[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.

                          ____________________