BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I rise today to speak about the future of the Supreme Court, the future of our country, and the responsibility this body has to the people of our Nation.
It seems that my Republican colleagues have lost sight of what the people of our States have sent us here to do. They sent us here to raise their voices, represent their interests, and provide them with the help they need.
The American people are truly struggling, and they are calling upon us to provide them with real relief during this public health and economic crisis. That should be our No. 1 priority.
Eight million Americans have fallen into poverty during this pandemic, including an outsized number of people of color and children. The proportion of American children who sometimes do not have enough to eat is now 14 times higher than it was last year. Parents are now joining food lines for food banks because they cannot feed their children. Cases of COVID are on the rise as we head toward our third peak. Small businesses and their employees don't see a rebound on the horizon. People are sick. They are struggling and scared about the future.
For months, my fellow Democrats and I have been calling for a vote on the relief package the House put forward to address these concerns, and we have been met with silence. Then, after dragging their feet, Republicans put forward a totally inadequate $500 billion package that puts the needs of big businesses ahead of working families. What is worse is that they know it has absolutely no chance of becoming law. Their only aim is to score political points, all the while the American people keep suffering.
The weeks we should have dedicated to negotiating a real relief package have instead been spent rushing through the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice. The hypocrisy is truly stunning. The same people who denied Merrick Garland a hearing months before an election are now trying to ram this process through while an election is already happening. Millions of ballots have already been cast. Millions of Americans are already voting. Their futures are on the line. They should have a say in this outcome.
We know why Republicans are rushing. They are rushing because they know it is their last chance to impose a very extreme conservative view on this country. They are rushing because they see a clock ticking toward November, when the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether 129 million Americans with preexisting conditions will continue to have access to affordable healthcare. They are rushing to seat Judge Barrett in time for her to rule on that case--a case that could strip millions of Americans of healthcare in the middle of a pandemic, at the very moment they need it the most. It is simply inhumane.
The Affordable Care Act is a matter of life or death. I recently spoke to a New Yorker named Allie Marotta, who has been living with type 1 diabetes since 2006. Last December, she turned 26 and aged off her parents' insurance. Because her work is contract-based, she couldn't enroll with an employer. She made too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford $400 monthly premiums. She was uninsured from December to March and had to ration her insulin, putting her life at risk. It was only when the pandemic started and she lost all of her income that she was able to qualify for the essential plan in New York's ACA marketplace and access her life-sustaining medication. If the ACA is repealed, Allie will have nowhere to turn.
She is not alone. My friend Kyle lives with Down syndrome. His father Bill has multiple preexisting conditions. Right now, Bill works part time in order to help Kyle, who needs to be with somebody 24/7. They are worried about cuts to Medicaid, which could affect the job-coaching Kyle receives at the pizza parlor where he works, and about the repeal of the ACA, which provides them the only care they can afford.
Rushing to seat this nominee means rushing to put Allie's life and Kyle's life and millions of Americans in danger. My colleagues are putting them all at risk only to further a very conservative agenda. It is extreme.
Their agenda is to seat a nominee who has called Roe v. Wade ``barbaric,'' when nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe that it is a fundamental, human, and civil right for women to make decisions about their bodies, including when or if or under what circumstances they will have children; a nominee who referred to sexual orientation as a preference--language that is not just outdated but truly harmful when two in three Americans believe love is love, believe in marriage equality, believe in the right to marry the person they love; a nominee who refused to admit climate change is settled science and not a controversial issue, when 99 percent of scientists and 81 percent of Americans believe that humans are drivers of global warming.
So whose views does she represent? Certainly not those of the people who sent us here. They believe in access to reproductive care. They believe in equal rights for the LGBTQ community. They believe in science. They believe that this seat should be filled by the next President and confirmed by the next Senate. They have made it clear and don't want the process of a lifetime appointment rushed.
This is the wrong judge for this seat, and this is the wrong process for a lifetime appointment. It is hypocritical. It is dangerous. It is not what the American people want.
I ask my colleagues to stop ignoring the people who sent us here and to remember that it is our job to look out for their best interests--no one else's. If we don't do that, we don't have the right to be here at all.
