[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 120 (Monday, July 17, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4014-S4015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. President, because of Senator McCain's recent illness, it seems 
that it will be at least another week until the Republican majority 
forces a vote on the Republican TrumpCare bill. I would suggest to my 
good friend, the Republican leader, that he use this time to hold 
public hearings on the bill.
  My Republican friends propose to pass legislation that would 
reorganize one-sixth of our economy and touch the lives of every 
American without a single hearing. Is that amazing? There has not been 
one hearing, even though we have been on the bill for 7 months now. 
There has been no opportunity to hear from experts in a public setting, 
let alone consider amendments.
  So I say to my friend, Senator McConnell: Let's use this extra week 
or extra weeks to do what Republicans should have done a long time ago. 
Hold public hearings and allow the stakeholders to come in and express 
their concerns.
  Today we Democrats sent the leader a letter to make this request 
formally, and we will include a list of nonpartisan stakeholders we 
believe should have a chance to air their views on the Senate 
Republican healthcare bill. These are groups known for their followings 
and for the good they do, known for not being political at all, like 
the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the 
American Hospital Association, AHIP--the largest trade group for 
insurers--to name a few. Let's have these groups testify on the 
policies in this bill so that the American people will have a chance to 
hear what experts and patient advocates have to say.
  I say to my friend, the leader: When you don't have hearings, when 
you try to hide a bill, it usually results in poor legislation. That is 
what is happening now: a bill done behind closed doors by a handful of 
Senators--even Republican Senators didn't know what they were putting 
together. It doesn't work.
  The wisdom of the Founding Fathers, the wisdom of this body through 
the centuries is to do it in public, have a discussion, have a debate, 
and the crucible of the legislative process will make it better. The 
suggestion we are making--obviously we oppose many parts of the bill; 
obviously so do the American people. But maybe something that would be 
said at a hearing would change things around.
  Additionally, we ask the majority leader to wait for a complete score 
from the Congressional Budget Office before proceeding to his bill. The 
Republicans now have a week--maybe more--to get their bill scored by 
the nonpartisan CBO. They have no excuse to proceed to a bill of this 
significance without knowing its cost or consequence. Now that they 
have plenty of time to get that done, we Democrats hope there will be a 
full CBO score before a vote on the motion to proceed. We make these 
requests respectfully.
  Let me just say one more thing about the CBO. The White House has had 
an awful tendency--when they don't like a fact, they call it fake, and 
they try to discredit the fact giver. We have never seen a Presidency 
like this. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Don't 
let this infection spread to you.
  CBO is a nonpartisan organization. The head of CBO was appointed by 
the Republican leaders of the House and Senate. To discredit CBO simply 
because you don't like the answer they give is not the American way. 
The American way is to debate the facts, not deny them, not call them 
fake because you don't like them.
  Unfortunately, our President has made this a hallmark of his 
Presidency. Anything he doesn't like is fake, even though it is real. 
His son gives an email, gives a statement, and he says that is fake--
what was said is fake. Let it not spread to this body. CBO is a 
respected organization, as I said, with leaders appointed by 
Republicans, not by us. Let's hear what they have to say, and let's 
take it seriously, even though we may not agree with the outcome of 
where their facts lead.

