[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 107 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3698-S3703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we are beginning to receive the first 
bits of information about the Senate Republican healthcare bill, which 
has until now been shrouded in absolute secrecy.
  I can see why. Even as we continue to get more details, the broad 
outlines are clear. This is a bill designed to strip away healthcare 
benefits and protections from Americans who need it most in order to 
give a tax break to the folks who need it least.
  This is a bill that would end Medicaid as we know it, rolling back 
Medicaid expansion, cutting Federal support for the program even more 
than the House bill, which cut Medicaid by $800 billion.
  Let me remind everyone in this Chamber, Medicaid is not just a health 
insurance program for Americans struggling in poverty, though that is 
an important and necessary part of it. Medicaid is increasingly a 
middle-class program. Medicaid is how many Americans are able to access 
opioid abuse treatment, Medicaid foots the bill for two-thirds of all 
Americans living in nursing homes, and Medicaid provides the cushion, 
particularly in rural areas, so hospitals can survive and give topnotch 
healthcare to all of us.
  From what is reported, in just 3 short years under the Senate bill, 
Republicans will take millions off their Medicaid coverage, and then, 
starting in 2025, the plan will institute even more Medicaid cuts, and 
each year those cuts get deeper than the year before. Within 10 years 
of this new funding system, the cuts to Medicaid could total hundreds 
of billions of dollars above the more than $800 billion the House bill 
already cuts from the program.
  Every senior in America should read the fine print of this bill. It 
looks as if American seniors could be paying way more. Why do this? 
Looking at the bill, the answer is, because the Republicans want to 
give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans--those making over 
$200,000 a year--and set themselves up to give these folks another, 
even larger tax cut in their tax bill.
  Even though much of the early reporting says that the bill will keep 
certain protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, the 
truth is, it may well not guarantee them the coverage they need by 
allowing States to waive essential health benefits. What the bill is 
saying to those Americans is that insurance still has to cover you, but 
it doesn't have to cover what you may actually need. It doesn't have to 
cover all or even most of your costs.
  If you need treatment for opioid addiction, your plan may no longer 
cover it. If you are pregnant and need maternity care, your plan may 
have decided that is too expensive. The coverage that Americans with 
preexisting conditions actually need may well become either 
unaffordable or even nonexistent under this bill.
  Simply put, this bill will result----
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Democratic leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Not right now--at the end of my remarks.
  Simply put, this bill will result in higher costs, less care, and 
millions of Americans will lose their health insurance, particularly 
through Medicaid. It is every bit as bad as the House bill. In some 
ways, it is even worse.
  The President said the Senate bill needed heart. The way this bill 
cuts healthcare is heartless. The President said the House bill was 
mean. The Senate bill may be meaner.
  The Senate Republican healthcare bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing, 
but this wolf has even sharper teeth than the House bill.
  It is clear that Republicans know that cutting Medicaid will hurt so 
many people in the middle class, so many in my home State of New York. 
Republicans know that people want essential health benefits, so they 
have created a disguise by saying that these changes will not occur for 
a year. But, in reality, the Senate Republican bill is a wolf in 
sheep's clothing, only this wolf has even sharper teeth than the House 
bill.

  We are potentially voting on it in a week--with no committee 
hearings, no amendments in committee, no debate on the floor, save for 
10 measly hours, on one of the most important bills we are dealing with 
in decades. That brings shame on this body. We won't even know the full 
cost or consequence of the bill until CBO scores it, and that could 
take a few days more.
  How can my friend the majority leader expect this body to fairly 
consider this legislation, prepare amendments, and debate it in 1 week 
with only 10 hours of debate? How can he expect his own Members to do 
the same? Many of them on the Republican side are learning the details 
of the bill the same way we Democrats are: They are reading it today.
  Now, listen to what the majority leader had to say in 2009 when we 
were debating healthcare--his words:

       This is a very important issue. . . . We shouldn't try to 
     do it in the dark. And whatever final bill is produced should 
     be available to the American public and to Members of the 
     Senate, certainly, for enough time to

[[Page S3699]]

     come to grips with it. . . . And we are going to insist--and 
     the American people are going to insist--that it be done in a 
     transparent, fair, and open way.

