships dock. That is why I am proud to secure a provision 
in this bill that will allow the port to construct more expansive 
berths, and I am pleased to help secure

[[Page S6749]]

a $42 million Federal grant to expand these berths.
  By no means is Boston Harbor the only coastal gem in Massachusetts. 
In 2020, we will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the voyage of 
the Mayflower and the settlement at Plymouth, but the celebration won't 
be complete if the ships can't get into and out of Plymouth Harbor. 
Regrettably, Plymouth Harbor has filled up with so much sand that ships 
are having trouble navigating--including the centerpiece of the 
celebration, the newly restored Mayflower II. That is why I secured a 
provision in this bill requiring the Corps to dredge this important 
landmark for the 400th anniversary. Just a few months ago, I helped 
secure $14.5 million needed to ensure that this hallmark of American 
history is swiftly deepened.
  With this statutory requirement and funding, Plymouth Harbor will be 
able to host a great birthday party in 2020--one that Americans from 
all corners of the country and people from around the world are going 
to attend. But those Bay Staters living on Cape Cod will most likely 
experience a little traffic on the way to the event because Cape Cod is 
only accessible by two bridges, which span the Cape Cod Canal. If Cape 
Cod is the arm of Massachusetts, then these two bridges are the vital 
arteries delivering the island's lifeblood. The strength of those two 
bridges will determine the strength of the island's economy and health 
and well-being.
  Regrettably, these two 80-year-old bridges, which are owned by the 
Army Corps, are structurally deficient. That is a problem for 
businesses that need an uninterrupted flow of commerce and residents 
who must have a safe means of evacuation in the event of an emergency. 
Imagine if there were an accident at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 
or the equivalent of a Hurricane Maria. These two bridges are the only 
way for many Cape Cod residents to escape to safety.
  I am proud that this bill includes my provision directing the Corps 
to replace these critical evacuation routes, helping preserve the very 
safety of island residents. In a time of emergency, Massachusetts 
residents shouldn't have to think twice about the best way to get their 
families to safety.
  The bill also includes legislation that I have authored to help 
protect consumers from unjust and unreasonable increases in their 
electricity rates. Right now, if the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission has a vacancy--as is currently the case--and deadlocks 2 to 
2 on whether to improve a rate increase, the increase goes forward. To 
make matters worse, the public can't even challenge a decision in this 
circumstance. That is exactly what happened in New England in 2014, 
leading to a $2 billion increase for our region's consumers.
  My legislation would fix that by allowing the public to bring a 
challenge when FERC deadlocks, as they can for every other FERC 
decision. In sports, a tie isn't a loss, and the Fair RATES Act will 
ensure that a tie at FERC won't mean consumers lose with higher 
electricity rates. We must ensure that ratepayers are protected from 
unjust and unreasonable increases in energy prices. The legislation 
will help return the power to the people when it comes to energy prices 
by providing an outlet for consumers to challenge rate increases.
  I thank Senators Murkowski and Cantwell for working with me to move 
this legislation forward, and I thank my great partner in the House of 
Representatives, Congressman Kennedy, for his tireless work to address 
this issue and to protect consumers.
  I am pleased that this legislation contains several other key 
provisions that increase the funding caps for three coastal protection 
programs, allowing the towns of Salisbury, Newbury, and Sandwich to 
implement larger beach-nourishment projects--pumping sand onto the 
beach--to protect their communities; reevaluate the Muddy River 
environmental restoration project to pave the way for reauthorizing 
this crucial project; permit the town of Sandwich to use sand pumped 
from the Federal Cape Cod Canal that otherwise would be dumped in the 
ocean to fortify their town from rising seas; ensure that the Corps 
takes on all the costs to repair the town of Sandwich's beaches, which 
experience severe erosion due to the jetties at the mouth of Cape Cod 
Canal; and require the EPA to appoint liaisons to minority, Tribal, and 
low-income communities so these disenfranchised groups can have better 
access to the resources and tools provided by the Federal Government to 
improve the quality of our Nation's drinking water.
  From fortifying our communities, to dealing with the present-day 
impacts of climate change, to eradicating the environmental 
contaminants of the 20th century from our water infrastructure, this 
legislation package will provide the funding and direction needed to 
help modernize the Commonwealth's water infrastructure.
  I thank Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper for working with 
me on this important legislation. I was proud to vote in favor of 
America's Water Infrastructure Act today. It is something that I think 
is going to work very successfully for the State of Massachusetts. It 
is something that, in my opinion, is the quintessential example of how 
bipartisanship should, in fact, animate the legislative process in this 
body.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  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.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 63

