[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 18, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4036-S4038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1462
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am really pleased to have been joined
by my colleagues to talk about the importance of addressing healthcare
for all Americans, especially my colleague from New Hampshire. She and
I have been touring the State for months now, talking with people in
hospitals, with patients, with physicians, with providers, with people
with substance use disorders, with providers who are providing
treatment for people with substance use disorders, with people all over
New Hampshire about what we can do to make sure people get healthcare
when they need it.
That should be the goal of this body. It should not be throwing
people off their healthcare, which a repeal of the Affordable Care Act
would do. It would throw 32 million people off their healthcare.
We can address the instability in the marketplaces. We can do that
pretty quickly. Senators Kaine and Carper talked about reinsurance,
something which has worked very well for the first 3 years of the
Affordable Care Act, and the reason it doesn't work now is because they
have stopped. That is why we are seeing some of these rate increases.
We can address the uncertainty by being clear that we are not going
to repeal the Affordable Care Act, by addressing those cost-sharing
reduction payments. The ACA already stipulates that CSR--those payments
which reduce the costs of copays and deductibles--are to be made
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1324.
My bill provides for payments to be made jointly from a permanent
appropriation rather than subject to the year-to-year whims of the
annual appropriations process. The Marketplace Certainty Act removes
all bases for any further questions about what is already clear from a
fair reading of the Affordable Care Act as a whole; that both those CSR
payments and the advanced premium tax credit subsidies are to be funded
from the same permanent appropriation.
I see my colleague from Texas on the floor, and I am sure he is going
to object to the unanimous consent request I am going to be proposing
in a couple of minutes. He objected last Thursday when I asked for
unanimous consent to pass the Marketplace Certainty Act, and he
justified the objection by asserting that the cost-sharing reduction
payments are--I think he called it a bailout of the insurance
companies. That is an inflammatory term, and I think we ought to be
careful with how we use it because the truth is, the cost-sharing
reduction payments are in no way, shape, or form a bailout. They are
orderly payments built into the law to go directly to keep premiums,
copays, and deductibles affordable for lower income Americans. In fact,
those same payments were included in the bill Majority Leader McConnell
just said he is not going to go forward with, the Republican bill. It
included those very same cost-sharing reduction payments. I think they
were included because there was a recognition that these are important
to help address the cost of healthcare for all Americans.
As I said earlier, we have had statements by the chairman of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Lamar Alexander,
talking about that these payments should be continued. We have heard
from House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, who said we need to
continue these payments to help stabilize the insurance market. It is
the uncertainty that is causing the current problem, and we could
address that today--this week--if people were willing to work together.
As Democrats, we have come to the floor to say we want to work
together. We think we can address the challenges we face with the
Affordable Care Act. We can do it in a bipartisan way. I know we can
because Tim Scott and I have done it. We passed a bill several years
ago by unanimous consent, which basically gave States the ability to
control group size for people and for companies in the marketplaces so
I know it can be done, and I know we could do it today if there were a
willingness on the part of all of our colleagues to work together. That
is what the American people want. They don't want 32 million people
thrown off their health insurance. We don't want rural hospitals to
close in New Hampshire. We don't want nursing homes to close. We don't
want people to be thrown out of their nursing homes.
I was up in northern New Hampshire at a nursing home over the
weekend, where I talked to a group of women in their eighties and
older. One woman said to me: You know, I worked my whole life. I paid
my taxes. I did everything I was supposed to do. I sold my house so I
could get into this nursing home so I could qualify under Medicaid. I
got rid of all my assets. Now they are telling me I am going to get
thrown out? She said: What would I do? I have no place to go. I have no
family to help me.
People don't want that. What they want is for us to work together, to
help fix healthcare so people can get what they need when they need it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration
of S. 1462; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration;
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The Senator from New Hampshire has acknowledged that she had made
this previous request last week. The Kaiser Family Foundation, among
other publications, has clearly stated that the cost-sharing reductions
she is asking for are paid directly by the Federal Government to
insurance companies. Thus, when I call this an insurance company
bailout, I believe that is literally true.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of these payments
at $7 billion in 2017, $10 billion in 2018, and $16 billion by 2027.
So what my friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, is proposing is an
insurance company bailout in the tens of billions of dollars with no
reform, throwing more money at a broken Affordable Care Act, which has
been in existence 7 years now.
I know they would like to blame this on President Trump, who has been
in office just a short time--about a half a year--but this is built
into the very structure of the Affordable Care Act, and it isn't
working.
I, personally, will not be part of any bailout of insurance companies
without reforms. That is why we were trying to structure something
under the Better Care Act, which unfortunately we haven't been
successful with so far. We are going to keep on trying, but this is not
the answer.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
[[Page S4037]]
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am disappointed but not surprised that
my colleague has objected. I don't believe he objected because of the
effort to help pay these subsidies, which are passthroughs to insurance
companies.
Reforming how we do those, I am certainly happy to sit down and talk
about that, but the fact is, that is not the issue right now. The issue
is, this is a way we could address the current uncertainty in the
marketplaces in a way that will be good for maintaining stability of
healthcare for all Americans. I am disappointed there isn't a
willingness to work together to do that.