  Is 5 or 6 days enough time for the American people and the Members of 
the Senate to come to grips with a bill that affects one-sixth of the 
economy and the lives of every American in this country? I don't think 
so, neither do the American people and neither do a whole bunch of 
Republican Senators.
  Senator Cassidy: Would I have preferred a more open process? The 
answer is yes.
  Senator Collins: I don't think it gives enough time to thoroughly 
analyze the bill, but we will see when it comes out.
  Member after Member--Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Jerry Moran, Marco 
Rubio, Bob Corker--has repeatedly said that this process--in their 
words and now in mine--is unfair, it is truncated, and it is rushed.
  For my dear friend the majority leader to say we are going to have an 
open amendment process is turning truth upside down. I would ask our 
leader, rhetorically, because I know the answer: Can we allow at least 
1 hour on each amendment, not 2 minutes? Will we have more time than 10 
hours to debate the bill? I hope so. But, if not, please don't call 
this an open and fair process. If you want to rush it through, admit 
the consequences.
  The debate over healthcare has been fierce. We know that Republicans 
and Democrats had differences when we debated the Affordable Care Act. 
At least we had a debate. At least we had committee hearings and a 
process. More broadly than that, at least we Democrats were trying to 
pass a healthcare bill that helped more Americans afford insurance and 
tried to bring costs down and end some of the most egregious practices 
of the healthcare industry.
  What is this bill--TrumpCare--trying to achieve? It seems designed to 
slash support for healthcare programs in order to give tax breaks to 
the very wealthy.
  When the CBO score comes out, I believe it will verify that millions 
of Americans in this great country will be unable to afford insurance 
or the insurance they can afford won't cover the services they need.
  Somewhere in America there is a family who takes a trip each Friday 
to visit grandma or grandpa at a nursing home, who sacrificed all of 
their savings to pay for their healthcare until they had no more 
savings and now rely on Medicaid to help pay the cost of long-term care 
in a nursing home.
  Somewhere in America there is a father who is eaten up inside 
watching his son struggle with opioid addiction, who knows in his heart 
that his son will be able to go on and live a healthy and fulfilling 
life if he could only afford treatment to get him out from under this 
devastating addiction.
  Somewhere in America there is a parent whose child has cancer, a 
mother and father who stay up late at night worried that their 
insurance will either not be available or run out when the family needs 
it most.
  In the America that my Republican friends envision with this 
healthcare bill, those Americans, and many more besides, might not get 
the coverage and care they need.
  We live in the wealthiest country on Earth. Surely, surely, we can do 
better than what the Republican healthcare bill promises.


                 Unanimous Consent Requests--H.R. 1628

  Now I have a unanimous consent request. I am going to have to delay 
my friend from asking questions until we finish our unanimous consent 
requests.
  I ask unanimous consent that any substitute or perfecting 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my 
colleague Senator Cornyn was going to ask a question, which I will 
answer, which was that the minority leader is referring to a bill that 
he hasn't seen a copy of because it hasn't yet been released. So the 
speech we just heard was about a bill that he hasn't seen.
  With regard to his unanimous consent request, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, leader time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 142 pages thus far of this supposed bill 
have been printed online, and that is what I have used.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, several weeks ago the House of 
Representatives passed a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to 
replace it. It was passed without hearings. It was passed without an 
amendment process, and it was passed before the Congressional Budget 
Office provided the traditional analysis that we count on before we 
take up a measure of such magnitude.
  The measure passed with a party-line vote--all Republicans. Had two 
Republicans voted the other way, it would not have moved forward.
  After it passed, the President of the United States decided to have a 
celebration at the White House. We saw him on television, gathering the 
Republican Members of the House of Representatives and celebrating the 
fact that this measure had passed and that, finally, they were going to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  But then the American people took a close look and the Congressional 
Budget Office issued its analysis, and it turns out that 23 million 
Americans would lose their health insurance because of this Republican 
measure that passed the House of Representatives.