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, just a little bit ago, a few hours ago, 
we had a matter before the Senate relating to S.J. Res. 63. This was a 
resolution of disapproval, which would have worked to disapprove of the 
rule that was issued jointly by the Treasury, Labor, and Health and 
Human Services regarding these short-term, limited duration insurance 
plans.
  I had hoped, actually, to have an opportunity to speak to this prior 
to the vote but was not able to. I want to take just a couple of 
minutes this afternoon to weigh in on this issue from an Alaskan 
perspective. I think there have been some suggestions that with this 
rule in place, those of us who care about protecting those with 
preexisting conditions, somehow or another, are taking these 
protections away.
  I have weighed this carefully. In fairness, I think some of the 
arguments that have been made are, perhaps, not quite as clear cut as 
would be suggested and, perhaps, certainly, in a State like mine, where 
we still have the highest healthcare costs in the country and some of 
the highest costs for coverage in the country.
  I think Members here in the Senate know full well that while I have 
opposed many aspects of the Affordable Care Act, I have supported and 
have strongly supported certain parts of it as well. Again, one of 
those things that I feel very strongly about is the need to ensure that 
we protect those who have preexisting conditions. That is a debate 
that, I think, is ongoing in other places as well. Yet I want to make 
clear that, certainly, my vote this morning is in no way meant to erode 
or undermine where I am coming from when it comes to preexisting 
conditions.
  Back to the situation that we face in Alaska, as I mentioned, we are 
the highest in terms of the cost of care and the highest in terms of 
the cost of coverage, and we are still one of those States that has but 
one insurer on the exchange in Alaska. So our options are, really, 
pretty limited. As I am speaking to individuals about what they are 
hoping for when it comes to coverage, they are looking for additional 
options, but they are looking for affordable options as well.
  It is true--it is absolutely true--that these short-term plans do not 
offer as much or, certainly, may not offer as much in the way of 
coverage as those plans that are offered on the individual exchanges. I 
understand that, but I have had to come down on this issue on the side 
of more choice for consumers and more options being a good thing for 
consumers.
  In Alaska, our population, as one knows, is relatively small. We have 
about 720,000 people in the whole State, but we are talking about 
18,000 people, give or take, who are enrolled on the individual 
exchanges each year. The

[[Page S6750]]

