[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7089-S7093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Healthcare

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I appreciate all of my colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle who will be joining us here this afternoon and 
thank them for their leadership on our legislation and for taking the 
time to speak today.
  We are now exactly 1 week into open enrollment, and it has been 3 
weeks since Chairman Alexander and I put forward a bipartisan bill to 
stabilize our healthcare markets and lower patients' healthcare costs. 
So I wanted to come this afternoon to talk for a few minutes about what 
it means that so many people nationwide are signing up for coverage and 
why there is no good reason for Republican leadership to wait another 
minute before bringing up our bill for a vote.
  It is still early, but what we are seeing so far is that millions of 
people across our country are going to healthcare.gov to shop for 
coverage. Some 200,000 signed up on the first day. That is more than 
double the amount from last year. The vast majority will get tax 
credits to help cover their costs. In fact, some who are struggling the 
most will find they can save even more this year because of how our 
current healthcare system absorbs cost increases.
  But there is no question that premiums are going up in many places 
and that fewer coverage options are available and not every consumer is 
protected. One woman--Melissa--told the Washington Post this week that 
she is ``joining the ranks of the uninsured'' for the first time in her 
life as a 51-year-old. She said that she doesn't qualify for subsidies 
and that given how much her premiums would increase, her insurance 
costs would have been more than her mortgage payments each month. 
Melissa is one of the people paying the price for President Trump's 
healthcare sabotage and the Republican leadership's--so far--
willingness to cheer him along.
  It is unacceptable that patients and families are having to take on 
this burden. Let's remember that when someone goes to sign up for 
healthcare coverage, they are not doing it as a Republican or a 
Democrat, they are doing it as a parent or a caregiver or a business 
owner who wants to stay healthy and financially secure.
  Here in Washington, DC, healthcare has become bogged down in 
politics, but in cities and towns across the country, it is about 
taking care of yourselves and your loved ones. That is why so many 
people are going online to shop for coverage despite the President's 
insistence that healthcare in the United States was going to 
``implode,'' regardless of the fact that to make implosion a reality, 
President Trump--among his many other efforts at sabotage--shortened 
the enrollment period this year and gutted investments in outreach and 
advertising and caused premiums for those people to increase by double 
digits on the average. Patients and families deserve so much better.
  I have said it before: The frustrating thing is that all this could 
have been avoided. Way back in September, Chairman Alexander and I were 
on the verge of an agreement to stabilize healthcare markets and lower 
premiums for the coming year and for 2019. Our agreement would have 
provided multiyear certainty on the out-of-pocket cost reduction 
subsidies that President Trump decided to stop paying even though the 
law says he is required to do so. Had we been able to move faster, our 
legislation would have resulted in lower premiums right away for 2018. 
But Republican leaders pressed the ``pause'' button on bipartisan 
negotiations so they could try one more time to jam partisan repeal 
through the Senate, and we lost a lot of precious time.
  Our bill, the Lamar Alexander-Patty Murray Senate bill, would do a 
lot of good right now and over the next years. If Republican leadership 
takes up our legislation now and passes it, families would see rebates 
this year and lower healthcare costs next year because our bill is 
designed to ensure that the benefit of greater certainty is passed on 
to patients and taxpayers, not hoarded by insurance companies.
  Our deal would also invest in open enrollment and outreach for 2019, 
so more people would be covered. It would allow States more flexibility 
to innovate as the Affordable Care Act always intended. It would mark a 
critical step away from this harmful partisanship on healthcare and 
toward working under regular order on solutions that make healthcare 
work better for the people we serve.
  Finally, this legislation would send a critical message to patients 
and families that when Congress sets aside partisan difference and 
focuses on what is best for our country, we can deliver a result, as 
Chairman Alexander often says.
  More than 200 groups representing doctors, hospitals, State 
officials, Governors, and patients have endorsed our bill. The 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it would do exactly what 
it was intended to do--stabilize markets and bring down healthcare 
costs--while returning $3.8 billion to taxpayers.
  Twelve Senate Democrats and 12 Senate Republicans cosponsored it. We 
are continuing to build support, and there is no question that it would 
pass here with a filibuster-proof majority if it were brought to the 
floor. And while the Senate shouldn't need President Trump's signoff to 
take a position on ways to fix the Nation's healthcare system, the 
President has supported this process moving forward.
  So here we are, and right now it is up to Republican leaders. They 
can choose to stay in a partisan corner and reject an opportunity to 
lower patients' healthcare costs in a bipartisan way, or they can do 
what people across the country want them to do and put patients over 
politics.
  I do want to note that if Republican leaders hadn't gotten the 
message, voters made it pretty clear last night that they reject the 
deeply harmful partisanship we have seen on healthcare.
  It is well past time for Republican leaders to give up the ghost on 
TrumpCare, declare it dead, and work with Democrats to get real 
solutions. That starts with our bipartisan bill to lower healthcare 
costs and stabilize the markets, because if they don't, they can be 
sure they will be held accountable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Washington, Senator Murray, and congratulate her and Senator Alexander 
on being able to reach agreement to move forward to address the 
uncertainty in the marketplace.
  Like Senator Murray, I also want to begin with what we are seeing 
going on in this open enrollment period. Despite all of the efforts to 
undermine the Affordable Care Act, to shorten the time