  It turns out as well that there would be a dramatic increase in 
health insurance premiums for people between the ages of 50 and 64.
  It turns out that in my State and many other States hospitals were in 
danger. The Illinois Health and Hospital Association says they would 
lose 60,000 jobs in Illinois with the dramatic cutbacks in Medicaid, 
endangering hospitals in rural areas and inner-city areas.
  The facts started coming out about this repeal bill passed by the 
House of Representatives, and the President of the United States had a 
change of heart and announced to the American people that it was a mean 
bill--a mean bill. The President was right. It was mean legislation--
mean to the millions who lost their healthcare, mean to seniors who 
would find their premiums going up dramatically, and mean to the people 
living in rural areas and small towns who count on those hospitals.
  The President was right. It was mean.
  Then, the responsibility shifts to the Senate. The majority leader, 
Senator McConnell, and his Republican followers had a chance to do a 
bill that was not mean. They had a chance to sit down on a bipartisan 
basis and to have the same process we used to create the Affordable 
Care Act.
  That would have involved public hearings. We had 50 public hearings 
on the Affordable Care Act. It would have involved a real amendment 
process. The Affordable Care Act had 300 amendments. How many were 
offered by the Republicans? There were over 150 offered and adopted in 
a bipartisan process when we passed the Affordable Care Act. The 
American people got a good look at the bill. The Congressional Budget 
Office issued their analysis before we voted on it. We passed it, and I 
am glad we did, and I am proud of that vote.
  But what happened in the Senate when it came to the Republicans? They 
went into secrecy. Thirteen chosen Republican Senators all sat in a 
room and wrote the alternative, or so we are told. They met in secret 
and never once had a public hearing, never once disclosed to the 
American people what was being debated, never once gave an opportunity 
for real bipartisan cooperation to strengthen our existing healthcare 
system--not at all.
  So all we have at this moment is truly press accounts of what has 
been announced to the Republican Senate caucus, what they are going to 
get a chance to read and see. But it is enough to see that when it 
comes down to the basics, there is not much of a change between the 
House of Representatives' effort and the Senate effort.
  You can put a lace collar on a pit bull, and it is still a mean dog.

[[Page S3700]]

  What we have here with the Republicans in the Senate is an attempt to 
dust off the edges of the House bill and say: This is not as mean. I 
will tell you, at the end of the day, from the reports we have, this is 
still a mean dog, and one the people of the United States don't want to 
see happen.
  There isn't a single medical advocacy group--not one in my State, and 
I don't know of any nationwide--that endorses what the Republicans in 
the House have accomplished with the passage of their bill, and this 
bill mirrors it, as well, and we can expect the same result.
  So the only thing we can offer the American people is a chance to be 
part of the conversation on a bill that will literally change 
healthcare for millions of Americans. If they are going to be part of 
the conversation, there has to be a chance for amendment and debate, at 
least, and a chance for the American people to see what is in the 
Senate Republican measure.
  So I ask unanimous consent that any substitute or perfecting 
amendment offered to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, be subject to a point 
of 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; and that a motion to waive 
the point of order be in order, and if a motion to waive is made, an 
affirmative three-fifths vote of those duly chosen and sworn is 
required to waive the point of order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want 
to thank my friend the assistant Democratic leader for confirming that 
the majority leader's remarks obviously were made on the basis of news 
accounts. The bill has only been posted online for the last 20 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would the majority leader yield?
  I am the minority leader, at this point.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The question is, Does the majority leader know that a 
half hour before we came to the floor were 142 pages of the bill listed 
online? That is what we used in our report.
  I would ask the majority leader a further question: If there is 
anything I said--anything I said--that is not going to be in the bill, 
could he clarify?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what we are seeing here today is just the 
latest broken promise from President Trump and his Republican Party. 
After weeks of secret negotiations, back-room deals, shutting out 
patients, families, and Democrats and even many Republicans from this 
process, Senate Republican leaders are now just days away from putting 
a bill on the floor that could not be more impactful or more 
devastating to families' bank accounts and their health. As even 
Republicans are pointing out, there has not been a single hearing, no 
robust debate, no opportunity for the people who will really suffer 
under this bill to see exactly how bad it would be.
  This disastrous TrumpCare bill deserves full scrutiny under an open 
process, like the process that Democrats conducted when we passed the 
Affordable Care Act. We held hearings, we took amendments from both 
sides, and we certainly didn't leave the fate of women's healthcare up 
to a few Republican men.
  Senate Republicans are right to be ashamed of this mean and heartless 
legislation. Just like the House TrumpCare bill, it will increase 
premiums, it will undermine protections for people with preexisting 
conditions, it will defund Planned Parenthood, and it will allow 
insurance companies--insurance companies--to charge women more. It is 
going to gut Medicaid. It will take away care for our seniors, pregnant 
women, people with disabilities, and it will take health insurance 
coverage away from millions of people across the country--and for what? 
To give another massive tax cut to the wealthy and well-connected.

