[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3618-S3619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Healthcare Legislation
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I listened to the majority leader this
morning saying that ObamaCare was collapsing and Republicans are on a
rescue mission. Honestly, the gall it must take to say, after
Republicans and President Trump have spent all year sabotaging the
marketplace, that ObamaCare is collapsing. They have threatened to stop
critical cost-sharing payments that help keep deductibles and premiums
down, hurting millions of people and sowing uncertainty in the market.
There is an easy way to fix it. Instead of crying crocodile tears,
Republicans should guarantee that the cost-sharing payments will be
made. That is not just Democrats saying it. That is the insurers.
Listen to the insurers. What do they want? They want to keep premiums
down and prevent them from leaving the exchanges. They want cost-
sharing, which our Republican colleagues refuse to do, and, then, in a
cynical ploy, they try to blame ObamaCare.
Listen to AHIP, the Nation's largest trade group of insurers. It is
nonpartisan. It is a business group. Listen to what they said about the
uncertainty about cost-sharing payments. They said it was ``the single
most destabilizing factor in the individual market.'' A series of
insurance companies, including Blue Cross Blue Shield and Anthem, have
said explicitly that uncertainty caused by President Trump and
Republicans about cost-sharing is causing them to pull out of certain
markets.
So this idea, this cynical ploy--after sabotaging the bill and then
blaming someone else other than themselves--is pitiful.
The House bill, of course, was so bad--TrumpCare was so bad--that our
Republican friends are trying to switch the blame to ObamaCare. It is
not true, and it will not work.
Now, last night, Democrats held the floor well into the night to
discuss the Republican plan to pass a healthcare bill in just 2 weeks
that no one in America has seen, without holding a single committee
hearing or a robust debate on the floor. They want to bring the bill to
the floor and rush it in the dark of night for a simple reason: They
are ashamed of their bill. They don't want anybody to see it, least of
all the public.
Last evening, I asked the majority leader if the minority would have
more than 10 hours to debate and amend the final bill. He replied that
``there will be ample opportunity to debate and amend the bill.'' So I
asked again: Will we get more than 10 hours? Ten hours is the maximum
the rules allow us under reconciliation. He could only reply that
``There will be ample time.''
I have a feeling the majority leader and I disagree on the definition
of ``ample,'' because 10 hours of debate time--a total of 10 hours of
debate time on an issue this important--is a sham. It is a farce. We
would have to read the bill, prepare amendments, and consider its
consequences, all in 10 hours.
This is a bill that affects one-sixth of our economy, millions of
Americans. For them, it is life and death, and we are supposed to rush
it through.
The Affordable Care Act, for the sake of comparison, was debated for
25 consecutive days of Senate session and 169 cumulative hours of
debate time, and that was after a robust hearing and committee process.
Yesterday, the majority leader basically confirmed that we Democrats
might only have 10 hours total--no committee hearings, no committee
markups, no airing the bill--10 hours of debate. Can my colleagues
believe it? This is supposed to be a democracy where we debate the
greatest issues of our time.
I asked another question of the majority leader, and I ask him now
and I hope he will answer: Will our 10 hours of debate time be on the
House bill or will it be on the new Senate bill that he is crafting
behind closed doors? Will he let us debate the full 10 hours on the new
Senate bill--hardly enough--or is he even being more cynical and doing
[[Page S3619]]
the 10 hours of debate on the existing House bill and then putting a
substitute in--the Senate bill they have written behind closed doors--
and have no debate on that? With everything terrible that is happening,
that could make it even worse. So I am asking the majority leader to
publicly state what his plan is in that regard.
I have never heard of a more radical or a more reckless process in my
entire career in politics--10 hours of total debate on a bill that
would affect one-sixth of the American economy and millions of
Americans. If the Senate bill, like the House bill, results in 23
million fewer Americans with insurance--23 million Americans losing
their insurance--each hour of debate time would represent 2.3 million
Americans losing their insurance. Each minute of debate time would
represent 40,000 Americans losing their insurance. One minute, and
40,000 people's lives are changed; 40,000 people don't have the
coverage they need.
It boggles the mind that the Republican leader is moving forward this
way without letting anyone but Members of the Republican Senate caucus
see the bill, and even many of them have said they haven't seen it.
There is only one possible reason why my friends on the other side are
going along with this process--only one reason: They are ashamed of the
bill they are writing.
