[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 24, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3124-S3129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Healthcare Legislation
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by warnings from
leading health insurance companies and State insurance commissioners
that the Trump administration is now deliberately undermining the
Affordable Care Act, leaving insurance plans no choice but to sharply
raise premiums or exit the marketplaces.
I understand--I think we all do--that the Affordable Care Act
continues to experience stresses and that it needs to be strengthened.
There is no doubt about that. I have been saying from the beginning
that we need to correct what is not working, that we need to keep what
is working, and that we need to work together to change it. Yet, in
2016, there were abundant signs that the law was working and that
insurance markets were stabilizing.
For instance, in my State of New Hampshire, health insurance premium
increases last year averaged just 2 percent. That is the lowest annual
increase in history. Today, it is a very different picture. Because of
the efforts of the Trump administration to undermine the Affordable
Care Act, insurance companies in New Hampshire and across the country
face widespread uncertainty. Many of them are deciding that they have
no choice but to protect themselves by drastically increasing premiums.
This week, there was a report in the New Hampshire Union Leader,
which is our State's largest newspaper, that premiums in New Hampshire
could increase by as much as 44 percent. Now, President Trump says that
the Affordable Care Act is ``exploding,'' but let's be clear. If
ObamaCare is exploding, as President Trump says, it is because this
administration lit the fuse and has been working aggressively to
undermine the law.
We can see on this poster what is being reported in other parts of
the country. In the LA Times, we see that health insurers and State
officials say that Trump is undermining ObamaCare and pushing up rates
and that health insurers plan big ObamaCare rate hikes, and they blame
Trump.
Perhaps the greatest damage has been done by the administration's
refusal to commit to funding cost-sharing subsidies, which are the
Federal subsidies that help millions of people pay for coverage. To
protect themselves, many insurance companies are preparing two sets of
premiums for next year--one premium level if the administration agrees
to fund the cost-sharing subsidies and a second, dramatically higher
premium level if the administration says no to cost-sharing subsidies.
More broadly, the administration's mixed signals and erratic
management of the Affordable Care Act are causing uncertainty in the
marketplace. Paul Markovich, the CEO of Blue Shield of
[[Page S3125]]
California, has said that health plans are being forced to raise
premiums to compensate for all of the turmoil.
It gets worse.
Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Seema Verma, the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,
shocked a meeting of insurance industry executives by threatening to
cut off funding for cost-sharing reductions unless insurers agreed to
support the House Republicans' bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act--
the bill that was passed several weeks ago.
Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler criticized the
administration's actions as playing Russian roulette with Americans'
health insurance coverage. He said: ``This has real impact on people's
lives.''
One insurance company executive said this about the administration's
actions: ``There's a sense that there are no hands on the wheel, and
they are just letting the bus careen down the road.''
Physicians and other healthcare professionals live by a time-honored
pledge to do no harm, but the Trump administration is pursuing a course
that will do tremendous harm to millions of Americans who have gained
health coverage for the first time because of the Affordable Care Act.
Unless and until Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act, it is the
law of the land, and this administration has a responsibility to
administer this law with fairness, with rigor, and with competence. The
administration certainly does not have the right to take active steps
to undermine or even sabotage the law or to threaten insurance
companies with such steps if they do not support the repeal of
ObamaCare.
It is time for the administration to reconsider its approach to
healthcare reform. To date, regrettably, the administration's approach
has been highly partisan, with no outreach to Democrats. Instead of a
``do no harm'' approach, instead of taking steps to fill President
Trump's pledge that we are going to have insurance for everybody--and
he came through New Hampshire on multiple occasions during his primary
campaign and during the general election campaign. What he said about
health insurance was that we were going to make sure that everybody has
it; we are going to make sure that they pay less and that they get
quality coverage. The administration now seems determined to take
health coverage away from tens of millions of Americans.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House Republicans'
bill--the first one--to repeal the Affordable Care Act would take
coverage away from 24 million Americans. Yesterday, the administration
proposed a budget that would cut Medicaid by as much as $1.3 trillion
over the next decade. That would end coverage for millions of low-
income Americans, people with disabilities, and so many of our elderly
in nursing homes. In New Hampshire, where we are really on the
frontlines of the heroin and opioid epidemic, it would end treatment
for many people who are getting treatment for their substance use
disorders because of the expansion of Medicaid.