I also want to express my condolences to the families and loved ones who have experienced the human toll of the coronavirus pandemic. Over 220,000 Americans have died, and millions of others have been changed forever. I am going to read some of the names of the people we have lost. The families of these individuals have given permission for their names to be read on the Senate floor, adding them and their stories to the Congressional Record:
Mark Anthony Urquiza, Paul Osterman, Frederick Harold Quinn, Richard Rosenberg, Charles Mahoney, Felix Chidinma Oruh, Margaret R. Hogan, Mahmooda Shaheen, Alan Kaplan, William W. Boyd, Breda C. Meadows, Jose Morales Ramirez, David Benfield, John A. Alexiades, Michael F. Hughes, Bob McDonald, Richard Proia, Rashonne Smith, Jose ``Joe'' Ramirez, Steve Petras, Sr., Fareeda Kadwani, Jean Yettito, Abby Spitzer, Robert ``Bobby'' McCoskey, Jose A. Matias, Erick B. Chavez, Anastasia Koiveroglou, Shafqat Rasul Khan, Lynette Scullen and Joan Scullen, Marue Santini, Buck McKinney, Christina Danielo, Cal Schoenfeld, Gregg Pappadake, Sarah ``Sally'' Bielen, Rolando Castillo, Nais Coque, David Tashman, Joseph LoBianco, Ramash Quasba, Edward Alonzo.
I would also like to share some concerns of the people of New York over what a future without the Affordable Care Act would look like.
While my colleagues try to rush this confirmation so Judge Barrett can be seated in time to rule on a case that could cause millions of Americans to lose access to their healthcare, I think it is important that we remember how that case will affect the people we are here to serve.
In New York, there are more than 8 million people with preexisting conditions who could face higher costs, fewer benefits, and more trouble finding the coverage they need if the ACA is repealed. There are more than 3 million people who could be denied coverage altogether over preexisting conditions that are deemed uninsurable. There are more than 470,000 people who have been diagnosed with COVID, each of whom could find themselves paying higher premiums for worse coverage.
My mailbox has been flooded with letters from New Yorkers who are cancer survivors and parents and people with disabilities who are all worried about their families not being able to access the care that they need. Working to take away their care, especially in the middle of a pandemic, is inhumane.
Jane from West Islip wrote:
As a cancer survivor, I am very concerned about healthcare and pre-existing conditions. We're facing a healthcare meltdown. This next Justice could be the deciding vote that determines whether health care for tens of millions of people, protections for pre-existing conditions, and other provisions of the ACA that benefit almost everyone, will stay or go. Judge Barrett's documented hostility towards the ACA disqualifies her from a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. A vote for Judge Barrett is a vote to end healthcare. Oppose her nomination.
Jane is not alone in her concerns.
Candice from Brooklyn wrote:
I am writing to urge you to oppose the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. I am worried that Judge Barrett's statements on the Affordable Care Act mean that, if confirmed, she would vote to overturn the ACA. Millions of Americans with disabilities rely on the ACA to protect our right to healthcare. If the ACA is overturned, especially during a pandemic, millions of lives could be at risk.
This is a concern I have heard over and over and over and over again.
Meredith from New York City wrote to me about Stacy Staggs, the mother of two young children who both have complex medical needs and disabilities, who shared powerful testimony during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
Meredith wrote:
When she spoke, she spoke for me. The ACA and disability rights are at stake. This confirmation should wait until after the American people have chosen who should pick the next justice.
Parents across the State are also worried about what the Court with Justice Barrett would mean for their children.
Susan from Amherst wrote to me about her daughter. She wrote:
My daughter is an amazing young woman--and a lesbian--and an individual with preexisting conditions. Her depression has worsened because she sees what a confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation would mean to her and many of her friends. Even Pope Francis believes members of the LGBTQ+ community deserve to be part of a family and should be able to participate in civil unions. Please help! She needs to have hope! The rush to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court is concerning. Not only have Senators not had enough time to duly vet her, but we are in the middle of a highly consequential election in which millions have already cast their ballots. Further, Judge Barrett's LGBTQ rights record suggests she cannot be an impartial jurist on these matters. I'm deeply concerned about the future of rights for the LGBTQ community.
These letters also send dire reminders of what life was like for too many New Yorkers before the Affordable Care Act--a history we should never repeat.
Jan from Ridgewood wrote:
I am 61 years old and have been self-employed for most of my working life. This circumstance has made me a healthcare voter! For decades I thought I was the only one complaining about impossibly high health care costs. The cheapest plan that I could find had a monthly premium of $692. For me as an individual, with my husband--[who was] also self-employed-- and daughter it was about 1,250. After my divorce, I went job-hunting for health insurance. I was willing to work for free if I could be put on a health insurance plan. I didn't find any.
The ACA put an end to that demeaning search. My income fluctuates, so my premium goes up-and-down, but it has never been as expensive as it was before ObamaCare. There is ample evidence to suggest that Judge Barrett would overturn the Affordable Care Act. Confirming such a justice during what is perhaps the worst public health crisis in American history, and while the Senate refuses to act to address the coronavirus economic and health crisis, is unconscionable.
