[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 104 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3574-S3577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we have a number of us gathered here 
this evening because we are so, so appalled--and that is the word--by 
the process that is going on with healthcare.
  The idea that we could affect one-sixth of the Nation's economy--the 
life and death, literally, of millions of Americans; the whole 
structure of our healthcare system, affecting doctors, nurses, and 
rural hospital workers--and that we could do all of that in such 
darkness, behind such closed doors is the greatest miscarriage of 
legislative practice that I have seen since I have been here in the 
House and Senate.
  We heard our colleagues, when the ACA came up, talk about an open 
process: Read the bill. My good friend the leader will say: Well, we 
are going to have an amendment process. No, we are not. Unless we 
change reconciliation, we will have a mere 10 hours of debate on our 
side and then amendments seriatim for something as important as this? 
To say that we are having regular order, to say that we are having an 
amendment process, in all due respect, is a joke.
  Let me go over when we were in charge to show the complete 
contradiction. The Senate Finance Committee held more than 50 
hearings--Democrats and Republicans.
  How many hearings has the Senate Finance Committee had on this bill, 
this unknown bill? None. On the House bill--they are using the House 
bill, as I understand it, as a model. None.
  A markup, 8 days--can we get any commitment from our friends on the 
Republican side that we will have 8 days of markup in the Finance 
Committee when their bill is ready? I doubt it. Some 130 amendments 
were considered. Two dozen Republican amendments were agreed to--all in 
the committee process.
  Then, a bill went to the HELP Committee. There were 47 bipartisan 
hearings, roundtables, and walkthroughs. They considered nearly 300 
amendments during the 13-day markup. That was one of the longest in 
history, as it should have been on such a major bill. There were 160 
Republican amendments. Our ranking member on the HELP Committee 
couldn't be here because of plane delays, but she will augment that 
when she gets here.
  The Senate Finance Committee posted its legislation online for 6 days 
before the markup. I ask rhetorically of my friend the majority leader: 
When his bill is ready, is it going to be posted for 6 days prior to 
debate or markup? Are the American people, our doctors, our nurses, our 
patients, and the cancer care groups going to get a chance to see it? I 
doubt it. That is not what it seems like.
  The Senate spent 25 consecutive days in session on healthcare reform. 
Again, I would ask my friend the leader, rhetorically: How many days 
are we going to spend on it under reconciliation?
  So, my friends, this is a travesty. Ask yourself, America: Why are 
our Republican colleagues rushing through a bill in the dark of night?
  I will tell you why. They don't want you, Mr. and Mrs. American, to 
know about this bill. They don't want you to see that it cuts 
healthcare for millions. They don't want you to see that it will reduce 
opioid treatment. They don't want you to see that it will hurt people 
in nursing homes. They don't want you to see that millions will lose 
coverage and many more will get such minimal coverage that it will not 
help them unless, God forbid, they get the most serious of illnesses. 
That is what they don't want you to see.

[[Page S3575]]

  They are not going to get away with it because we know one thing: 
Even if the Senators don't get to see the bill and even if the leader, 
who is a very good political person, gets 51 votes, the American people 
will then see the bill, and they will be aghast. They will wonder why 
they believed President Trump's promises that costs would go down and 
benefits would go up. They will wonder why they believed the promises 
that he would not cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security.
  It is no conciliation to us, but our Republican friends--House, 
Senate, White House--will reap the whirlwind. It would be better for 
them--for them--to debate the bill in open process, even if they keep 
all their votes, because people will learn about the bill.
  When you do a bill in the dark of night, things happen that no one 
knows about. There are unintended consequences that only a thorough 
vetting can reveal. When you do things in the dark of night, there are 
individual accommodations that are made that are going to look ugly 
when they become public. So the only consolation we will have on this 
side--small consolation that it is--is the political blunder that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making that will not 
serve them well.

