[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 116 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3890-S3892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. President, on a totally different matter, ObamaCare is a direct 
attack on the middle class. Seven years ago, Democrats imposed it on 
our country. In the years since, Americans have found themselves at the 
mercy of its failures repeatedly. Choice was supposed to go up, but it 
plummeted. Costs were supposed to go down, but they skyrocketed.
  ObamaCare's defenders spent years trying to deny these clear 
realities. When the weight of the evidence became too clear to ignore, 
some appeared to bemoan ObamaCare's harmful impact on our country.
  The Democratic Governor of Minnesota declared that it was ``no longer 
affordable.'' President Clinton branded it ``the craziest thing in the 
world.'' Other Democrats said similar things.
  Such acknowledgements of the obvious seemed to many of us like 
progress, but they turned out to be just rhetoric. In the last 
election, voters delivered Congress the opportunity to finally address 
the ObamaCare status quo. Yet Democrats made clear early on that they 
did not want to work with us in a serious, bipartisan way to actually 
do so.
  I wish they had made a different choice. I wish their sudden calls 
for bipartisanship now were even somewhat serious, but this is the 
reality before us. We must accept it because that is where we are.
  As my Republican colleagues know, this is the charge we must accept 
as well. The American people are looking to us for a better way. That 
is why, despite the headwinds, I chose to keep working toward a better 
solution than ObamaCare. I have seen the pain in the eyes of too many 
of my constituents because of this law. I think they deserve better 
than what ObamaCare has given them. I hope, in the end, that a majority 
of the Senate will agree.
  We have been continuing with ongoing conversations across the 
conference about how to get there. Members shared significant input 
over the State work period. We are going to keep working very hard on 
this. We will continue to focus on the fundamentals that have guided 
the process from the start, like improving the affordability

[[Page S3891]]

of health insurance and stabilizing collapsing insurance markets before 
they leave even more Americans without any options at all.
  We also want to strengthen Medicaid for those who need it most by 
giving States more flexibility while ensuring that those who rely on 
the program don't have the rug pulled out from under them.
  Many States want the ability to reform their Medicaid programs so 
they can actually deliver better care at a lower cost. Under current 
law, States have some ability to do so. Indiana, for example, has 
launched a particularly notable effort, thanks to the leadership of 
now-CMS Director Seema Verma.
  Ms. Verma has also helped States like Kentucky develop their own 
plans, but the process is still too restrictive. It hinders broader 
innovation, and it is very slow. Kentucky's plan, for instance, still 
has not been approved by the Federal Government.
  The Senate's healthcare legislation contains a provision to 
dramatically expand the State's authority to improve its Medicaid 
system. It is an idea that could significantly improve healthcare in 
States across the country. The Wall Street Journal wrote in a recent 
editorial:

       This booster shot of federalism could become the greatest 
     devolution of federal power to the states in the modern era. 
     [It could] launch a burst of state innovation.

  The Journal went on further:

       Introducing many competing health-care models across the 
     country would be healthy. California and South Carolina 
     don't--and shouldn't--have to follow one uniform prototype 
     designed in Washington, and even a state as large as 
     California doesn't have the same needs from region to region 
     [within the State]. If nothing else the repeal and replace 
     debate has shown that liberals, conservatives and centrists 
     have different health-care priorities, and allowing different 
     approaches and experimentation would be politically 
     therapeutic. The more innovative can become examples to those 
     that stay heavily regulated.