[[Page S7090]]

period in which people can sign up, to make it more difficult by having 
the site closed for part of Sundays, we are seeing a record number of 
people enroll in the initial days of open enrollment.
  According to news reports, on the first day alone, about 1 million 
people visited healthcare.gov and more than 200,000 people selected a 
plan for 2018. That is almost double the number who signed up last year 
on the first day.
  For anybody who is still thinking about it, you have until December 
15, so sign up early. As my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator 
Hassan, says, it is the best Christmas shopping you can do--take care 
of your healthcare. Go to healthcare.gov and shop around, get the best 
deal, and enroll during this open enrollment period.
  This surge in signups is especially remarkable in light of the widely 
publicized efforts by the Trump administration to depress enrollment. 
The administration has slashed the advertising and outreach budget by 
90 percent, cut the open onrollment period by half, and shut down the 
marketplace website for 12 hours on Sundays, taking away valuable 
weekend hours when people have free time to explore plans.
  I think the healthy volume of enrollments sends two very important 
messages.
  First, it shows again that ordinary citizens, faith groups, insurance 
navigators, and other private organizations have done an amazing job of 
filling the outreach void that has been created by this effort by the 
administration to cut back on letting people know about the website and 
how to enroll. Those folks have spent countless hours getting out the 
word that the Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land and that 
those who qualify for financial assistance can purchase high-quality, 
affordable coverage.
  The second message that I think is important from this strong 
enrollment is a message that has been echoed in recent public opinion 
polls. It is one that we saw in the turnout in the Virginia elections 
last night. It is that a clear majority of the American people support 
the Affordable Care Act, that they reject efforts to sabotage it and 
they want Members of Congress to work together to strengthen it, just 
as Senator Murray said.
  I am very pleased that we have come together in the Senate to do just 
that. We have come together in support of bipartisan efforts led by 
Senator Murray and Senator Lamar Alexander, the chair and ranking 
member of the HELP Committee. They have come together to stabilize the 
Affordable Care Act and the marketplaces and bring down premiums. I am 
proud to be one of the 12 Democrats who were original cosponsors with 
12 Republicans of this legislation. This balanced agreement, which was 
negotiated by Senators Alexander and Murray over many months, is our 
best bet for restoring stability to the marketplaces in the short run 
and giving us the time we need to negotiate longer term to deal with 
other changes to the health law to make it work better.
  I am especially pleased that the Alexander-Murray agreement provides 
for the continuation of cost-sharing reduction payments, or CSRs, which 
are payments that are necessary to keep premiums, deductibles, and 
copayments affordable for working families. They are extended for 2 
years in this bill. Without these payments, the cost of coverage will 
skyrocket, insurers will leave the marketplaces--as we have already 
seen, as the Trump administration has said they are going to 
discontinue those payments--and millions of people will lose their 
health coverage. This is an opportunity for us to keep that from 
happening. Both Democrats and Republicans have recognized that these 
cost-sharing reduction payments, these CSRs, are an orderly, necessary 
subsidy that keeps down the cost of health coverage for everyday 
Americans.
  In recent months, I have heard from hundreds of people across New 
Hampshire about the enormous difference that healthcare reform has made 
in their lives. We are a small State--we have just over 1.3 million 
people--but nearly 94,000 Granite Staters have gotten individual health 
coverage through the Obama marketplace, and nearly 50,000 have gotten 
coverage thanks to the Medicaid expansion, which had bipartisan support 
in New Hampshire. So that is about a tenth of New Hampshire that is 
covered either through the Affordable Care Act or through the expansion 
of Medicaid. And for us in New Hampshire, it has been particularly 
critical in responding and providing treatment to those people with 
substance use disorders.

  Patricia Tucker has written to me. She is a substance use disorder 
counselor in Northfield, NH, and she talks about how grateful she is 
for the Medicaid expansion. She writes:

       I am seeing people come for help that were not able to get 
     help in the past because they couldn't afford it. They are 
     getting help and remaining abstinent. If one mother gets 
     clean, this affects so many others.

  She goes on to say:

       [I treat] one mother who has two children. She now cares 
     for these children and has a full-time job. In the past, she 
     lived off the state and did not care for anyone, including 
     herself. Multiply this by thousands, just in New Hampshire, 
     and this makes such a big difference.