  I would make one more point. So why are they doing it this way? Why 
are they being so irrational, hurting people, doing it in the dark of 
night? One reason. We know who the paymaster is here, we know who the 
motivator is--the handful of wealthy Americans who will get a huge tax 
break, benefiting from taking the dollars of healthcare away from 
millions of average Americans. That is what really runs the other side 
of the aisle. I had hoped it wouldn't run Donald Trump. He didn't 
campaign like that, but it is running him too. That is the reason and 
the only reason.
  We will fight hard to prevent this bill from occurring. We will use 
the procedural means we have, small as they might be. We will. It is a 
small consolation to us, again, that our Republican colleagues will pay 
such an awful price to help their wealthy donors.
  Maybe it is not too late. Maybe the leader or maybe some of his 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say that as much as they 
might disagree with the ACA, to have a process in the dark of night is 
wrong.
  We would welcome discussion. That is why we wrote the leader and 
asked him to have a closed session in the Old Senate Chamber with 
Democrats and Republicans--without the press, without anything else--to 
talk to each other. Maybe he will reconsider his rejection of that.
  I have a few parliamentary inquiries.
  First, is the Chair aware of the number of consecutive days in 
session and the number of hours the Senate considered H.R. 3590, the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary of the Senate's office notes 
that H.R. 3590 was considered on each of 25 consecutive days of 
session, and the Senate Library estimates approximately 169 hours in 
total consideration.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Twenty-five days of consecutive session on a bill that 
was partisan in the sense that Republicans were angry with it, but we 
still had the courage of our convictions to have a debate on the floor.
  The second Parliamentary inquiry: Is the Chair aware that a 25-
consecutive-day period of session ranks second in terms of the longest 
period of consecutive session in the history of the U.S. Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Chair is aware of that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Again, when the shoe was on the other foot, we 
Democrats, knowing we would take brickbats, knowing there would be 
criticism, but for the good of the process and the good of the country, 
we were willing to have debate, hearings, and amendments. Unless there 
is a dramatic change or I am misreading where my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are going, they are not going there.


                 Unanimous Consent Requests--H.R. 1628

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to 
Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, be in order 
until the bill has been the subject of a public hearing in the 
Committee on Finance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
remember full well 7 years ago. Senator Reid was the majority leader, 
and we were called into session the Monday after Thanksgiving, and we 
stayed here 7 days a week until Christmas Eve. So why did we stay in 
session 7 days a week, from the Monday after Thanksgiving until 
Christmas Eve? Our Democratic friends didn't want anybody to go home. 
They didn't want anybody to go home and have to explain what they were 
in the process of writing in the majority leader's office.
  I think it is pretty safe to say that this subject has been very 
partisan from the beginning. Not a single Republican voted for the 
bill, and our friends on the other side have made it perfectly clear 
that no Democrats will be voting to replace it.
  So through that process, when our colleagues on the other side had 60 
votes at the time, ObamaCare was imposed on our country. Over the last 
7 years, we have all witnessed and debated its many failures. Over the 
last 7 years, Republicans have offered ideas on a better way forward. 
Over the last 7 years, Democrats have worked to prevent Congress from 
acting. Basically, it is the same dynamic that we see today: ObamaCare 
continues to collapse, Republicans are working to implement better 
ideas, and Democrats are trying to prevent Congress from acting. I 
regret that Democrats announced their intention early on that they 
didn't want to be a part of a serious bipartisan process to move past 
the failures of this law. Congress still has a responsibility to act, 
and the reconciliation process will allow us to do so.
  Later, after that period in late 2009, our Democratic friends used 
reconciliation to force ObamaCare on Americans. It is a process that 
can be used in 2017, the same way they used it in 2010, to move beyond 
its failures.
  I would remind colleagues of what happens when legislation comes to 
the floor under reconciliation. The minority leader is somehow arguing 
that reconciliation is not an open process. It is an open process. 
There is an unlimited number of amendments.
  First, the bill text is received. Then a CBO score is issued. Members 
will have time to review both. After that, there is an open amendment 
process and a robust debate. It is the one type of amendment we have on 
the floor of the Senate on which no one can prevent amendments. 
Ultimately, at the end of the process, the Senate votes. That is how 
reconciliation works.
  We have been debating ObamaCare's failures and what to do about them 
for so many years now. Members are very, very familiar with this issue. 
We have heard so many anguished stories from constituents who have been 
hurt by ObamaCare. Thankfully, at the end of the process, the Senate 
will have a chance to turn the page on this failed law.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I heard what the leader had to say. I 
think anyone who has observed the reconciliation vote-arama process 
knows it is not a robust amendment process. There are ways to correct 
that. Certainly, we have our differences pretty much on partisan lines 
between repealing ACA and amending it and making it better, but what we 
ought to be doing is discussing it with one another.
  So I would renew my request to the majority leader. What is the harm 
in us gathering in the Old Senate Chamber, 100 Senators, Democrats and 
Republicans, and maybe trying to come together? Is there any harm? I 
would renew my request that he join us in that because what the 
American people clamor for is some kind of bipartisan coming together. 
We have different views on how that should occur.
  You say: Repeal. Join us in repeal.
  We think that would hurt millions of people.
  We say: Make it better.
  You say that the ACA is irretrievable. I don't agree. But why can't 
we join together 100 strong in the Senate Chamber, no press, and just 
discuss our views with one another? Maybe something bipartisan and 
helpful could come out of this instead of this dark, hidden process. I 
would renew my request.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I would just say to my friend, we can