  It is clear that we have an important opportunity to achieve positive 
things for our country. It is also clear that, if we let this 
opportunity pass by, the options left are not good ones.
  The Senate Democratic leader acknowledges that ObamaCare isn't 
working the way they promised, but his solution, as he noted in a 
statement last week, is simply more money for insurance companies. The 
solution would be an insurance company bailout--no reforms, no changes, 
just more money to paper over the problems under the current law. It is 
a multibillion-dollar bandaid, not a real solution.
  Senator Sanders acknowledges that ObamaCare isn't working, too, but 
his solution, as he stated in my State over the weekend, is to move to 
the kind of fully government-run single-payer system that was already 
abandoned in his home State of Vermont, that 80 percent of the voters 
recently rejected in Colorado, and that even the California State 
Legislature and its huge Democratic majority is finding rather hard to 
swallow.
  Is it any wonder? The so-called single-payer plan Senator Sanders 
proposed in his Presidential campaign would strip Americans of so many 
facets of decisionmaking over their own healthcare and literally hand 
it over to the government. It would require almost unimaginably high 
tax increases--unimaginably high.
  The cost, according to a recent analysis by the Urban Institute, 
stands at an astonishing--listen to this--$32 trillion. That is 
trillion with a ``t.'' That represents a greater sum than the entire 
economy of the most populous nation on Earth--China. It is more than 
Japan's economy, too--and Germany's, Britain's, and France's. It is the 
same with Italy's, Brazil's, India's, and Canada's.
  In fact, the cost of Senator Sanders' healthcare plan is projected to 
be roughly equal to the size of all nine of those countries' economies 
combined. It would total more than the entire economy of the European 
Union twice over. If you laid out 32 trillion one-dollar bills end to 
end, they would stretch from the Earth to Neptune. It took the Voyager 
2 spacecraft 12 years to reach Neptune.
  That is the government-run single-payer plan put forward by the most 
famous proponent of the idea. Many in the Senate Democratic leadership 
now support single-payer, too, and these days, increasing numbers on 
the left seem to openly comment on the failures of ObamaCare, as if 
they see an opportunity to finally realize their leftwing dream of 
total government dominance of the healthcare system.
  That is the dream of many on the other side in this body. That will 
not happen if we succeed in our charge today. Americans deserve better 
than what we are getting under ObamaCare. They deserve better than what 
they get under an even more government-heavy system than we have now. 
They also deserve better than a bandaid solution.
  The people we represent deserve more affordable health insurance. 
They deserve improved healthcare choice. They deserve a more flexible 
Medicaid system that can help improve outcomes for those truly in need. 
They deserve a more responsive healthcare market that trusts the 
American people to make more of their own choices, not the government.
  That is what we have been fighting for throughout this debate. That 
is what we are going to keep fighting for today.
  Mr. President, on one final matter, believe it or not, the current 
business before the Senate is the consideration of a noncontroversial 
nominee to be a U.S. district judge in Idaho--Idaho.
  How do we know he is noncontroversial? Well, the Judiciary Committee 
reported out his nomination on a voice vote, and, then, every single 
Senate Democrat voted yesterday for cloture on his nomination, thereby 
agreeing that there is no need to continue debate on this 
noncontroversial nomination--a noncontroversial district court judge.
  Why are we still having a debate on a noncontroversial district court 
judge? If they agree that the Senate should bring the debate on the 
nomination to a close, then, why did they insist on dragging out the 30 
hours of postcloture debate time in order to debate a nomination that 
not a single Democrat said needed to have more debate?
  We all know the answer. It is that the unnecessary procedural vote 
yesterday served our colleagues' apparent purpose of wasting--literally 
wasting--more of the Senate's time. Unfortunately, this has become a 
common practice for our friends across the aisle.
  At this point in President Obama's Presidency, we allowed more than 
90 percent of his nominees to clear by simple voice vote. Let me say 
that again. At this point in President Obama's Presidency, we allowed 
more than 90 percent of his nominees to clear by a simple voice vote, 
and we only asked for those procedural votes known as cloture votes 
eight times. At the same point under this current President, President 
Trump, Democrats have allowed voice votes 10 percent of the time. While 
90 percent of Obama's nominees got a voice vote, 10 percent of Trump's 
got a voice vote, and they forced procedural hurdles 30 times.

  These delays have nothing to do with the credentials or whether 
Democrats support the nominee. In many cases, in fact, they do support 
the nominee, like the nominee before us.
  As the Wall Street Journal observed yesterday:

       Democratic obstruction against nominees is nearly total, 
     most notably including a demand for cloture filings for every 
     nominee--no matter how minor the position.

  What does this mean? It means a 2-day waiting period and then another 
30 hours beyond that. It is not about changing the outcome; it is about 
wasting time to make it more difficult for the President to make 
appointments.
  According to the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, at this 
point in President Obama's administration, he had 183 of his nominees 
confirmed. While the current President has made 178 nominations--almost 
as many--the Senate has confirmed only 46 of them.
  The Wall Street Journal editorial I mentioned goes on to note that 
the extent of this Democratic obstruction extends far beyond the 
cloture vote issue. I have discussed this issue before, and I urge the 
Democratic minority to think critically about the consequences for the 
Senate and our country if they allow this near-total obstruction to 
continue.