  I would be ashamed, too, if I had to defend a bill that is cruel. I 
can certainly understand why Republican leaders do not want to give 
people time to see what is in this bill and why they don't even want to 
give their own Members time to see how much their constituents hate it, 
but that is the bed Senate Republicans have now made. If they are going 
to try to pass this disastrous version of TrumpCare, at the very least 
they shouldn't get to jam it through without the public knowing good 
and well what they are up to.
  Mr. President, I ask a parliamentary inquiry: Is the Chair able to 
confirm that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
considered S. 1679, the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was 
ultimately incorporated into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act, in executive session on 13 calendar days prior to reporting the 
bill favorably?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary of the Senate's 
Office through the Senate Library can confirm that.
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is confirmed.
  So I ask unanimous consent today that any substitute or perfecting 
amendment offered to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, not be in order if 
the text of the amendment has not been the subject of a hearing, 
subject of executive session, during which amendments from both the 
majority and minority were considered and reported favorably by the 
Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  None of these Senators have read the bill.
  I have the floor.
  The bill is 142 pages long compared to the 2,700-page ObamaCare bill. 
They can read the bill; if they have objections to the provisions, we 
can debate them, but what they are talking about is a bill that does 
not exist, which they have not read.
  I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The minority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, would my dear colleague from Texas yield 
for a question?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas does not 
have the floor. You have the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would like to just then tell my friend from Texas: 
This is the bill. It was posted online a half hour before we came in. I 
would ask a page to come over and bring it to my dear friend and ask 
him if this is the bill which we have read.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, all Senators have a copy of the discussion 
draft bill. It is a discussion draft which will be open to an amendment 
process, with unlimited amendments which can be offered by both sides, 
before which we will have a fulsome debate.
  Our colleagues here are complaining about secrecy that doesn't exist. 
This bill is online. The American people can read it. You can read it. 
I would suggest that they do read it before they start criticizing it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would ask my friend from Texas to yield for another 
question.
  Mr. CORNYN. I will.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will we get more than 2 minutes to debate each amendment 
we ask for or will we be under the reconciliation process, where we 
have 10 hours of debate and then every amendment only gets 2 minutes? 
Does he consider that--2 minutes, if that is the case--a full and fair 
debate on each amendment?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say, in response to my friend from 
New York, the fact that we are having to conduct this under the 
reconciliation rules is a result of their refusal to participate in the 
process, thus necessitating Republicans doing this under budget 
reconciliation rules.
  If they would do this in a true bipartisan way, where we can get 60 
votes to get on the bill and open to an amendment process, we could 
have a better bill, but given the refusal of our Democratic colleagues 
to participate in the process, this is the only way we can come to the 
rescue of the people who are being hurt by the meltdown of ObamaCare 
today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Just to clarify, did the Senator

[[Page S3701]]