When we think about the people who would be hurt by this, it is
unconscionable to hear Office of Management and Budget Director Mick
Mulvaney say: ``There is a certain philosophy wrapped up in the budget,
and that is that we are no longer going to measure compassion by the
number of programs or the number of people on those programs.'' I
disagree with that view. By deliberately taking healthcare coverage
from 24 million Americans, it shows the lack of compassion of this
administration.
This is not about numbers. He is right about that. This should not be
about numbers. This should be about people, about their families, and
about what these proposals will do to everyday Americans who will no
longer have access to affordable health coverage. Whether they have
preexisting conditions or whether they need to get treatment for
cancer, for substance use disorders, or for whatever their healthcare
needs are, under this proposal, they are not going to be able to afford
it. Millions of Americans will not be able to afford it.
I think there is a better way forward. Instead of tearing down the
Affordable Care Act and taking health coverage away from people, we
should be building on the gains and on the achievements of healthcare
reform.
On that score, I want to share an extraordinary letter to the editor
that was written by Carol Gulla, of Newmarket, NH.
I am reading her letter:
I was in good health; why bother with a physical?
That was my mentality for years before the Affordable Care
Act (aka Obamacare). I work for a small nonprofit business,
so we don't qualify for group health insurance plans. An
annual physical wasn't included in the high premium, high
deductible plans that were available to me on the individual
health insurance market so they were often a luxury. But it
was OK; I felt great! Why bother with doctors?
Because of the Affordable Care Act, last June I went for a
routine physical. During [the exam] a lump was discovered in
my breast. Ten days later, breast cancer was diagnosed. . . .
Fast forward to today. I've just completed my final
chemotherapy treatment and my prognosis is very positive.
That physical saved my life.
Let me restate that--Obamacare saved my life.
That crucial physical in June would not have happened had
it not been an essential preventive service included in all
health plans under the ACA. While not perfect, my insurance
through the ACA is far better than anything available to me
as an individual in the past.
Ms. Gulla's letter continues:
Up until this point I have been pretty quiet about my
diagnosis simply because I didn't want cancer to be the main
topic of every conversation I had. But, with the Republican
majority in Washington, including Secretary of Health & Human
Services Tom Price, promising to repeal the ACA, being quiet
is no longer an option. I am being asked to entrust my health
and well-being to hollow promises of it will ``be replaced by
something better; it will be great.'' Forgive me if I'm
skeptical!
This is my life we're talking about! Do not tell me to be
patient. Do not tell me to ``wait and see.'' Either outline a
. . . plan for improving the Affordable Care Act, or leave my
health insurance alone!
She signs it with her name, Carol Gulla, of Newmarket, NH.
I think we need to listen to Carol and to so many other people like
her all across America.
Instead of allowing this administration to undermine and even
sabotage the Affordable Care Act, we in the Senate need to work
together, Democrats and Republicans, to strengthen the parts of the
Affordable Care Act that are working in the real world, including
Medicaid expansion, and to fix what is not working. According to
multiple recent polls that I have seen on this issue, this is what the
great majority of Americans want us to do. It is time for us to listen
to the American people.
The Affordable Care Act has had a profoundly positive impact all
across America, but it needs commonsense repairs and it needs
strengthening. Mend it, don't end it, and certainly don't sabotage it.
This should be a bipartisan focus in the Senate. I intend to do
everything I can to encourage such a bipartisan effort. I know my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle would be willing to do this
important work if they understood how much the American people want to
see us do this.