[[Page S3576]]

have a meeting of all 100 Senators here on the Senate floor with an 
unlimited amendment process. There will be no failure of opportunity 
for anybody to offer an amendment, to get a vote on it, to try to 
change the law. That is the way reconciliation works.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would just renew my request for one other--the leader 
said no. I get it.
  One more. Will we have time--more than 10 hours since this is a 
complicated bill--to review the bill? Will it be available to us and 
the public for more than 10 hours before we have to vote for it, since 
our Republican leader has said there will be plenty of time for a 
process where people can make amendments? We need time to prepare those 
amendments.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think we will have ample opportunity to read and 
amend the bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will it be more than 10 hours? That is my question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think we will have ample opportunity to read and 
amend the bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I rest my case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as a senior member of the U.S. Senate 
Finance Committee, which held more than 50 hearings, roundtables, and 
walkthroughs on health care reform--we spent 8 days just marking up the 
bill in committee, considered more than 130 amendments, and more than 
two dozen Republican amendments were agreed to at that time in the 
committee--a committee that posted their legislation online for 6 days 
before the original committee markup; a committee that spent, with the 
Senate, 25 consecutive days in session on health reform--the second 
longest consecutive session in the history of the U.S. Senate. In 
total, the Senate spent more than 160 hours considering the healthcare 
reform legislation.
  Based on that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no 
amendments be considered in order to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the 
American Health Care Act, until the bill is referred jointly to the 
Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions and reported favorably from the committees. This means no 
hearings, no bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. I have 
information that indicates that approximately 300 amendments were 
considered and that of those amendments, 161 amendments offered by 
Republican members of the committee were adopted during the 
consideration of S. 1679. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary of the Senate's office, through 
the Senate Library, cannot confirm the total number considered but can 
confirm that 161 Republican amendments were adopted.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Calendar 
No. 120, H.R. 1628, be referred to the Committee on Finance for the 
purpose of conducting a public hearing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Am I 
correct in stating that the text of S. 1796 and S. 1679 were posted on 
the websites for the respective committees, each for 6 days? The 
Affordable Care Act was posted on the websites of the respective 
committees, each of them, actually for 6 days prior to committee 
consideration?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary of the Senate's office, through 
the Senate Library, confirms that each committee posted its legislation 
online for 6 days prior to consideration.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, with the hope for regular order, the 
hope for committee process, the hope for transparency, the hope for the 
chance for the Senate to work as it was intended, I ask unanimous 
consent that no motion to proceed to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, be in 
order until the bill has been the subject of executive session meetings 
in the Committee on Finance, during which amendments from the majority 
and minority received votes, and the bill has been favorably reported 
from the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it shall 
not be in order in the Senate to consider H.R. 1628 or any amendment 
offered to H.R. 1628 unless the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office certifies that H.R. 1628 or any amendment offered to the bill 
will not cause a single veteran to lose health insurance coverage as a 
result of the bill's Medicaid cuts, potential loss of marketplace tax 
credits for veterans, or removal of critical patient protections.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, this past Friday, when I was back in 
Pennsylvania, I had the opportunity to meet a family whom I have 
referred to very often on the floor--the Simpson family. Rowan Simpson, 
their son, is on the autism spectrum. I have talked a lot about Rowan's 
disability in the context of the healthcare debate.
  We have now the beginnings of a debate about what will be in the 
Senate bill, if one emerges. If we are going to be up front about what 
happens to families and individuals like Rowan, I think it would be 
important to know what happens to a family who has a loved one with a 
disability in the context of both the Senate bill and the House bill 
merging.
  Madam President, on behalf of Rowan and families who have loved ones 
with disabilities, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to 
calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, be in order 
until the bill is jointly referred to the Committee on Finance and the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, one of the things that I would most 
like to work on is the cost of prescription drugs. I think we should be 
making sensible changes to the Affordable Care Act, but the bill that 
came over from the House does not really do that at all. Whether it is 
bringing the cost of drugs down for seniors by having negotiations 
under Medicare Part D or whether it is allowing for less expensive 
drugs to come in--probably generic drugs or from other countries--the 
bill just does not do that. Now, supposedly, a bill is being considered 
here, but it is being done in secret. So I cannot have my say.
  For any bill in the Senate, committees meet and debate and vote on 
amendments that are offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle. We 
need to hear ideas from Members of both parties as to how to fix this 
bill--in the HELP Committee, for starters. I ask that we agree today 
that the bill will not come to the floor until the HELP Committee has 
had an open meeting and has considered amendments from both parties.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to 
Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, be in order 
until the bill has been the subject of executive session meetings in 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, during which 
amendments from the majority and minority will have received votes and 
the bill will have been reported favorably from the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from California.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1376

