[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.
____________________