We know that the Affordable Care Act has had positive impacts in each
of our States, including giving people peace of mind, knowing they
can't be denied coverage based on preexisting conditions. So let's work
together. Let's ensure that the Affordable Care Act works even better
in the future for all Americans.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New
Hampshire before she leaves the floor for her statement on the
Affordable Care Act. I know she made reference to the recent report
from the Congressional Budget Office that we just received, and it
tells the whole story. It tells us all we need to know about TrumpCare
2--the second attempt by the Republicans to replace the Affordable Care
Act. What it tells us in the starkest terms is exactly the reason why
the Republicans didn't want to wait around for this analysis.
For the record, the Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan
agency of the Federal Government that analyzes our great ideas and
tells us what is going to happen if they become law. I know this agency
pretty well because
[[Page S3126]]
when we wrote the Affordable Care Act, we waited and waited and waited,
sometimes weeks at a time, until some bright idea that we thought we
had was analyzed in the cold reality of healthcare in America.
Sometimes they came back and said good idea, and many times they came
back and said bad idea.
The Republicans passed TrumpCare 2 in the House about 3 weeks ago and
wouldn't wait for the Congressional Budget Office analysis. We thought
to ourselves, that is unusual. That is the standard everybody uses in
Congress. They wouldn't wait because they knew what was coming, and
today it was announced.
This afternoon, here is what the Congressional Budget Office said
about the Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Next
year, under the Republican plan, 14 million Americans would lose their
health insurance. How about that for a starter. That is the starting
point of their analysis. Over the next 10 years, 23 million Americans
would lose their health insurance. Next year, premiums--the cost of
health insurance--would increase 20 percent in the individual market.
The CBO affirms that under current law--the Affordable Care Act--the
marketplaces are stable. However, under the Republican repeal bill,
one-sixth of the population resides in parts of America where the
individual market would become unstable beginning in the year 2020.
There will be $834 billion in cuts in Federal Medicaid Programs over
the next decade. Do we know what those cuts mean? In my State, half the
children born are covered by Medicaid. The mothers get prenatal care so
the babies are healthy--paid for by Medicaid. The delivery is paid for
by Medicaid. The postnatal care of that little infant is paid for by
Medicaid.
That is not the most expensive part of Medicaid in my State and in
most States. The most expensive part is for your mom and your
grandmother in the nursing home. That is where most of Medicaid money
goes. Two-thirds of it goes to those folks in nursing homes who have no
other source of income, not to mention the disabled who count on
Medicaid.
What the Congressional Budget Office tells us is that the Republican
plan is going to devastate Medicaid across the United States. Which of
the groups I just mentioned do we think we can toss overboard--babies
born to low-income mothers, or the elderly who have no place to turn
and have exhausted their savings and are living in nursing homes, or
the disabled who need the help of Medicaid on a regular basis? Those
are the casualties of this Republican repeal plan, not to mention the
fact that the real driving force behind these terrible healthcare
decisions is a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America.
This is from the Congressional Budget Office again: $88 billion in
tax cuts for the superwealthy and big businesses, including drug
companies.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Those numbers came out while I was speaking on the
floor, because I was talking about the first House-passed bill to
repeal the Affordable Care Act. What the Senator from Illinois is
telling me is that the numbers for the bill they passed to fix the
first bill they couldn't pass are just as bad and in some ways even
worse than the original bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, through the Chair, in response to the
Senator from New Hampshire, they are equally disastrous.
Listen to these quotes from the Congressional Budget Office this
afternoon about the Republican repeal plan: ``People who are less
healthy, including those with preexisting conditions, would ultimately
be unable to purchase comprehensive individual market insurance at
premiums comparable to those under current law if they could purchase
it at all.''
Listen to this. It goes on to say: ``In particular, out-of-pocket
spending on maternity care and mental health and substance abuse
services could increase by thousands of dollars in a given year for the
individual market enrollees who use those services.''
Let me bring this home to your State. Your State has been
devastated--our State has been hurt badly--your State has been
devastated by the opioid crisis. I would like the Senator from New
Hampshire, if she would, to respond to that by giving us some detail.
What they are saying is that the Republican repeal of the Affordable
Care Act is going to deny coverage in health insurance for substance
abuse treatment for families whose kids are discovered to be on
opioids.