  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, this healthcare bill will affect over 5 
million Californians. That is why it is so important that this bill 
goes to the

[[Page S3577]]

committees that are in charge of healthcare. It is so that it can get a 
hearing and members can discuss it and consider changes, and so that 
the public can understand what is in it. Any bill that is going to 
bypass our normal floor procedures and be voted on with only one party 
being heard and being on board should at least go through committee and 
have an open hearing process.
  The Democrats introduced a bill to change our process in order to say 
exactly that any bill that gets the expedited, simple majority 
reconciliation process of passing the Senate has to at least go through 
committee and have a hearing.
  I now ask my colleagues to agree to immediately consider that bill so 
that we can fix this process before this healthcare bill comes to the 
floor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the 
Budget be discharged from further consideration of S. 1376 and that the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.


                 Unanimous Consent Requests--H.R. 1628

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, last year, nearly 2,000 people in 
Massachusetts died from opioid overdoses. If the same number had died 
in America, it would have been 100,000 people. Thank God that because 
of the Affordable Care Act, many of those people received treatment who 
otherwise would have passed away last year. The number would have been 
a much larger number across our State and across the country. Because 
of the Affordable Care Act, the number was low, but that number was 
still much too high.
  I want to be able to tell the people in Massachusetts what the impact 
of the Republican healthcare bill will be on their families in terms of 
getting access to the opioid addiction treatment they will need so that 
the number does not continue to go up but to go down. I want to be able 
to tell them what that coverage will be before I vote upon it, but the 
majority will just not let that happen. They are keeping the bill 
hidden. They do not plan to make it public until the very last minute, 
with our having less than a day to view it before we vote upon it. That 
will be catastrophic for those families who need opioid addiction 
treatment--absolutely catastrophic.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to 
Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, be in order 
until the bill has been the subject of executive session meetings in 
the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions, during which amendments from the majority and minority 
received votes and the bill has been reported favorably from the 
committees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I am very worried about people who 
have preexisting conditions. I have watched two of my best friends 
survive cancer this year. They have both had intensive treatments, 
surgeries, and chemotherapy. They both have young daughters. I cannot 
imagine how worried they are right now because they do not know what is 
in this healthcare bill, and they do not know whether or not they will 
actually be able to afford any insurance coverage. I am worried about 
millions of Americans who may not have access to affordable insurance 
under this bill because we have not read it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it not be in order to 
proceed to Calendar No. 120, otherwise known as the American Health 
Care Act, until the full text of the bill is available to the public 
for review and comment for a minimum of 30 days--that is the same 
amount of time we give everyday regulations that come out of our 
agencies--because this bill could have such a negative effect on 
millions of Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I do not think we should vote on a bill 
that would touch every single human being in this country when one 
party is locked out of the debate--not able to read the bill and not 
able to discuss it and help make suggestions and changes. I think that 
families all across this country should be able to see this bill and be 
able to evaluate the impact on themselves and on their families.
  I am here today, in part, because of a little boy named Nicholas, who 
was born way too early, who is 2 years old, and who just received a 
diagnosis of autism, in addition to his other medical challenges. 
Nicholas is a recipient of Medicaid. I talked to his mother today. She 
wants to know whether this bill is going to cut Nicholas' care and what 
this means for Nicholas and his future.
  I think it is wrong for Republicans to push through a bill when 
Nicholas' mother cannot evaluate what the impact will be on her and on 
her child. So I believe we should post online any bill that is going to 
affect families like theirs.
  Mr. President, for that reason, I ask unanimous consent that a 
substitute or perfecting substitute amendment offered to Calendar No. 
120, H.R. 1628, not be in order if the text of the amendment has not 
been filed at the desk and made available on a public website for at 
least 72 hours, along with an analysis by the Congressional Budget 
Office of the bill's budgetary, coverage, and cost implications.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Hawaii.