[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 123 (Thursday, July 20, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4089-S4090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, on the issue of healthcare, yesterday President Trump 
seemed intent on pushing forward the Republicans' failing healthcare 
plan with a vote sometime early next week. We have been on the topic of 
healthcare for 7 months, and I am still not sure which version of the 
Republican plan we will be voting on.
  Will it be repeal and replace? Will we be voting on the Senate bill 
that would cause 22 million Americans to lose their coverage and that 
would cause costs to go up and care to go down? Will it be with the 
Cruz amendment, which would annihilate the ``preexisting condition'' 
requirement, in quoting my friend Senator Grassley? Or will it be 
repeal without replace, which would cause our healthcare system to 
implode, creating chaos, which would cause millions to lose insurance 
and millions more to have their coverage diminished?
  The CBO confirmed last night that repeal without replace would cause 
32 million Americans--that is about a 10th of the country--to lose 
their insurance and would cause premiums to double after 10 years.
  It was a horrible idea in January and was rejected, wisely, by our 
Republican colleagues. We were not involved. The door was closed on us 
on January 4. It is a horrible idea now.
  So will that be the focus next week or will it be a new bill that has 
more money thrown in, as some have suggested--the same core bill of 
devastating cuts to Medicaid, tax breaks for the wealthy and the 
special interests, the cruel Cruz amendment, and an extra $2 billion 
slush fund? Is that going to be the bill?
  We Democrats do not know what our Republican friends are planning to 
vote on next week. I will bet that many Republicans do not know yet 
either. What we do know is that a $200 billion slush fund, tacked onto 
a bill that would gut Medicaid and other services by well over $1 
trillion, is like putting an old bandaid on a bullet wound. The $200 
billion in additional funding would only offset 17 percent of the 
bill's total cuts to coverage. It would not come anywhere close to 
covering the wound that the Republicans are inflicting on Medicaid, on 
Americans in nursing homes, on Americans in rural areas, on those who 
are suffering from opioid addiction. It just will not work, and repeal 
without replace is even worse. All of the options are horrible options 
for the Republican Party, but, more importantly, they are horrible 
options for the American people.
  It is time to start over. It is time for our Republican colleagues to 
drop this failed approach and work with Democrats on actually improving 
our healthcare system. They closed the door on us on January 4 in 
passing something called reconciliation, which basically says: We do 
not need the Democrats; we will do it ourselves. Let them open the door 
now that they have

[[Page S4090]]

seen that that failed approach does not work. I outlined three 
specific, nonideological proposals yesterday that we could work on 
together, right now, to stabilize the marketplaces and help bring down 
premiums. I believe they would pass quickly. My Republican friends do 
not seem to know what to do. My suggestion is to drop these failed 
ideas and work with Democrats on the commonsense, nonideological 
solutions that we Democrats have offered.
  Here is one more point. I have heard some of my colleagues say they 
may vote for the motion to proceed next week because they are in favor 
of debate. I will remind them that the rules under reconciliation only 
allow for 20 hours of debate to be equally divided between the parties 
and 1 minute of debate allowed per amendment. That is not debate. The 
idea that you would vote on the motion to proceed in order to have a 
healthcare debate is absurd. If my colleagues want to debate 
healthcare, they should vote no on the motion to proceed and urge their 
leader to hold a real debate--in committees, in public hearings, on the 
floor, and through regular order, which is a process that they have 
spurned for 7 months--not 10 hours for each party, with 1 minute per 
amendment, on such an important proposal. That is not a debate. It is 
the legislative equivalent of ``Beat the Clock.'' This is serious 
business--the health and welfare of the American people--not some game 
show.