I yield through the Chair without yielding the floor to the Senator
from New Hampshire to describe her challenge in New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Well, that was going to be my followup question. In New
Hampshire, we have the second highest percentage of overdose deaths in
the country. We lose more people in New Hampshire to deaths from
overdoses of opioids and fentanyl and heroin than we do to car
accidents. And an overwhelming percentage of people--over 90 percent--
are getting treatment for their substance abuse disorders through the
expansion of Medicaid, which has been a bipartisan program in New
Hampshire that has covered about 60,000 people, many of whom are
getting treatment for substance abuse disorders.
So what the Senator from Illinois is telling me, from the CBO, is
that based on the plan that passed the House that Republicans have
supported, those people who are getting their treatment--lifesaving
treatment for mental health issues and substance abuse disorders--they
are going to be kicked off of their plan, and they are not going to
have any other option for getting that care.
Mr. DURBIN. That is what the Congressional Budget Office reports.
So we have these discussions on the floor--and the Senator from New
Hampshire has been in the middle of them because of her State's
experience with opioids--and both parties come together and wring their
hands and say: What are we going to do about the opioid-heroin crisis
in America? And we have come up with some good ideas. But here we have
the Republican effort repealing the Affordable Care Act, which cuts the
legs out from under all of our efforts because it takes away from
families' Medicaid coverage that they are using for drug treatment, as
well as coverage in their health insurance plans.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield once more,
last year we passed the 21st Century Cures Act, which appropriated $1
billion--$500 million this year and $500 million next year--to address
the heroin and opioid epidemic we are having, and in the recent passage
of the omnibus bill, we got $700-plus million to help us fight this
epidemic. So on the one hand, we are putting money in to address it,
and on the other hand, we are taking away the treatment people need by
passing a healthcare bill that is going to throw people off their
treatment and give them no other option to address their substance use
disorders.
Mr. DURBIN. That is exactly what the Congressional Budget Office
reports to us.
This afternoon we had a press conference and we invited four or five
families to come in with their kids. The theme of the press conference
was, what is going to happen if your child has a preexisting condition?
Well, there were some amazing little kids there and some heroic moms
and dads telling the story about what happens when you discover that
your little infant has a cantaloupe-sized tumor from neuroblastoma and
what happens for that family, what happens to that infant. Thank
goodness those kids were all standing there smiling. They fought the
good fight, and they have to continue to fight it, and each and every
one of them is branded as having a preexisting condition. Back in the
old days, before the Affordable Care Act, that meant those families
were unable to buy health insurance, or if they could buy it, they
couldn't afford it because the premiums were too high. So we passed the
Affordable Care Act and said: Enough. We are not going to allow you to
discriminate against anyone for a preexisting condition.
If you have a spouse with diabetes, if you have somebody in your
family who is a cancer survivor, they can't use it against you. They
can't discriminate. Now the Congressional Budget Office tells us what
is going to happen to those people. We are going back to the bad old
days when those families will not only have to stay awake at night
[[Page S3127]]
worrying about whether that baby of theirs is going to survive, they
are going to stay awake at night also worrying about how in the world
they are going to pay for their health insurance.
Is that the Republican answer? Is that Trumpism at work when it comes
to healthcare in America? I can't believe the American people voted for
that. I can't believe they are saying to our Republican colleagues: We
really don't care if our health insurance covers preexisting
conditions. Of course they care.
They come back with something called high-risk pools. I am sure the
Senator from New Hampshire can remember those. Let me tell you about
some of those warnings around swimming pools that say: No diving, the
pool is too shallow. Well, the high-risk pools for preexisting
conditions are way too shallow. No family with preexisting conditions
should dive into those pools because the amount of money provided for
by the Republicans in their affordable care repeal would only cover
about one out of four families with preexisting conditions. Three out
of four families: You are on your own.
Think about that. If you have ever been in a position in life where
you are a parent with a sick child and have no health insurance, you
will never forget it as long as you live. I know because I have been
there. When I was a law student with a little baby who was sick, I had
no health insurance. I will never forget it as long as I live.
