[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3807-S3810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, Senate Republicans gathered 
down at the White House for another discussion on the way forward on 
healthcare. We had a productive conversation. I appreciate the 
administration's engagement, and I look forward to more discussions in 
the days that lie ahead.
  We will continue working so that we can bring legislation to the 
floor for debate and, ultimately, a vote. We know that we cannot afford 
to delay on this issue. We have to get this done for the American 
people. That is a sentiment that is widely shared in our conference, 
and I think I speak for everyone in acknowledging, once again, that the 
ObamaCare status quo is unacceptable and that it simply cannot 
continue.
  ObamaCare has caused premiums to increase by an average of 105 
percent in the vast majority of States on the Federal exchange. Next 
year, premiums will again increase across the country--by as much as 43 
percent in Iowa, 59 percent in Maryland, and 80 percent in New Mexico.
  ObamaCare has led to 70 percent of our counties having little or no 
choice of insurance on the exchange this year. Next year, dozens of 
counties are projected to have no choice at all, which could leave 
thousands trapped, forced by law to purchase ObamaCare insurance but 
left without the means to do so. Seven years after Democrats forced 
ObamaCare on our country, these are the painful realities for countless 
families across our country.
  It is unfortunate that our Democratic colleagues have refused to work 
with us in a serious way to comprehensively address ObamaCare's 
failures in the 7 years since they passed it. I regret that they 
continue to demonstrate an unserious attitude about all of this today, 
but it is increasingly clear that ObamaCare's negative trends will only 
get worse, hurting even more Americans all along the way, unless we 
act. This should not be acceptable to anyone.
  Sitting on the sidelines and accepting the status quo will not bring 
help to anyone's constituents. We have the opportunity to provide 
relief to those struggling families, and we should take it. Senators 
will have more opportunities to offer their thoughts as we work toward 
an agreement, and every Member will have the ability to engage in a 
robust debate out here on the Senate floor.
  But, if one thing is clear, it is this: ObamaCare is a direct assault 
on the middle class. It is getting worse, and we have to act to finally 
move beyond its failures.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate will be going home this week 
for the Fourth of July recess, and most of us will be back in our homes 
with our families and in our hometowns and

[[Page S3808]]

moving around. I still think the topic of conversation is going to be 
healthcare.
  I think this conversation and debate in Washington has really touched 
a lot of families and businesses and individuals across this country. 
The reason I say that is because about 6 years ago, I voted for the 
Affordable Care Act, what is known as ObamaCare. For the longest time, 
I was sure it was the right vote, and I am still sure today, but I 
wondered why people didn't appreciate it because what we tried to do--
and we achieved some success--was to provide health insurance for a lot 
of people in America who didn't have it. In my State of Illinois, we 
cut the percentage of uninsured people in half because of the 
Affordable Care Act. A large number of them are now covered by 
Medicaid, and a large number are able to buy health insurance through 
private insurance exchanges.
  But for the longest time, when we asked people across America ``What 
about ObamaCare? What about the Affordable Care Act?'' we got mixed 
reviews. Less than a majority supported it.
  Then we embarked on this conversation, this debate in Washington in 
the Senate over the last 6 months, and an interesting thing happened. 
When the Republicans, who are in the majority in the Senate and the 
House, who were determined to repeal ObamaCare, set out to do it, they 
found out it was a big, heavy lift.
  So now, today, we have an interesting thing that has happened. For 
the first time in the last several weeks, a majority of the American 
people support the Affordable Care Act. All of those years after we 
passed it, when we were talking about the good things it did, people 
were skeptical, but when the notion of repealing it came up, people 
started saying: Well, what would I lose if you repealed it? And when 
they thought about what they would lose, they decided those things were 
valuable to them personally and to their families. And what were those 
things? Some pretty basic things--first, that you would have access to 
health insurance.
