Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 107 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 107 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3699-S3703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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.