  I would like to make some additional points on one of the more 
controversial parts of the Republican TrumpCare bill--the Cruz 
amendment. The Cruz amendment, by allowing insurers to sell junk 
insurance, would actually increase out-of-pocket costs on average 
Americans. Premiums might come down for some plans because insurers 
wouldn't have to cover very much, but the reduction in premiums would 
be more than offset by skyrocketing deductibles and copays. So the 
average American would be paying more, not less. The average American, 
or so many of them, would likely get junk insurance.
  My friend Senator Coons of Delaware put it best when he said: Yes, we 
will sell you a car. It will be cheaper, but it will have no bumper, no 
steering wheel, and no carburetor. It will be cheaper, but it will not 
serve its purpose. It will not get you where you have to go. On these 
Cruz insurance policies, the insurer can say: no hospitalization, no 
payment for drugs. What good are they? It is a talking point, but it 
doesn't help people. It hurts them.
  The Cruz amendment would also make insurance unaffordable for 
Americans who need it most, creating what even the very conservative 
American Action Forum says would be a death spiral in the marketplace. 
My friend the senior Senator from Iowa said the Cruz amendment would 
``annihilate the preexisting condition requirement.'' That is not Chuck 
Schumer or Bill Nelson speaking. That is Chuck Grassley, one of the 
most senior Republican Senators from the great State of Iowa, who says 
that. It is not fake. It is real, what he said. You can't wash it away.
  The Cruz amendment winds back the clock in America to the days of the 
worst practices of insurance companies. It seems that the raison d'etre 
of the Cruz amendment is to let insurance companies do whatever they 
want. In the 1890s, that philosophy may have governed, but America has 
learned under Republican and Democrat alike that it doesn't protect 
them. It would allow insurers to sell policies without the ban on 
preexisting exclusions, without covering essential health benefits, and 
without lifetime limits on out-of-pocket costs. It would even allow 
insurers to sell policies that include excessive waiting periods of 
more than 90 days.
  If your kid has cancer, this policy in its fine print says that you 
have to wait 90 days while you watch your child suffer. What kind of 
freedom is that? It is freedom for the insurance company. It sure isn't 
freedom for the family with a child who is suffering.
  I find that the Cruz amendment--and sometimes my good friend from 
Texas cares about freedom for very wealthy people, for millionaires. 
What about average people? You need freedom to be able to have your 
insurance company pay when your kid has cancer. You need to be free of 
that--that they can't pay or will not pay or that you have to wait 90 
days. But the Cruz amendment blesses those kinds of restrictions. 
Remember, the Cruz amendment was added to a bill that slashes Medicaid 
in a way that would shatter protections for Americans in nursing homes, 
those struggling with opioid addictions, and Americans in rural parts 
of the country. The Cruz amendment is a cruel insult adding to a 
devastating injury.
  We have another week or more before the Senate will vote on this 
bill. The Republican leader can spend that time trying to find new or 
ever more cynical ways to buy off necessary votes with

[[Page S4015]]

bailouts and giveaways to certain States, or he can do what he has 
promised to do repeatedly as majority leader--return this body to 
regular order, go through the committee process, have hearings and a 
robust amendment process--and, I dare say, the resulting product will 
be a lot better than the one we have before us. I dare say that is why 
the Founding Fathers set up a Congress--not to have a few people get in 
a room and rush through a bill that affects a huge percentage of the 
American economy.


                        ``Made in America'' Week

  On another matter, Mr. President, the administration has termed this 
week ``Made in America'' Week. So I would urge every American to use 
this opportunity to look at the administration's and this President's 
``Made in America'' record.
  President Trump said in his inaugural address that his administration 
would follow two simple rules: ``buy American'' and ``hire American.'' 
But President Trump's own businesses don't even follow those rules. If 
you are going to preach something, start at home. Start at home.
  Trump shirts and ties are made in China. Trump furniture is made in 
Turkey. While President Trump and his administration are importuning 
others to make it in America, maybe he should demand it of his 
businesses first.
  The American people should also take a hard look at the Trump 
administration's policies on the issues of trade and outsourcing. 
Again, the words in the President's inauguration and his actions 
contradict each other, just as do the actions of his company. Earlier 
this year, President Trump refused to insist that pipelines and water 
infrastructure be made with American Steel. Buy American, hire 
American--why did he refuse to do that? We Democrats wanted it done. I 
think many Republicans wanted it done. If President Trump were serious 
about the ``Made in America'' Week, he would demand that Senate 
Republicans put Senator Baldwin's bill requiring that infrastructure be 
made with American Steel on the Senate floor.
  Another example is the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act, 
prepared by the Republican majority. It includes rollbacks--actual 
rollbacks--to the ``Buy American'' rules. If President Trump was 
serious about ``Made in America'' Week, instead of a lot of show and a 
lot of talking, why doesn't he oppose those rollbacks and threaten to 
veto any bill that dilutes or rescinds ``Buy American'' rules, which 
the Defense bill coming to the floor does.
  So, again, as ``Made in America'' Week commences, I urge the American 
people to study the policies of this President and the practices of the 
businesses that bear his name, because, at least thus far, the Trump 
administration's push for ``Made in America'' is a bit like Mr. Putin's 
proposing a cyber security task force.