Why don't the Republicans hear the same message we hear? Why aren't
they listening to these families and the struggles they are going
through to keep their kids alive? And they come up with a repeal plan
that is going to make it exceedingly difficult--in some cases
impossible--to provide quality care to these kids and to people with
preexisting conditions. That, to me, is not our responsibility.
I go to the conclusion of the Senator from New Hampshire, which I
think is the right one. Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No. It is
one of the most important and I think the most giving bills I have ever
voted for, but it is far from perfect. We should be sitting down with
the other side of the aisle--Republicans and Democrats--not to repeal
the Affordable Care Act but to make sure we make the repairs that make
a difference.
Each one of us has a list of things we would like to see addressed.
The cost of premiums are too high in the individual market. Let's
address that directly, and we should. The fact that pharmaceutical
drugs don't have any regulation or control in terms of pricing is just
plain wrong. And third--I will just put on my agenda--I think every
American should have the option of a public option plan like Medicare.
You can decide if that is right for you or your family, but a not-for-
profit plan based on Medicare should be available to every American no
matter where you live. Those are the three things I would put on the
table right away. To walk away from coverage for 23 million Americans
and to endanger the coverage for those who remain with premiums they
can't afford is hardly humane and hardly consistent with American
values.
So I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her contribution in
this. We have to get the message out.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. If I could just add one more group of folks who are
going to be affected by this bill that passed the House several weeks
ago. That is our veterans. We have millions of veterans in this country
who get their healthcare through Medicaid. We have asked these folks to
put their lives on the line for this country, and now we are talking
about taking away the healthcare they depend on.
I was at one of our community mental health centers in New Hampshire
last week and met with a number of veterans who get their care through
the expansion of Medicaid. They talked about what it means to be able
to get care, to be able to go into that community mental health center
and work with the veterans outreach coordinator who works with
veterans, trying to make sure they get the help they need. If this bill
goes forward, PTSD, which affects so many veterans, would be considered
a preexisting condition and they wouldn't be able to get health
insurance going forward.
This is bill is nothing but mean-spirited. As the Senator said, all
of the efforts to save money in the bill are so money can be used to
give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest among us. I don't think that is
what Americans want. As the Senator says, we need to work with our
colleagues. We need to get a good bill that improves the Affordable
Care Act, fixes what is not working, and makes it better.
Mr. DURBIN. If I may also say, I agree completely that discriminating
against veterans should hardly be the starting point for the reform of
our healthcare system.
I want to make this point because I know exactly what the first
speech will be from the Republican side of the aisle. This point in the
Congressional Budget Office affirms that under current law insurance
marketplaces are stable. They are stable. That isn't what you will hear
from the other side of the aisle. The other side of the aisle loves to
use the phrase ``death spiral,'' that the current healthcare system in
America is in a death spiral.
The only death spiral in the current healthcare system is brought on
because the Republicans have their hands around the throat of that
system and they are choking it. Their sabotage of our current
healthcare system is the reason there is uncertainty in the insurance
markets. The insurance companies told us that this week: We don't know
where you are going in Washington. We don't know what the future will
hold. We have an obligation to our shareholders and people who work for
us to make sure we protect ourselves. So we are going to hold back in
terms of commitment.
So to the Republicans I would say: This is no death spiral. This is a
self-fulfilling prophecy to bring down our healthcare system, and shame
on those who would do it at the expense of vulnerable populations
across America.
I will mention one other group while the Senator from New Hampshire
is on the floor. The Illinois Hospital Association roundly opposes this
Republican TrumpCare bill. The reason they do is they say it endangers
smalltown hospitals--and we have a lot of them in our State--and inner-
city hospitals as well. I am sure that is the case in New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Actually, the New Hampshire Hospital Association also
opposes the bill for the very same reason. We have hospitals at risk if
this bill is passed.