  I have repeatedly told the story of my friend Judy. Judy is in 
hospitality. She works in a motel down in Southern Illinois that I have 
stayed in from time to time. She is a sweetheart of a lady. She is 62 
years old and has had jobs that don't pay a lot of money, but she goes 
to work every day--there is not a lazy bone in her body. She is 62 
years old, and Judy had never had health insurance in her life until we 
passed the Affordable Care Act. Now she qualifies for Medicaid, and 
thank goodness she does because she has been diagnosed with diabetes, 
and she needs a good doctor she can count on, and she needs good 
medical advice.
  So when we said that we were passing the Affordable Care Act so that 
more people would have access to health insurance, it happened.
  We also said we were going to change the health insurance policies 
you buy so that you don't get tricked into buying something that is 
going to provide protection but only enough and not enough when you 
really need it.
  For example, there used to be lifetime limits. People would buy 
health insurance and say: I am going to keep the premium low. I will 
sign up for a lifetime limit. How could I ever need health insurance 
for more than $100,000 a year?
  Well, it is an eye-opener, but there are many diagnoses or accidents 
that could happen to you next week that would cost more than $100,000. 
So a lot of people found themselves facing personal bankruptcy because 
they had a limit on their health insurance policy and faced a cancer 
diagnosis and knew they would have to spend $150,000 or $200,000 for 
the most basic care.
  We also said: When you sell health insurance, you can't discriminate 
against people because of a preexisting condition.
  Well, it turned out that insurance companies defined ``preexisting 
condition'' to include everything, such as acne when you were a 
teenager or asthma--you name it. In fact, they went so far as to say 
that being a woman was a preexisting condition. Some of those things 
made no sense, so we said: That is over. We are not going to let that 
happen anymore.
  One out of three Americans has a preexisting condition. You can't 
discriminate against a person because they are of a family with a child 
who has survived diabetes or is living with diabetes or a spouse who 
survived cancer surgery. So we said that from now on, under the 
Affordable Care Act, when you buy a health insurance policy, it is 
going to cover the basics.
  We did something else that I want to mention because I don't want it 
overlooked. There used to be a Senator who sat back here in the last 
row, in the second seat, named Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. Paul 
Wellstone was a great guy. You couldn't help but love him whatever your 
politics. Over here was Pete Domenici, and he was a conservative 
Republican Senator from New Mexico. Wellstone from Minnesota, Domenici 
from New Mexico--what would those two have in common? What they had in 
common was that each of them had someone in their family with a mental 
illness, and they watched what happened to their loved one in their 
family. The two teamed up and said: From this point forward, when you 
buy health insurance in America, it is not going to be just physical 
health that it is going to cover, it is going to cover mental health as 
well.
  So many families are touched by mental illness, some very serious 
forms, some not so serious but need medical help, and they all should 
be covered. So they put that provision in the Affordable Care Act so 
that now, when you buy a health insurance policy in America, it is not 
hit or miss; it covers mental illness, as it should.
  Then they added a provision that most of us didn't pay attention to, 
and we should, and we do now: mental illness and substance abuse 
treatment. Think of this opioid and heroin epidemic and the people who 
are dying right and left. Think of families who are absolutely consumed 
by the addiction of a child, of a teenager, wondering if they can get 
them into treatment so they can save their lives. For many of them, 
that health insurance plan is paying for that treatment--treatment that 
otherwise would come out of their pocket if they could afford it.
  So we put all of these things into the law, and the law took place, 
and when the Republicans said they were going to repeal it, people 
stood up and said: Wait a minute. I have to face lifetime limits again? 
I have to face preexisting condition prejudice again? I am not going to 
have mental illness covered automatically or maternity care covered 
automatically?