from Texas object to the request of the Senator from Washington?
  Mr. CORNYN. I do object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I heard the objection.
  I just have to say, the exchange we just heard is exactly what we 
have been objecting to. We were told the bill would be online at 9:30 
this morning. It was online at 11. I have a copy of it, but we are 
hearing from the other side now that this isn't the bill. This is a 
discussion draft. We aren't going to see the bill. We will not see the 
real bill, apparently, until next week, even though we were told we 
would see it this morning.
  This has been the problem we have had since this discussion started. 
We started in January with a process which cut us out of this under 
reconciliation. Thirteen men in a private room wrote this ``discussion 
draft,'' which is not a bill, that we are supposed to now look at and 
decide whether we like it--and the American public--a discussion draft, 
a bill even the other side doesn't know what we have. That is what we 
are objecting to.
  We are asking that the American people--who have a right to know what 
is going to impact every one of their lives, every one of their 
families, every one of their communities, every one of their 
businesses--have more than a discussion draft, more than 10 hours of 
debate, time to look at it, and know how we are going to do an 
amendment process next week.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would be happy to.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Washington if 
she is aware of the fact that under the budget reconciliation process, 
there will be an unlimited number of amendments that could be offered 
by either side to the bill which is ultimately filed?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Oh, Mr. President, I am well aware of that; and I will 
remind our colleagues and everybody in this country what will happen: 
There will be 10 hours of debate, where we hopefully have more than a 
discussion draft that we will be allowed to offer amendments on, and 
there will be no debate on those amendments. No one will know what it 
is. It will be a chaotic process on this floor. The American public 
will not know. We will be able to tell them days later, after this gets 
undone.
  That is not an amendment process. That is not what we went through 
when we passed the Affordable Care Act. The American public deserves 
better.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would ask my colleague a question.
  What would be wrong with 1 hour of debate on every amendment to this 
bill? What is the objection to that, since the majority is proposing no 
debate on amendments, and then saying it is an open process? What is 
wrong with 1 hour of debate on every amendment offered to this bill?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say, in response to my friend the 
minority leader, that it is as a result of their refusal to participate 
in the usual process of passing legislation through the regular order--
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. CORNYN.--that we have to resort to the budget reconciliation 
process which has a set of statutory provisions and rules.
  There will be a fulsome debate. There has already been a debate on a 
bill you haven't read. I suggest you take the time to read it, and then 
we can talk about the details.
  This bill--142 pages compared to 2,700 pages of ObamaCare--doesn't 
take that long to read. This is a start. This is not the finish. This 
is called the normal legislative process. I suggest colleagues, rather 
than criticize a bill they haven't read, they read it, and then let's 
have a credible debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would ask my friend, the majority whip 
from Texas, a series of questions.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. What was the date that reconciliation was added to the 
budget resolution which said we don't need any Democratic votes? Was it 
May, was it April, was it March, or was it the very beginning of this 
session?
  I would ask him another question. Where were the meetings held to 
discuss this bill, and were any Democrats invited?
  I would ask him another question. Why did the majority leader not 
accept our offer to go into the Old Senate Chamber--100 Senators, no 
press, no anything else--and debate the bill?
  How can my good friend--and he is a good friend; we are on the bikes 
in the morning together--my good friend from Texas say there was a 
bipartisan process when, at the outset--at the outset--our Republican 
colleagues said the only thing we will debate is repeal and then 
replace? There was no discussion of whether repeal was the right thing 
to do or the wrong thing to do. Now, overwhelmingly the American people 
prefer fixing ObamaCare--which we offered to do--than repeal and 
replace.
  It is no wonder, I would say to my colleague as he answers these 
questions, that this bill is being brought in the dark of night. It is 
because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are ashamed of the 
bill--because, believe you me, if they liked this bill, they would have 
brass bands down every Main Street in America talking about it, but 
they are trying to sneak it through because mainly their goal is a tax 
cut for the rich.
  I would ask my colleague to answer those three questions, and then he 
can respond to my rhetoric.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am really taken aback by the 
characterization of the minority leader here.
  The minority has made it clear they don't want to participate in the 
process of rescuing the American people from the failures of ObamaCare.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. CORNYN. It has been made clear to us that you don't want to 
participate in the process, and you are turning a blind eye to the 
millions of people being hurt today by outrageous premiums, deductibles 
they can't afford, and a loss of choices because insurance companies 
have pulled out of the individual market. Your response to them is: We 
don't care.
  We care, and we are doing our best to deal with this.
  This is like going by a car accident with somebody seriously injured, 
and rather than stopping and rendering aid, just driving on by. That is 
what our colleagues on the other side are doing. They are turning a 
blind eye, driving right on by a seriously injured person in a car 
accident. We are coming to the rescue of the millions of people who are 
being hurt by ObamaCare today.
  We would love to have our Democratic friends join us and do something 
truly sustainable, but you have to remember, my friends, how this 
started: Democrats jammed ObamaCare through on a party-line vote and 
Republicans weren't able to participate in that process.
  What we are trying to do is we are trying to save the people who are 
currently being hurt and whose healthcare has become unaffordable. If 
you would like to join us in this process, we would love to have you, 
but failing that, we are going to get it done, and you can just drive 
by the car wreck.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, here is the correct analogy: Yes, there 
has been an accident. Yes, someone needs help. Someone who is not a 
doctor, not a physician, doesn't know how to help the patient--our 
Republicans friends go by the side of the road, but they don't know 
what to do.
  So the Democrats come by. We are doctors. We say: We know how to fix 
this system. We know how to fix this patient, and the Republicans say: 
No, don't help with us. We will drive right by. Now the patient is 
ailing.
  I would ask my colleagues, let's forget the past for the moment 
because we have a much better argument than you. We had hundreds of 
amendments offered by Republicans that became part of our bill. I doubt 
there will be a