Mr. DURBIN. I am sure, in the Senator's State, like in our State of
Illinois, there are larger cities with big hospitals that treat all
kinds of cases, but were it not for that safety net of hospitals in
small towns, these people living there would drive an extra 50 or 100
miles to get to a hospital and would see the loss of critical services
for trauma and emergencies that currently exist with these smalltown
hospitals.
According to the Illinois Hospital Association and others, the first
casualties of the Republican repeal bill--the first casualties of
TrumpCare--it is estimated in Illinois that we will lose 60,000
healthcare jobs at our hospitals because of the Republican approach.
How important are these jobs? I will go out on a limb: In most
communities, they are the best paying jobs in the community. The men
and women who are the doctors and the nurses and the specialists who
provide that basic care in these towns, sure, they get compensated
better than most, but we want to compensate them and keep them there
because without them, people don't have the basic health services they
count on.
So from every perspective, whether it is the doctors, the nurses, the
pediatricians, substance abuse treatment, hospitals and clinics, the
Republican approach to repealing ObamaCare--repealing the Affordable
Care Act--is devastating, and the Congressional Budget Office put it in
writing today.
I might say, we should close by saying what is happening in the
Senate after the House passed this terrible bill, which the
Congressional Budget Office told us about. Well, we don't know. It is a
mystery. We would have expected that someone in the Senate would have
decided: Let's put a bill on the table, let's have an open public
hearing, let's have a debate about where we go, and let's make a good,
sound decision that is in the best interests of the American families.
That is not the case at all.
Instead, the Republican leader in the Senate has chosen 12 or 13 men
to sit in
[[Page S3128]]
a room outside of the view of the public and to craft an alternative to
the terrible bill that passed the House. Nobody has seen it, nobody
wants to talk about it. It has not been scored. It has not been
debated. That is their idea of reforming healthcare in America. That is
not going to work--at least not going to work for the best interests of
the families I represent.
If we are going to come together on a bipartisan basis to repair and
strengthen the Affordable Care Act, let's do it, but let's do it in the
light of day, instead of hiding behind the doors of some room with 13
Senators who have been given this blessing, anointed, to try to come up
with a new healthcare system for America. That, to me, is inconsistent
with our responsibility--our public responsibility--when it comes to
this critical issue.
So I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her input on this.
There will be more to be said.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. There will be. If I could ask one final question
because not only is this effort in the Senate happening behind closed
doors, but initially it excluded women.
Women are more than 50 percent of this country. We have particular
needs when it comes to healthcare. Fortunately, the essential health
benefits part of the Affordable Care Act provide requirements for
preventive health for women, for mammograms. They cover maternity
benefits when you have a baby. They are talking about writing this
legislation without taking into consideration the women in the Senate,
the women in the country, and what we need to do to make sure we have
access to healthcare. That is just unconscionable, added to the fact
that it is all being done behind closed doors.
Mr. DURBIN. I agree with that. Also, as the Senator from New
Hampshire knows better than anybody, originally being a woman was a
preexisting condition.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Absolutely. They want to take us back to that.
Mr. DURBIN. It would disqualify you or raise your premiums because
you are a woman. We got rid of that gross discrimination against women
when we did the Affordable Care Act. We shouldn't have a similar level
of discrimination when it comes to writing any improvement in this
Affordable Care Act.
This is a big enough Senate and a big enough place for us to all
gather around the table and make sure we do this in the best interests
of all Americans, regardless of gender, regardless of background,
regardless of where you live. That is the way we should approach
something as serious as an item that accounts for $1 of every $6 in the
American economy--an item that is literally life and death for families
all across Illinois, New Hampshire, and all across the United States.
The Congressional Budget Office said it all today. It is time for us
to put Trump 2.0 to rest and try to come up with something which really
is befitting this great Nation.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Judge
Amul Thapar to serve as a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It should surprise absolutely no one that Judge Thapar is the second
nominee to a Federal court to come up for a vote in this Congress. His
nomination comes on the heels of the nomination of now-Justice Neil
Gorsuch, an ultraconservative who could not earn enough support to be
confirmed under Senate's normal rules, a judge so radical, so
controversial that Senate Republicans had to change the Senate rules
and lower the vote threshold to force his nomination through the
Senate.