If they were proud of the bill, they would announce it. They would
have brass bands going down Main Street America, saying: Look at our
great bill. They can't even whisper what it is about, they are so, so
ashamed of it. That is why they are hiding it. They must be ashamed
that, just like the House bill, the Senate TrumpCare bill will put
healthcare out of the reach of millions of Americans just to put
another tax break into the pockets of the very wealthy.
President Trump likes to end many of his tweets with one word, almost
like punctuation: ``Sad,'' ``unfair,'' ``wrong.'' It turns out the
President has one word to sum up his healthcare plan as well: ``Mean.''
Last week, at a White House lunch with Republican Senators, the
President reportedly told them he thought the House-passed healthcare
bill was mean. That is what Donald Trump said on June 13, 2017.
For once, on the topic of healthcare, I find myself agreeing with the
President. His healthcare bill is mean. Cutting Medicaid to the bone is
mean. Cutting treatment for opioid abuse is mean. Cutting support for
families with someone in a nursing home is mean. Allowing insurers to
once again discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions
is mean. Charging older Americans five times or more for their health
insurance is mean.
Passing a law which would cause millions of Americans to lose their
health insurance in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest among
us is pretty much the textbook definition of a mean bill--a mean bill--
and even the President thinks so, but just like the Republicans in the
Senate, President Trump doesn't want the American people to know what
he really thinks of their healthcare plan. That is why he said it was
mean behind closed doors at the White House, while in public a few
weeks earlier he said it is a ``great plan,'' ``very, very incredibly
well-crafted.'' Those are his words, the same bill--the same bill--out
to the public: Great bill, great plan; while behind closed doors, what
it really is: mean.
All the plaudits the President gave the House bill turned out to be
flimsy salesmanship. Speaking candidly to fellow Republicans, the
President didn't say: Take up and pass the House bill. He didn't say it
was a great plan or that it was very, very incredibly well-crafted. He
said it was mean. My Republican friends ought to take this to heart.
Even President Trump thinks what Republicans are doing on healthcare is
a cruelty to the American people.
As we on this side of the aisle have said before, there is a better
way. Republicans shouldn't feel like this mean bill cooked up in secret
is their only option. I have invited my Republican friends to meet in
the Old Senate Chamber to discuss a bipartisan way forward on
healthcare. The Republican leader seems to have foreclosed that option,
but the invitation remains and the sentiment remains.
Democrats are willing to work with our Republican friends on
improving our healthcare system. We have significant disagreements,
sure, but Republicans haven't even tried to sit down with us to hash
them out. We would like to try, but if Republicans continue down this
path, ignoring the principles of transparency and the open debate that
defined this legislative body, we Democrats will continue to do
everything we can to shine light on what our Republican friends are
doing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of Ms. Sigal Mandelker,
President Trump's nominee to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
Five weeks ago, at Ms. Mandelker's hearing, members of the Banking
Committee were moved by her heartfelt story of her parents' escape from
the Holocaust. As her father proudly sat behind her, she explained to
the committee how, as Holocaust survivors who narrowly avoided death,
her parents raised her to never take for granted our safety, security,
or freedom.
It was this that motivated Ms. Mandelker to public service, where she
had an impressive career in law enforcement and national security at
the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security before joining the
private sector.
Like many Americans, she was compelled to action following 9/11 and
joined to serve in Justice's counterterrorism and national security
mission. Throughout the nomination process, it was obvious Ms.
Mandelker would be a strong leader to defend our Nation against
terrorism and illicit finance threats. She received bipartisan support
from the Banking Committee in a 16-to-7 vote advancing her nomination.
Also, with bipartisan support, just last week the Senate voted on the
Iran sanctions bill and our Russia sanctions amendment. Part of Ms.
Mandelker's job as Under Secretary would be directly overseeing
sanctions policy on Iran, Russia, North Korea, Syria, and some 25 other
programs.
In fact, when asked what her top priorities would be in assuming
office, she noted that, first and foremost, she will focus on the areas
posing the greatest threats--those being North Korea, Iran, ISIS,
Syria, and Russia. She also affirmed that she would work closely with
the Banking Committee and Congress in carrying out her duties.
I don't need to stress the importance of confirming Ms. Mandelker's
nomination so Treasury can carry out this important mission, especially
given that the Senate vote on our sanctions package last week was so
strong. The two leaders and many Senators of both parties were able to
work together to pass this important, comprehensive sanctions
legislation, as they should, to ensure Senate confirmation of this
nomination.
Given Ms. Mandelker's strong qualifications, dedication to service
and mission, and bipartisan support from this committee of
jurisdiction, I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.
I yield the floor.
____________________