Defense Appropriations

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about the topic of healthcare, but while my friend from Alaska is on the floor, I hope we can bridge the policy disagreements we have right now over the Defense appropriations bill, the appropriations process and the authorization bill.

I have been in Congress long enough to have heard this argument be trotted out over and over again that if you vote against a defense bill, then you aren't supporting the troops, even if you have a legitimate policy disagreement you are trying to work out. I have heard that enough to know that it just doesn't match up with reality.

I was told that because I opposed the Iraq war, I didn't support the troops. People in the 1970s were told that if they didn't support the Vietnam war, they were opposing the troops. The fact is, we have a legitimate policy disagreement that we are trying to figure out. Democrats don't think we should be taking money from defense construction projects that are housing and protecting our troops to be used to build a border wall with Mexico that doesn't do anything, in our opinion, to protect the United States compared to the benefit of the spending on military construction projects. We think that, ultimately, we are serving our troops by making sure those military construction projects get funded instead of this wall that doesn't make sense if not for the President's campaign speeches.

So we have some policy disagreements over the budget. I would hope that my colleagues wouldn't try to use this tired argument that if anyone here ever votes against a defense budget, then they somehow are opposing the troops. That is just irresponsible and disingenuous rhetoric. Healthcare

Mr. President, I am here to talk about a few patients from Connecticut. We on the Democratic side are trying to put a face to this campaign that the President is engaged in to try to weaken and ultimately eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Right now there is a court case proceeding through the appellate courts that, if successful, would immediately end the Affordable Care Act, which provides insurance to 20 million Americans and makes sure that everybody in this country with a preexisting condition doesn't get charged more. The President has weighed in on behalf of that lawsuit. He hopes it will succeed.

If it does succeed, we are going to have a humanitarian catastrophe in this country if 20 million people lose their insurance and, once again, insurance companies are allowed to charge you more if you have a sickness or a sick child. We want to make sure we put a face on who is going to be affected if President Trump's sabotage campaign against the Affordable Care Act succeeds.

I know my colleagues have remarks and are lined up to speak, so let me be as brief as I can. I want to tell you the story of just a couple of patients from Connecticut. I am going to cheat and make this ``Patients of the Day.'' These are folks who reached out to my office to tell me their story.

Jason is from South Windsor, CT. He says:

I am 54 years old and I have been purchasing insurance since I entered the workforce at 22 years old. I have arthritis that is manageable with medication. Without that medication and care from my physician, I would not be able to function. I would have difficulty with simple tasks like walking and shaking hands.

There is no question that I rely on my insurance. If I were denied coverage because of my preexisting condition, it would be devastating.

Jason is one of the tens of millions of Americans who, without the protections from the Affordable Care Act, would likely not be able to get insurance. He is perhaps months away from that reality.

Lisa, from New Britain, writes on behalf of her grandkids. Because some young kids can't speak for themselves, their parents and grandparents speak for them. Lisa is the proud grandmother of two little girls who were born with cystic fibrosis. She worried that if her son ever had to switch jobs and change insurance plans or if the preexisting condition clause was struck down by the courts, he would be denied coverage because of their preexisting condition. She says:

The girls are doing so well and thriving with the current treatment and medicine they are on. People with cystic fibrosis are now living longer than ever because of medicine available to them. We've worked so hard in keeping them healthy. If this policy of allowing insurance companies to deny people with preexisting conditions or capping lifetime maximums is allowed, you would be taking the lives of our family members.

Finally, Giuseppina, who is a concerned sister in Bridgeport writes:

My youngest brother was born 2.5 months premature in 1977. He spent two months in the hospital and reached his lifetime limit from my father's employer-provided insurance before he left the hospital! In January of 1978, he was diagnosed with hydrocephalus due to underdevelopment or birth trauma.

Due to the massive medical debt accrued from his multiple surgeries and hospital stays, my family had to receive public assistance. . . . My father used to cry when he went food shopping.

I want you to remember that reality. Remember the reality of millions of families who went bankrupt, who lost all their savings, who went on public assistance because they had massive medical debt due to the fact that they lost coverage because of a preexisting condition or lifetime or annual caps.

All of that can come back if the Affordable Care Act is struck down. It is important for us to come down to the floor and remind folks about the human face of healthcare repeal and the consequences if we don't stand together and at least try to make a plan for what will happen if the lawsuit is successful and the Affordable Care Act is struck down by the court system.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source