Now the Senate is poised to vote on a judge cut from the same cloth.
Like Justice Gorsuch, Judge Thapar made the list of 21 acceptable
judges that far-right groups drew up and handed to President Trump--
judges who would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the rich and
the powerful. As in Justice Gorsuch's case, those radical groups are
committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure Judge Thapar sits on
the Nation's highest courts.
For those groups, the goal is not just to get a few ultraconservative
judges on our Federal courts; it is to capture the entire judicial
branch. For years, billionaire-funded, rightwing groups have worked
hand in hand with Republicans to ensure that our courts advance the
interests of the wealthy and powerful over the rights of everyone else.
They abused the filibuster to stop fair, mainstream judges from filling
vacancies on Federal courts, they slowed the judicial nominations
process to a crawl, and they threw the Constitution and Senate
precedent out the window by refusing to consider President Obama's
Supreme Court nominee. Under their watch, judicial vacancies stacked up
and courts became overloaded with cases. Now Republicans and their
extremist friends have a President who shares their concern about the
interests of the 1 percent, and they are ready to stack our Federal
courts with judges who will advance their radical agenda. Judge Thapar
is much more than up to the task.
There are many reasons to oppose Judge Thapar's nomination to the
Sixth Circuit, from his decisions making it harder for working
Americans to get access to the judicial system to his support for
sentencing policies that don't make us safer but that exacerbate the
problem of mass incarceration. There is a lot to object to, but I want
to highlight one area that should concern every person who thinks
government should work for all of us; that is, Judge Thapar's stance on
money in politics.
For decades, our laws restricted the amount of money that individuals
and corporations could pour into the political process. In recent
years, Federal courts chipped away at those laws, and then Supreme
Court decisions in cases like McCutcheon and Citizens United took a
sledgehammer to campaign finance laws, unleashing a flood of dark money
into the political system.
There are now dozens of perfectly legal ways for the 1 percent to buy
influence and favor: corporate campaign contributions and super pacs,
the revolving door between government and the private sector, bought-
and-paid-for experts to push alternative facts, armies of lobbyists
swarming the Halls of Congress. Their investments have paid off in the
form of special breaks, exemptions, deals, riders, subsidies,
loopholes, and every other handout industry can imagine. That money--
that unaccountable, dark, unlimited money--has fundamentally distorted
our democracy.
Judge Thapar would make the problem worse. Judge Thapar believes that
actual speech and monetary contributions are basically the same thing.
When he had to decide on the constitutionality of a Kentucky rule
preventing State judges and judicial candidates from donating to
political groups or campaigns, he concluded that the rule was
unconstitutional. In his decision, Judge Thapar said: ``There is simply
no difference between `saying' that one supports an organization by
using words and `saying' that one supports an organization by donating
money.'' No difference between talking about a candidate and dumping a
bucket of money into the candidate's campaign. Wow.
In Judge Thapar's view, the Constitution should protect a
billionaire's right to dump unlimited sums of money into the political
process to influence the outcome of elections. That is even further
than the Supreme Court has gone. As the Sixth Circuit reminded Judge
Thapar when it reversed his decision on donations, even the Supreme
Court has refused to treat monetary donations as equivalent to direct
speech.
The issue of concentrated money in our political system is one that
doesn't split down party lines. Americans of all political views cringe
at the massive amounts of secret money that slither through our
political process. They have seen politicians beholden to the handful
of deep-pocketed individuals and giant corporations, and they have seen
those politicians turn their backs on the constituents they were
elected to represent. That is at the heart of what is wrong in our
Nation. Our government should work for everyone, not just for the
millionaires and billionaires.
[[Page S3129]]
Fighting for a government that is accountable to the people means
fighting to reduce the influence of concentrated money and concentrated
power in our political system. It is time to take down the sign that
says ``government for sale'' that hangs above Washington, DC, and we
can start today by rejecting Judge Thapar's nomination to serve on the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. President, 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.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________