universe here is 18,000 people when we are talking about the exchanges. 
In the year 2016, which was the most recent year about which the IRS 
can give us information, there were about 15,000 people who chose to 
pay the individual mandate penalty rather than to buy the insurance. 
Think about what that means. They are weighing this, and they are 
saying: I would rather pay a fine, pay that penalty. It is not that I 
don't want the insurance, but I cannot afford it.
  So you had 18,000 people on the individual exchanges, and 15,000 
people chose to pay the individual mandate penalty rather than buy the 
insurance. That is because, if an Alaskan does not get the subsidy--and 
a pretty heavy subsidy--the exchange plans just aren't affordable. Even 
though you want to have that coverage--you want that insurance--wanting 
it doesn't necessarily get it to you if you cannot afford it.
  The average premium for plan year 2018--this is according to CMS 
data--is $804 per month. What am I getting from constituents, from 
folks who are writing in to me and calling me? They are telling me what 
they are paying for their plans. For a family of four, the premium was 
over $2,000 a month, with a $7,500 deductible. Think about what that 
actually means for this family, for folks with those kinds of bills, 
who, basically, only have catastrophic coverage, as it is. Again, you 
think about the number of folks on the individual exchanges, and you 
think about those who choose not to pay the fines. You look at the 
numbers of those who receive the subsidies in the State of Alaska, 
which is quite considerable.
  We also have about 10,000 or so Alaskans--this is according to the 
State division of insurance--who have enrolled in healthcare sharing 
ministries. This is yet another option for people out there. A 
significant number has turned to these healthcare sharing ministries, 
and these folks have managed to avoid the penalty in prior years. In 
fairness, some of the ministry plans do not provide much in the way of 
coverage, but it is an indicator of what people feel they have to do in 
the face of just very, very high-cost plans.
  I understand where those who oppose this rule are coming from, and I 
have had good, long conversations about this. I guess I would ask that 
they turn to the realities that we are facing in a State like Alaska 
and just appreciate where people are coming from when you think about 
the 15,000 Alaskans who have chosen not to buy insurance over these 
past few years because it has been too expensive, but they want to have 
something they can afford. These short-term plans, while not ideal--I 
am not suggesting that they are--are an option for them to consider.
  What about the people who don't get subsidies and are paying over 
$50,000 per year before their insurance covers anything? That too is a 
situation in which they are looking for alternatives. So perhaps these 
short-term plans could be a viable option. For the 10,000-some-odd 
people who are currently using a sharing ministry, again, these types 
of plans could be an alternative. For the people who may choose to drop 
off the individual exchanges next year, these plans could be a path 
forward for some having some level of coverage.
  Again, I am not saying that this is perfect, and I am not saying that 
this is ideal. I am saying it offers a limited option in a place in 
which we have very few affordable options to turn to.
  Another reason these shorter term plans are helpful for us and why I 
have heard from so many Alaskans on this is that we are a State in 
which our employment base is very, very seasonal.
  You have a construction industry, but it is not like it is back here. 
Construction is, maybe, 6 months out of the year--longer in some parts 
of the State and shorter in other parts of the State. Yet you have a 
seasonal job.
  Our fishing industry is a great example. If you are working in the 
processing end of fishing, it may be 3 months. If you are working as a 
crabber, it may be 2\1/2\ months. If you are working on a tender up in 
Bristol Bay, it may be a very truncated 2 months.
  Then we have the tourist season. Again, we would like to think that 
we can entice you all to come up year round, but quite honestly, it too 
is very, very seasonal. So we need to have some level of flexibility 
for those many, many Alaskans who move between many of these seasonal 
employment opportunities.
  Under the prior rule, a short-term insurance plan could only last for 
3 months. That is not going to help out, say, those in the fishing or 
in the tourism industry or, again, in so many of these areas in which 
you need longer term coverage but you don't need a full year. So 
flexibility is something that people have been asking for as well. 
Where that sweet spot is, I am not sure. I am telling you that, for us, 
3 months doesn't make it. Maybe 3 years is too long. Maybe we do need 
to look at that. I happen to think that we do, but that is an area that 
is open for review.
  The last point I would make is that I think we have to have some 
trust in both our States as regulators and in individuals, the 
consumers. The rule that we were speaking about this morning really 
does allow States to have a great deal of leeway in regulating at the 
local level. We are seeing that among many of the States. I had a long 
conversation with our director of insurance up in the State of Alaska. 
We talked about where our State might take this and looked again at, 
perhaps, the length of these short-term, limited duration plans and how 
they might be regulated.
  Also, there is the transparency side of this, and this is something 
that concerns me. Some of the things we have heard are that people have 
bought these less expensive plans, these shorter term plans, and then, 
when they need them the most, they realize the coverage doesn't take 
care of them. That is also not a place we want anyone to be. Making 
sure that there is a level of transparency, that there is a level of 
disclosure that is real and not just the tiny boilerplate that nobody 
can understand--it has to be, again, transparent in that way.

  I think this is one of those areas where trusting in our laboratories 
of democracy, which are our States, to tailor plans that fit a State 
well should not be an action that we here in the Senate are so 
unwilling to take.
  As we look to how we do more in this Congress and how we do more to 
help those for whom healthcare--the cost of healthcare and access to 
healthcare--is still their No. 1 issue, still the No. 1 subject of 
discussion, I have come to speak on this particular issue today because 
there are maybe 25,000 people in my State who could see some benefit 
from these types of plans being available and also because I believe 
that trusting the regulators, certainly in my State, to handle the 
plans intelligently is an important part of how we move forward as 
well.
  I wanted to put that on the record today following the discussion 
from earlier this morning and the vote at noon.