I hope, as this debate continues, we will finally see people come
together to get something done to address, not just healthcare for
Americans but to address the one-sixth of the economy that depends on
the healthcare industry.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Mr.
Patrick Shanahan to serve as the 33rd Deputy Secretary of Defense. The
Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on his nomination on
June 20, and he was voted out of committee by voice vote.
Mr. Shanahan was born and raised in the State of Washington. He
received his undergraduate degree from the University of Washington and
then a master's degree and MBA from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Mr. Shanahan then embarked on a 30-year career at the
Boeing Company, where he rose to the most senior echelons of
management, working on both the company's defense and commercial
programs. Most recently, Mr. Shanahan served as the senior vice
president for supply chain & operations.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense is one of the most important
positions within the entire national security system. The Deputy serves
as the number 2 official at the Department of Defense, as well as the
Department's Chief Management Officer. As the second in command to the
Secretary of Defense, the Deputy oftentimes is assigned a broad
spectrum of responsibilities which require strong management skills.
The Department currently faces challenges on multiple fronts. For
more than 16 years, our military has been consumed by two prolonged
wars against violent extremist groups like ISIS. As a result, the
military has faced a generational fight which has sapped readiness and
precluded our military personnel from training for full spectrum
operations. However, violent extremist groups are only one of the many
challenges facing our country.
The past several years have seen the rise of near-peer competitors,
most notably Russia and China. Russia has been a resurgent force bent
on disrupting Europe and undercutting our own Nation and our
Presidential election process. China continues its saber-rattling in
the Asia-Pacific region by undermining the freedom of navigation and
using economic coercion of its smaller, more vulnerable neighbors. When
we factor in the destabilizing actions of North Korea and the long
shadow of Iran, it becomes urgently clear that we need strong
leadership at the Department of Defense. If Mr. Shanahan is confirmed,
he will need to contend with all these challenges. It will not be easy
and hard decisions on policy and strategy will need to be made.
Perhaps one of the hardest decisions facing the Deputy Secretary of
Defense is the allocation of budget resources within the Department. In
an ideal world, a cogent defense strategy that takes into consideration
the multitude of concerns facing our Nation would inform how the
Department invests resources in weapons platforms and advanced
technologies to confront these challenges. However, the reality is that
the spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act determine the level
of funding for most of these budget decisions.
The current budgetary crisis is compounded by the fact that the
President's most recent budget request adds much needed funding to
defense activities, but it shortchanges nondefense spending accounts in
order to increase spending for our military. Furthermore, the budget
request fails to recognize that the BCA budget caps are law. If these
spending levels are enacted, the President's budget request would
trigger sequestration, effectively wiping out increased defense
spending with mandatory across-the-board cuts.
This would be the worst of all worlds. Not only would we be giving
the money on the one hand and taking it back with the other hand, but
it would not be in any systematic way. We would be making cuts to
readiness. We would be making cuts to personnel. We would make cuts to
all sorts of things which are much more valuable than some programs
which would receive an additional cut.
Unless we resolve ourselves to act--which is going to take a
bipartisan effort to repeal the BCA--we can't effectively fund not only
the Department of Defense but every other Federal department. That is
one of the great challenges Mr. Shanahan will face. Indeed, these
multiple challenges will require strong leadership and the ability to
make tough decisions. Mr. Shanahan has developed a strong reputation
during his tenure at Boeing as someone capable of taking on challenging
programs, fixing problems, and turning them into successes.
When I met with Mr. Shanahan to discuss his nomination, he emphasized
that the public sector needed to work closer with the private sector to
get more cost-effective results while ensuring our warfighters have the
best equipment at their disposal. It is that kind of leadership that
the Department of Defense needs as our Nation faces as diverse an array
of threats and challenges to our national security as at any point in
our history.
Based on Mr. Shanahan's qualifications and experience, as well as his
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I believe he is
fully qualified for the job. Therefore, I will vote in favor of his
nomination to be the next Deputy Secretary of Defense, and I trust he
will do his best to lead the men and women who ably and courageously
serve this Nation.
On a final note, if confirmed, Mr. Shanahan will be relieving Bob
Work, who has served this Nation ably and selflessly for most of his
life. Bob Work served in the U.S. Marine Corps for 27 years, rising to
the rank of colonel. In 2009, he was confirmed as Undersecretary of the
Navy, where he shepherded the service through many challenges for the
next 4 years.
He tried to return to the private sector, but in 2014 he was then
nominated and confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Bob Work was
the continuity in the Defense Department through three Secretaries of
Defense. He stayed more than 6 months into the new administration in
order to aid Secretary Mattis. There is no task, no matter how
difficult or how big or small, that Bob Work would not devote all of
his energy to until it was resolved. Bob Work personifies his name. He
works, tirelessly. Our Nation owes him a great debt of gratitude, and I
hope he takes some well-deserved vacation time and enjoys the company
of his wife and daughter.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, all time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Shanahan
nomination?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
would have voted ``yea''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 7, as follows:
[[Page S4038]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Ex.]
YEAS--92
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--7
Booker
Duckworth
Gillibrand
Harris
Markey
Sanders
Warren
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________