  Well, when people reflected on this, they realized their 
vulnerability. So simple repeal was not enough; the Republicans needed 
to replace. If they were going to eliminate ObamaCare and all the 
people protected by it, they needed to replace, and that is when the 
process fell apart. In the House of Representatives, they went through 
a process of writing the replacement. When it was all over, they didn't 
wait for the Congressional Budget Office to analyze it because they 
knew what was coming. The Congressional Budget Office announced that 
some 23 or 24 million Americans would lose their health insurance 
because of the plan that passed the House of Representatives. They also 
knew that people could again face discrimination based on preexisting 
conditions. They knew basic health insurance didn't include the 
protections all of us really need to count on.

  Do you remember the provision in the Affordable Care Act that said 
your son or daughter could stay on your family health insurance plan 
until you reached the age of 26? It is pretty valuable, isn't it? That 
son or daughter, whom you like a lot and helped get through college, 
doing internships and looking for a job--you wanted to make sure they 
have health insurance, didn't you? That was part of the Affordable Care 
Act, and we want to make sure the guarantee remains in any future 
change of the law too.
  The House of Representatives passed their measure, and, 
unfortunately, it was a partisan roll call; only Republicans voted for 
it. It passed by four votes. If two Republican Congressmen had changed 
their votes, it would not have passed.
  Then the measure came over to the Senate, as we remember from our 
civics lessons, and the Senate had its chance. So what happened? We had 
a chance to take this question to the committees of the U.S. Senate--
Labor

[[Page S3809]]

and the Health and Education Committee, which is chaired by Senator 
Lamar Alexander, a friend of mine, Republican of Tennessee, and the 
ranking member, Senator Patty Murray of Washington. We had a chance to 
take the bill to the committee and to debate a better approach in the 
Senate, to have public hearings and witnesses. But we didn't do that.
  Instead, the Republican majority said: We are going to do this on our 
own. We don't need any Democratic input. Thirteen Republican Senators 
will meet in a room and write the alternative to the House healthcare 
replacement bill, and they did. It went on for weeks, and no one saw 
it. There were no reports of what it included and what was inside of 
it. Then, 6 days ago--6 days ago--it was announced. We took a look at 
it, and it wasn't that much different from what the House had done.
  The Congressional Budget Office released a report on Monday of this 
week and said that 22 million Americans would lose their health 
insurance under the Republican healthcare plan--22 million. And--this 
part was really troubling--there would be a dramatic increase in 
premium costs for people between the ages of 50 and 64. Some of them 
would see increases of up to $8,400 a year in premium costs because of 
the Senate Republican plan.
  What was the reaction of the medical professionals across my State to 
both the House Republican plan and the Senate Republican plan? It was 
the same reaction. They said: Senator, vote against it.
  The Illinois Hospital Association said that if we cut back on 
Medicaid, hospitals--particularly rural hospitals and downstate 
hospitals--will have to cut back in services and may face closure.
  The doctors in my State, the Illinois State Medical Society, came 
forward and said: Vote against the Senate Republican plan and the House 
Republican plan because we know what happens when people lose health 
insurance. They still get sick. They don't come to see us early on when 
we can prevent things from getting worse; they come to see us when 
things are pretty bad and pretty expensive and pretty dangerous.
  So the doctors opposed it, the nurses opposed it, the pediatricians 
opposed it. Not one single medical advocacy group in Illinois supported 
the Republican bill, which was unveiled 6 days ago.
  When it came to preexisting conditions, it wasn't just the medical 
groups that opposed the Senate bill. The cancer society, the heart 
association, the lung association--most of the major disease groups 
stepped up and said: The preexisting condition provisions in this bill 
are unacceptable, and, sadly, the policies that are going to be sold 
may not cover the basics that people absolutely need.
  Then the other thing came out. What drove this whole debate, what 
started healthcare reform in the House of Representatives and in the 
Senate was not healthcare reform, but a tax cut. You see, the 
Affordable Care Act imposed new taxes, particularly on higher income 
individuals, and the money from those taxes went into sponsoring people 
into Medicaid and helping people pay their health insurance premiums. 
The Republicans in both the House and the Senate said: The first thing 
we will do is cut those taxes--about $700 billion worth of taxes. 