[[Page S3702]]

single Democratic amendment that will be--we had hours of hearings, 
hours of debate. You didn't. So you may not have thought the process 
was perfect, but it was a lot more open than yours.
  I have a proposal to my friend. Let us forget this draft bill. Let us 
right now, Democrats and Republicans, sit down and try to come up with 
a bipartisan bill. We are willing to do it today, now, this minute. 
Will you accept that offer?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I thought that was a sincere offer, I 
would take it in a minute--in a New York minute, but it is not.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. CORNYN. The fact is, insurance companies are having to go to the 
State regulators as we speak to get insurance rates approved for 2018. 
That is the urgency we are experiencing here.
  Unless we act--and act in an expedited fashion--here, very soon, we 
will see millions of people have their insurance rates raised by 
another double digits. It has been 105 percent since 2013--105 percent. 
ObamaCare was sold under the premise that families of four would see a 
reduction of $2,500. If you like your policy, you can keep your policy. 
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. All of that is 
false. False. This is a failed experiment.
  They may not be willing to help, but we will, and we will get it done 
and help the American people who are being hurt by the failure of 
ObamaCare today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am struck by this conversation as the 
ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. My colleague and 
distinguished Senator from Texas is on the Finance Committee. He knows 
I know something about writing bipartisan healthcare reform bills. I 
have written them. They have become law. I could tell my colleague, I 
have not once--not once--been asked to be part of any bipartisan effort 
with respect to this legislation.
  I think, colleagues, it is real clear what is going on here. Senate 
Republicans are going to keep telling Americans they are fixing their 
healthcare right up until the second it gets taken away.
  Now, as the ranking member of the Finance Committee, I find it 
bizarre that a health bill of this importance was hidden for so long 
behind closed doors, denying the American people the opportunity to see 
it in an open debate.
  There have been no hearings on this dangerous, destructive proposal, 
not one hearing on whether Medicaid should be slashed to pay for tax 
cuts for the fortunate few, not one hearing on whether the bedrock 
protections for those with preexisting conditions ought to be 
shattered, not one hearing on whether Americans should face higher 
costs, along with annual and lifetime limits, on insurance coverage.
  This secretive process of concealing and rushing this bill, which 
until today had been seen by nobody--nobody outside of the Republican 
leadership and their lobbyist allies who dwell on K Street--the 
secretive process stands in sharp contrast to the process that led to 
the Affordable Care Act.
  I now put forward a parliamentary inquiry. Is the Chair able to 
confirm that the Committee on Finance considered S. 1796, the America's 
Healthy Future Act, which was ultimately incorporated into H.R. 3590, 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in executive session on 
8 separate calendar days prior to reporting the bill favorably?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary of the Senate's 
office, through the Senate Library, confirms that.
  Mr. WYDEN. I have information that indicates that 135 amendments were 
considered in the committee and that of those, 14 amendments offered by 
Republican members of the committee or offered in a bipartisan manner 
were adopted during the consideration of S. 1796. Is the Chair able to 
confirm that?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary of the Senate's 
office, through the Senate Library, confirms that.
  Mr. WYDEN. Therefore, Mr. President, 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 and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions, during which amendments from the majority and the minority 
received votes and the bill has been favorably reported from those 
committees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, our 
colleagues are coming here today and saying they want to participate in 
the process to fix what is broken in the Affordable Care Act. Yet I 
have in my hand a newspaper article about a letter that the Democratic 
leader and his colleagues sent saying they refused to participate in 
the process unless we drop all of our plans to repeal and replace 
ObamaCare. They refused to participate in the process.
  I would point out that the failures of ObamaCare didn't just start 
today; it has been failing over 7 years. They did nothing--nothing--
nothing to help the millions of people who are being hurt, who had to 
move from full-time work to part-time work because their employer 
didn't want to pay the employer penalty for not providing ObamaCare 
coverage. We know that many people have been hurt by it and not the 
least of whom are the people who are finding their premiums 
skyrocketing. They will do so again next year unless we come to their 
rescue. They have seen their deductibles so high, they effectively have 
been denied the value of their insurance.
  I had a conversation a couple of days ago--I won't name the 
Democratic Senator because it was done in confidence. The Senator 
confided to me that his own son had effectively seen his premiums go up 
so high that he had--it cost roughly $12,500 out-of-pocket to deal with 
his deductible and to pay his premiums--$12,500. That is not affordable 
to anybody, certainly in the middle class.
  I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to indicate before the 
distinguished majority whip leaves that what is being talked about here 
is like having a hole in the roof of your house. Instead of patching 
it, they want to burn down the house. What we are not willing to 
participate in is burning down the house. We are more than happy and, 
in fact, have proposals and are anxious to work with the majority to 
improve healthcare--not rip it apart, not take tens of millions of 
people's healthcare away, but improve it.
  Before asking a question of the majority whip, I also want to 
indicate for all those listening that we have the bill. We can actually 
read pretty quickly, and it has been out. Even though it is considered 
a discussion draft--we don't know what it is at this point--we have it. 
We are analyzing it.
  What our leader, the Democratic leader, indicated is what we have 
been able to read in this discussion draft, which is not only more of 
the same but is worse for seniors, those in nursing homes, and children 
in Michigan and across the country. That is what is in this, which we 
now have, whatever it is called.
  I would ask the majority whip, instead of burning down the house at 
this point in terms of ripping apart the healthcare system, would you 
join with us in putting forward a bill that would allow Medicare to 
negotiate prescription drug prices for seniors, which my hospitals and 
insurance companies tell me are one of the driving forces that are 
raising the costs of healthcare? Would you be willing to work with us 
on a bill to lower prescription drug prices and allow Medicare to 
negotiate drug prices on behalf of America's seniors?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Michigan 
that we would be happy to work with you on high drug prices. That is a 
serious problem and one of the primary cost drivers of healthcare costs 
today. But this bill doesn't touch Medicare at all. We leave intact the 
healthcare for seniors, and it is not touched by this at all. When the 
time comes for us to deal with Medicare, I think that is a debate we 
should have and we would welcome.