[[Page S3892]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal 
editorial I just mentioned be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2017]

 Running the Schumer Blockade: The GOP Senate Needs To Stop Democratic 
                           Abuse of the Rules

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       The Trump Presidency is well into its seventh month but the 
     Trump Administration still barely exists. Senate Democrats 
     are abusing Senate rules to undermine the executive branch, 
     and Republicans need to restore normal order.
       President Trump got an inexcusably slow start making 
     nominations, but in the past few weeks he's been catching up 
     to his predecessors. According to the Partnership for Public 
     Service, as of June 28 Mr. Trump had nominated 178 appointees 
     but the Senate had confirmed only 46. Barack Obama had 183 
     nominees confirmed by that date in his first term, and George 
     W. Bush 130.
       The White House has understandably begun to make a public 
     issue of the delays, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says 
     it ``has only itself to blame.'' But a press release Mr. 
     Schumer sent out Monday made the White House case, showing 
     that the Senate has received 242 nominations but confirmed 
     only 50 through June 30. Democrats are now the problem.
       Among the non-controversial nominees awaiting confirmation: 
     Kevin Hassell to lead the White House Council of Economic 
     Advisers; David Malpass, under secretary at Treasury for 
     international affairs; two nominees needed to review 
     pipelines and other projects at the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission; and Noel Francisco for Solicitor General. Mr. 
     Malpass was nominated in March and voted out of committee in 
     mid-June. Mr. Trump's State Department is barely functioning 
     with only eight confirmed appointees.
       Democratic obstruction against nominees is nearly total, 
     most notably including a demand for cloture filings for every 
     nominee--no matter how minor the position. This means a two-
     day waiting period and then another 30 hours of debate. The 
     30-hour rule means Mr. Trump might not be able to fill all of 
     those 400 positions in four years. The cloture rule also 
     allows the minority to halt other business during the 30-hour 
     debate period, which helps slow the GOP policy and oversight 
     agenda.
       Democrats have also refused to return a single ``blue 
     slip'' to the Judiciary Committee, which has the effect of 
     blocking consideration of judicial nominees from their home 
     states. Senators like Minnesota's Al Franken and Amy 
     Klobuchar are holding hostage the eminently qualified 
     Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras for the Eighth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals for no reason other than politics.
       Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's troops are even invoking an 
     obscure rule that prohibits committees from doing business 
     more than two hours after the Senate opens for the day. 
     Republicans have had to cancel briefings on national security 
     and Russia electoral interference, as well as scrap a markup 
     of two human-trafficking bills.
       Democrat Harry Reid didn't have the cloture headache when 
     he was Majority Leader because in 2013 he cut a deal with 
     Republicans. The GOP traded the ability to offer more 
     amendments to legislation in return for letting Mr. Reid 
     limit post-cloture debate for most nominations to eight 
     hours. This rule let Mr. Reid confirm dozens of judicial and 
     lower-cabinet nominations every week. But the deal expired in 
     early 2015, and good luck getting Mr. Schumer to grant the 
     GOP the same terms.
       Frustrated Republicans may soon begin listening to Oklahoma 
     Senator Jim Lankford, who wants the majority to impose the 
     eight-hour rule unilaterally. Most debate about nominees 
     occurs during vetting and in committees. Eight hours on the 
     floor is enough for all but the most controversial nominees, 
     and the Senate could then get back to other business.
       As for the blue-slip tradition, it was designed to 
     facilitate advice and consent by allowing Senators to use 
     their home-state knowledge about local judges to better 
     inform the White House. But it is a courtesy, not a rule, and 
     Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley can ignore Senators who are 
     using their blue slips as ideological vetoes of qualified 
     candidates.
       Mr. Trump has nominated first-rate judges, and Mr. Grassley 
     is justified in suspending blue-slip privileges on a case-by-
     case basis. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has also been 
     starting the Senate at different times of the day to get 
     around the Democratic sabotage of committee work. But note 
     Mr. Schumer's childishness in forcing a game of Senate hide-
     and-seek.
       Mr. McConnell will be wary of Mr. Lankford's advice to 
     change a Senate rule in the middle of the term, but the 
     Majority Leader rightly did so when Democrats staged a 
     historic filibuster of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. 
     Democrats aren't using cloture to raise the level of debate 
     or highlight unqualified nominees. They are using it--and 
     have said as much--to sabotage a Presidency. That isn't what 
     the Founders intended, and Republicans have every right to 
     stop this abuse of process to let the President form a 
     government.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.