Ultimately, they took $1.1 trillion out of our healthcare system with 
this tax cut and other cuts. When you pull that kind of money out of 
healthcare in America, fewer people have health insurance, fewer people 
have a helping hand when it comes to paying their premiums.
  The reaction to the Senate Republican bill over the last 6 days has 
been growing opposition--growing opposition, until yesterday. Senator 
McConnell announced: We are not going to vote on it this week. We were 
supposed to, but we are not going to vote on it this week. He said that 
he may return to it when we come back from the July 4th recess.
  Here is the point I wanted to make on the floor today. I am glad we 
have reached the point that these proposals from the House and the 
Senate are not going to move forward quickly to become the law of the 
land. Too many people would be hurt--too many innocent people. Too many 
families would lose their health insurance. The cost of health 
insurance would go up dramatically. The premiums would go up, 
particularly for people over the age of 50. We would see hospitals 
facing closure across our States. We would see cutbacks in treatment 
for mental illness and substance abuse. The list goes on and on. It 
would have been a terrible outcome, and certainly doing this in order 
to give a tax cut to the wealthy people of this country makes no sense.

  Incidentally, how much is the tax cut? If your annual income is $1 
million a year, under the Republican plan, your tax cut is over $50,000 
a year. The people who are wealthy aren't asking me for that tax cut, 
and the people who will suffer because of it are folks who aren't 
making anywhere near $1 million a year.
  Here is what we need to acknowledge: The current healthcare system in 
America needs to be improved. There are things in the Affordable Care 
Act that need to be addressed, and we need to do it in an honest 
fashion, and we need to do it on a bipartisan basis.
  I have talked to some Republican Senators. Senator McConnell has 
pulled this bill back, and they want to sit down and talk.
  Senator McConnell said that there will be no conversations with 
Democrats; Republicans will do it by themselves. I hope over the Fourth 
of July he reflects on that because there are Democratic Senators who, 
in good faith, want to sit down and make a better healthcare system for 
America so that more people have the peace of mind and security of 
health insurance and so that it is more affordable for families all 
across the board.
  The biggest, toughest part of healthcare today is the so-called 
individual health insurance market; 5 or 6 percent of people who need 
to buy health insurance plans don't have it where they work, and they 
don't qualify for Medicaid. Those are the ones who are seeing their 
premiums spike. Can't we take the collective wisdom of Senators--
Democrats and Republicans--and sit down and address that problem 
effectively? Of course we can, but we need to have a starting point.
  So my plea to the Republican leadership is to listen carefully, as 
our Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday. Once you take 
repeal off the table, once you take this massive tax cut for the 
wealthy off the table, we are ready to pull up a chair and sit down at 
the table.
  Wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air in America in this day and age, 
in light of all that is going on, if Democrats and Republicans worked 
constructively together to make the healthcare system better, more 
affordable, and stronger for families and businesses across our Nation? 
I think that is why we were sent here. I think that is the reason we 
are supposed to be here, and I sincerely hope that happens next.
  So we are ending the debate in the Senate this week, but we are not 
ending the debate in America. I urge those who think this is an 
important issue, and I am one of them, to speak up and to go home--I am 
going home soon--and to meet with people and have a conversation about 
where we go next as a nation. We can solve this problem, and I know we 
can do it in a constructive way.
  If we show that kind of bipartisan leadership in the Senate, I think 
the House will join us. I think they will do the same thing. I think 
they can have a bipartisan approach too. What a relief it would be, 
with all of the breakdown in comity, all of the breakdown in 
communications politically, the warring camps that have become the 
American political scene. If we can show why there is a Senate and why 
there is a House and why people run for these offices--it is to solve 
problems, not to put out a press release, not to stake out a political 
position, but to solve a problem. This is a problem that needs solving.
  I hope that over the next week, both parties will reflect on it, and 
when we return after the Fourth of July recess, we can roll up our 
sleeves and go to work.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S3810]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.