[[Page S3703]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, to the distinguished leader, I simply 
would say I am proposing that instead of this, which is essentially 
burning down the house in America in terms of healthcare, that you 
instead join with us in what you have admitted is one of the top 
drivers of healthcare costs in this country, which is what we want to 
tackle. We want to bring down the costs. We want to bring down the cost 
of prescription drugs, the out-of-pocket costs for everyone whose 
copays and premiums are too high. That is what we want to do. Taking 
away nursing home care, taking away the ability for a parent to take 
their child to the doctor or someone with cancer to get the treatment 
they need or a small business owner being blocked from getting 
healthcare because of a preexisting condition--we consider that burning 
down the house. We are opposed to that.
  Frankly, we would love to have a ceremony and light this on fire and 
come back together and work together on the No. 1 driver, which is the 
cost of prescription drugs.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, maybe I misunderstood the question 
initially. I would suggest to the Senator from Michigan that it is the 
Democrats, under ObamaCare, who burned down the house because the 
individual market for healthcare has been decimated--decimated. And we 
are coming to the rescue of those millions of people who don't have 
employer-provided insurance. They don't get their coverage under 
Medicare or any other government program. They get it from the 
individual market. We are talking about individuals and small 
businesses. Right now people have almost no choices in many parts of 
the country, and for those who have choices, it is simply unaffordable.
  It is an important conversation to have on drug prices and Medicare, 
and I am happy to do that. That would do nothing--zip, zero, nada--to 
help the people who are hurting now as a result of the failures of 
ObamaCare, and that is whom we are determined to help by passing this 
legislation after an open amendment process and fulsome debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in conclusion, I wish to make one other 
comment, and that is, the people in Michigan who are purchasing on the 
private exchange--over half of whom are able to get a policy today for 
their families for less than $100--I would say they would have a 
different perspective.
  We need to fix those things that are not working, but for the 97 
percent of the children in Michigan who can now see a doctor because of 
what has been done; for the hospitals that now see 50 percent fewer 
people walking into the emergency room without insurance, raising the 
costs for all policies; for the savings the State of Michigan is going 
to have in its budget next year of $432 million in savings to taxpayers 
because they did the right thing by allowing children to go to a doctor 
instead of getting sick and going to the emergency room, I would 
suggest this is the wrong direction.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.