Let me say that again: Healthcare is so important that she was willing to work for free just to have it. That is what is on the line here.
Repealing the ACA would also mean an end to the rules preventing insurance companies from charging women higher premiums than men and requiring them to cover essential health benefits for women. That means women would not only have to pay more, but it would also be harder for the more than 4 million New York women who are covered by private insurance to find coverage for maternity care, contraception, and cost- free screenings for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and bone density. It would return us to the days when uninsured women could be denied coverage altogether if they are pregnant or have a health problem.
It would also put our older adults at risk. Striking down the ACA would reopen the prescription drug coverage cap--the so-called doughnut hole--and could leave nearly 350,000 seniors in our State paying thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs for the medications they need.
Thomas is one of those seniors. He writes:
The price for the family insurance is high and with our present administration will go higher and millions of Americans will not be able to have insurance. And this is the time it is needed with the lack of the virus control. Many Americans are out of work and will never be able to get a job that paid as much as the previous job. . . . Many Americans have died because the administration would not treat the virus when it was starting. Many homes now have less people bringing in money to pay bills because of this. The administration has no plan to replace ObamaCare. . . . And with the second and third round of virus and flu, many more may die. . . . Seniors are on a fixed income and seldom get any breaks when it comes to bills. Part D of Medicare prescriptions really went up this year. At the end of the year, we fall in the doughnut hole and have to pay two to three or more times for our medicine than we were paying. And then at the beginning of the year, we must pay the deductible which, on the average, is 400 plus dollars. But remember we are on a fixed income, so that means going without something else. Again, a zero-deductible plan does not cover much unless you pay above 70 dollars a month. Do not expect the average American to have much extra money. A lot of people live on Social Security alone, and the present administration wants to stop that income.
The American people do not want to lose their healthcare, not in the middle of a pandemic, not ever, and they certainly don't believe we should be prioritizing this nomination over providing them with real relief.
Christine from Beacon wrote:
I find it appalling and horrific that instead of a humane relief bill for the people who have lost family members, jobs, homes, the stability of their children's shelter, food security and education--not to mention the social cost of interrupting normal childhood social development and just the terrible grief and fear [people are dealing with] . . . that instead of working on a relief bill, we have another judge infuriatingly and unfairly jammed in to the court. The Supreme Court! My god . . . the lack of respect and audacity of beginning this process. There is wrong and right. And to quote a great patriot: ``This is America. And here, right matters.''
Christine is right. Doing the right thing for the American people matters. It is actually our job. New Yorkers and people across this country who have lost their jobs and their employer-based healthcare are calling on the Senate to provide them with the relief they need to survive this health and economic crisis.
Instead, the Republicans are pouring salt in their wounds by rushing this process in order to eliminate the Medicaid expansions and marketplaces these newly jobless Americans have turned to for coverage. Overturning the ACA would immediately end the Medicaid coverage nearly 1.9 million beneficiaries in New York are relying on.
These stories I have shared represent the fears and concerns of the people who sent us here to represent them. They are people with debilitating illnesses, parents who are worried about sick children, adults who are worried about elderly parents, and young men and women who live with conditions like diabetes and are already struggling to find insurance that will help them access the insulin they need.
They are struggling, and it is our job to get them the help they need. The American people oppose this nomination. They are watching, and one way or another, they will be heard.
I would like to read from an article in the New York Times by Reed Abelson and Abby Goodnough, entitled: ``If the Supreme Court Ends ObamaCare, Here's What It Would Mean.''
``The Affordable Care Act touches the lives of most Americans, and its abolition could have a significant effect on many millions more people than those who get their health coverage through it.
What would happen if the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act?
The fate of the sprawling, decade-old health law known as Obamacare was already in question, with the high court expected to hear arguments a week after the presidential election in the latest case seeking to overturn it. But now, the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg increases the possibility that the court could abolish it, even as millions of people are losing job-based health coverage during the coronavirus pandemic.
A federal judge in Texas invalidated the entire law in 2018. The Trump administration, which had initially supported eliminating only some parts of the law, then changed its position and agreed with the judge's ruling. Earlier this year the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.
Mr. Trump has vowed to replace Justice Ginsburg, a stalwart defender of the law, before the election. If he is successful in placing a sixth conservative on the court, its new composition could provide the necessary five votes to uphold the Texas decision.
Many millions more people would be affected by such a ruling than those who rely on the law for health insurance. Its many provisions touch the lives of most Americans, from nursing mothers to people who eat at chain restaurants.
Here are some potential consequences, based on estimates by various groups. 133 Million
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT