    [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2025)]
    [Senate]
    [Pages S1438-S1439]
    From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

      Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues in
    strong opposition to the firings of scientists, medical researchers,
    and more at the Department of Health and Human Services.
      HHS is in charge of everything from preventing disease outbreaks to
    making sure that our kids are healthy to ensuring that seniors can live
    with dignity.
      It directly touches more lives than any other Cabinet Agency. That is
    why the administration's mass firings of thousands of HHS employees are
    deeply troubling.
      When a new CEO comes in and wants to see a new direction for a
    company, they look at it, they look at all the divisions, they figure
    out their direction. They maybe cut a division; they maybe make changes
    to it. They look at the merits of certain employees; they move some
    employees to different divisions. And they figure out, thoughtfully,
    what is the right way and what is the best way for their company.
      This is the entire government, but that is not what is happening
    here. They are firing people across the board, without regard to merit,
    without regard for function. They are firing some of the newest
    employees who are eager and excited to have their jobs. They are firing
    some people who are simply up for promotion which puts them in a
    probationary status.
      They are not looking at what these people are doing or the value they
    bring to the workforce and to the American people. They are just doing
    it and getting on TV with a chain saw.
      These are people who went into public service for a reason. They are
    people, in the case of Health and Human Services, who keep us healthy
    and save lives, who work every day to keep America at the forefront of
    medical breakthroughs and innovation.
      It has been our secret sauce. It has given the world the most
    incredible, credible, lifesaving drugs and medical devices--like the
    pacemaker in my State.
      That didn't just come out of one company. That came out of a lot of
    ideas, and that came out a lot of universities, and that came out of
    people doing clinical trials, and that came out of a devotion by our
    country to moving forward. That is how we have gotten these lifesaving
    cures.
      That is how we mapped the human genome, so that we are now starting
    to offer personalized medicine, drugs that fit people, things that
    work, things that cure diseases we never thought were possible to cure.
    That is how our economy has been so strengthened, and we have led
    across the world.
      You know, I have worked for years to cut redtape, and I know there is
    more to do. I know there is more we can do to make our government
    effective. But we can do that together and take the ideas from the
    administration. We can work on it in the next budget. We can make some
    changes. I support permitting reform--all kinds of things that we could
    do.
      But these mass firings in the area of medical research? This makes no
    sense.
      The Department of Health and Human Services is also tasked with
    implementing Medicare drug price negotiation, which I fought for years
    to pass into law, along with my colleague Senator Welch from Vermont,
    when he was in the House, and Senator Sanders here in the Senate.
      This is expected--we finally passed it. It was part of the Inflation
    Reduction Act, and it actually says: Hey, this sweetheart deal that
    pharma had with Medicare, in which they can't negotiate at all and that
    the prices are locked in and so our country--people are paying twice as
    much as they do in places like Canada, for the drug. Yet it is our
    taxpayers that put in the money for the research or the VA, which works
    so well for our veterans. They are able to negotiate and get better
    prices, but not 50 million seniors?
      So what did we do? We finally ended the sweetheart deal, and we
    passed a law. I would have been more aggressive about how many drugs we
    could negotiate because I understand they start with a group of drugs,
    and pretty soon that is going to help people who aren't seniors, as we
    did with the insulin cap. That insulin cap, at 35 bucks a month, was
    only for seniors, but Merck and other companies offered it to
    nonseniors, as well, because we got it going with the biggest
    prescription drug buying group in the country, and that would be our
    seniors.
      So this Medicare negotiation has ramifications for everyone in this
    country. However, even though we only did 10 drugs at first, the Biden
    administration picked blockbuster drugs--big drugs that so many people
    take, like Januvia and Jardiance and Xarelto and Eliquis. Combined, in
    1 year--just 1 year, when this starts next year; no one has refuted
    these statistics--9 million seniors will save $1.5 billion in out-of-
    pocket costs in the first year alone and save taxpayers over $100
    billion in the next decade. That is just 10 drugs.
      They have now come up with 15 more drugs, including Ozempic and those
    weight-loss drugs, and they have passed that torch now--or the voters
    have--onto the next administration. So now, it is on them to negotiate
    these 15 and then pick 15 more and 15 more. Imagine how much money we
    can save, not just for the seniors--that is obvious--but also for the
    taxpayers because

    [[Page S1439]]

    we are footing part of this bill. And then, ultimately, it will bring
    down drug prices, like they have in other countries.
      But firing the men and women who carry out these price negotiations
    put those savings totally at risk. You cannot take on some of the
    world's biggest companies--the pharmaceutical companies--with bandaids
    and a skeleton crew. That is not going to work. I think we all know
    that. We all know this is really hard work.
      On top of this, the firings threaten healthcare for the 170 million
    Americans who get coverage through Medicare, Medicaid--which is so many
    of our seniors when they are in assisted living with their long-term
    care, and people's parents and grandparents--as well as coverage under
    the Affordable Care Act, including over 2 million Minnesotans. In fact,
    Medicaid actually provides healthcare for 20 percent of my rural
    residents in my State. You will see similar numbers all across the
    country. And more than half of all nursing home residents in our State
    are on Medicaid.
      I remember when my dad was in assisted living. He got late-onset
    Alzheimer's. I found a place for him and found the next place when he
    needed a little more help, and I knew, as his savings were running out,
    what that day was. I knew the exact month that he was going to run out
    of his savings, and then he would go onto Medicaid. And that was a
    safety net. I actually knew I couldn't keep him at the same place, but
    I knew a place I could have him go to.
      He ended up dying a year before that date happened. But there are so
    many people in our country that know the exact date when their parent
    or their grandparent is going to be able to have that safety net of
    Medicaid because they have actually run through all their savings.
      Nationwide, Medicaid provides coverage for two-thirds of all nursing
    home care. And these cuts--what we are seeing out of the House budget,
    where they have put targets on the exact program that includes
    Medicaid--these cuts will be particularly disastrous for people with
    chronic conditions, including millions of veterans who become sick or
    disabled as a result of their service.
      What is this all about? It is about funding giant tax breaks for
    billionaires. Yes, over 2 trillion of that money goes to people who are
    wealthy, people making over $400,000 a year.
      I am all for keeping in these tax cuts for people making under
    $400,000 a year, but I do not know why, when you are facing the debt
    that our country has and when you are dealing with people's needs with
    Medicaid and the like, you would decide to add tax cuts and make
    permanent tax cuts for people who are making over $400,000 a year.
      We actually had a vote on this, late at night about a week ago, where
    we asked our Republican colleagues: OK. Well, how about for people
    making over $10 million a year? That was Senator Warren's amendment.
    She said: OK. How about if they are making over 10 million? Could we at
    least agree we shouldn't cut their taxes?
      And, unfortunately, our Republican colleagues, for that amendment,
    yelled out: No.
      Then we said--Senator Kelly got up there and said: OK. How about if
    they are making over $100 million? Then we should add more tax cuts?
      Our colleagues voted against that amendment, which said we should not
    add more tax cuts for people making over $100 million when our country
    is facing the debt it has, when you have got the needs for people in
    nursing homes and the needs for people with childcare and the like.
      So then they tried one more time. Senator Angus King, Independent of
    Maine, said: OK. How about for people making over $500 million? Then,
    at least, you can agree with us--right?--that we shouldn't add more tax
    cuts for those people making over $500 million a year. And, sadly, our
    colleagues voted no.

      Instead of cutting costs for regular people and their prices and
    groceries, they are cutting Medicaid, which provides healthcare for 7.2
    million seniors, almost 40 million children, nearly two-thirds of
    nursing home residents, and millions of people with rare diseases.
      But this isn't just the numbers. There are moms and dads, brothers
    and sisters, friends and neighbors. I heard from one Minnesotan who, at
    4 years old, was diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which
    causes rapid muscle weakness, making it harder to complete most
    physical tasks. But this Minnesotan, who is now 26, has been able to
    thrive because he has Medicaid coverage. He got an education. He got a
    job. He graduated with a master's degree in public policy. He is paying
    taxes. In his words, Medicaid gave him the affordable health coverage
    he needed to manage his rare condition.
      For him and millions more, the cuts at the Department of Health and
    Human Services put their lives and livelihood at risk.
      This week is rare disease week. I have met with many rare disease
    patients. I am the cochair of that caucus. And they are in town right
    now to convene and collaborate with Federal medical researchers, Ph.D.
    students, other families affected, drug and device reviewers and
    advocates.
      Many of these rare disease patients were looking forward to attending
    the rare disease event that was supposed to be today. And this year it
    was going to be a collaboration between NIH and the FDA because of all
    that integral work that goes on with drugs being approved for people
    with rare diseases, but that annual event was canceled because the
    people carrying that out--these people here with very difficult, rare
    diseases--that was canceled because the people doing the event were
    fired.
      The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services, which the
    thousands of Americans who were fired work every day to uphold, is
    enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans. These mass
    firings are a direct affront to that mission.
      The building that houses the Department of Health and Human Services
    is named for Minnesota's ``Happy Warrior,'' Vice President Hubert
    Humphrey. It has been that way through Democrat and Republican
    Presidents. He was a champion for expanding access to healthcare.
    Inscribed in the entrance hall of that building are words from
    Humphrey's final speech in 1977. By the way, he was someone who was
    loved right here in this Chamber by Democrats and Republicans. Some of
    the most conservative Republicans mourned his loss, and they loved the
    guy. And this is what he said in his final speech here:

           The moral test of government is how that government treats
         those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who
         are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are
         in shadows of life, the sick.

      And he added, given he had a child in his own family with Down
    syndrome, and those with disabilities.
      The firing of those who care for kids and seniors and those who work
    on rare diseases and those who are bringing together our people who
    work on drugs that are supposed to solve and are solving the problems
    for these rare disease families and those that are doing the approvals
    and those that are doing the research and the families that want to
    talk to them about it--they were all here, and they canceled it
    because, just like that, Elon Musk came in with his chain saw.
      Those families are not going to tolerate this much longer.
      I yield the floor.
      The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                              ____________________