  And think about how across the country we have affected people with 
substance use disorders because they can now get treatment.
  I agree with Patricia Tucker and so many others who have contacted me 
about the Affordable Care Act. We are grateful for the progress, and we 
refuse to be taken backward. That is why the bipartisan agreement 
hammered out by Senator Alexander and Senator Murray is such an 
important breakthrough. This agreement stands on its merits as a good-
faith, win-win compromise. But just as important and maybe even more 
important, these two Senators have given us a template for bipartisan 
negotiations on other critical matters that lie ahead, including tax 
reform, reauthorizing the community health centers and the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, and reaching an agreement on the 2018 budget.
  The Senate is at its best when we observe regular order, when we 
honor the committee process, and when we work across the aisle and make 
principled compromises and get big things done for the American people.
  In a Senate that is nearly evenly divided between Republicans and 
Democrats, bipartisanship is the only productive way forward. This is 
how the great majority of Americans want us to conduct the Senate's 
business, and this is especially true on matters such as healthcare and 
tax reform that impact families in New Hampshire and all across 
America.
  I am grateful to people across our country who have gotten out the 
word about the health insurance open enrollment period that began on 
November 1 and continues through December 15. I am heartened by the 
surge in enrollments. I am encouraged by bipartisan progress in the 
Senate to stabilize the health insurance marketplaces. I certainly hope 
the leadership in the Senate allows this bill to come to the floor 
because we know we have the votes to pass it.
  Instead of partisan efforts to undermine the law and take health 
insurance away from people, let's embrace the spirit of the Alexander-
Murray agreement. Let's work together in a good-faith, bipartisan 
fashion to build a healthcare system that leaves no American behind.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance 
of bipartisan action on healthcare, as the Senator from New Hampshire 
just did.
  Over the past year, I have traveled all around Minnesota to talk with 
individuals and families and community leaders about healthcare. I have 
heard from mothers and fathers who have been worried about losing the 
healthcare their children need to access lifesaving services. I have 
heard from daughters who have been panicked about how to pay for their 
parents' long-term care and prescription drug costs. I have heard from 
hospital executives in rural areas, much like the rural areas in 
Arkansas, who have been concerned about how they are going to keep 
their doors open.
  What is abundantly clear from all of these conversations is that 
Minnesotans want Congress to work together to build on the Affordable 
Care Act, lower healthcare costs, and support policies that work. That 
is why I believe, first, that Congress must act immediately to

[[Page S7091]]

pass bipartisan legislation to stabilize the individual market. Second, 
we must do all we can to support strong enrollment in our health 
insurance exchanges so that all consumers, regardless of their health 
needs, can find high-quality, affordable health insurance coverage. 
Third, it is time to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. Let me take each of those in turn.
  When Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act failed, the 
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee got to work and 
developed a bipartisan plan to stabilize the individual market. As a 
member of that committee, I participated in numerous hearings with 
witnesses who spanned the ideological spectrum, solicited input from 
State and national leaders, and worked in good faith with all of my 
colleagues to develop legislation that is truly a compromise bill.
  This legislation, referred to as the Alexander-Murray deal, will 
contain healthcare costs for consumers, provide certainty to insurers 
participating in these markets, and provide States with the flexibility 
they need to develop innovative, local solutions. I am proud of what we 
were able to accomplish.
  What I am most proud of is that this bill includes a provision that 
will reverse a decision by the Trump administration that would 
effectively punish Minnesota for pushing forward a bipartisan plan to 
stabilize the individual market--a bipartisan plan in our State 
legislature.
  Last year, after our State experienced dramatic premium rate hikes in 
the individual markets, State leaders worked together in a bipartisan 
way to pass a reinsurance program to contain these costs, but the 
program's enactment was contingent upon approval from the Federal 
Government.
  After months of foot-dragging, the Federal Government finally 
approved the State's reinsurance plan as part of the 1332 waiver 
proposal, but the Federal Government simultaneously cut Federal funding 
for MinnesotaCare, which is another program in the State that provides 
affordable health coverage to working families. Thus, our State had to 
choose whether to support a bipartisan proposal to stabilize the 
individual market and lower premiums for consumers or swallow hundreds 
of millions of dollars in lost Federal funding. It was an impossible 
choice that was completely unnecessary. That is why I set to work to 
fix it.
  After weeks of productive negotiations, I am pleased to report that 
the Alexander-Murray deal will prevent the Trump administration from 
imposing these cuts on Minnesota. But my State wasn't the only one 
threatened by potential funding cuts. The Alexander-Murray bill would 
prevent such problems from occurring in any other State as well, and it 
would do much more.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this agreement would 
reduce the deficit by billions of dollars, lower premiums in 2019, and 
preserve coverage options for individuals and families. In short, it is 
not only good for Minnesota, it is good for the entire country. This 
bill is a bipartisan win-win-win.
  Now our job is to pass this legislation into law. At the same time, 
we must do everything we can to drive up enrollment in the health 
insurance exchanges. Regardless of party, if we want to ensure that 
consumers have access to affordable, high-quality health insurance 
coverage, we have to get people to sign up for the coverage. More 
people equals better risk pools, which equals lower premiums. It is 
really that simple.
  Look, the Trump administration has done everything in its power to 
undermine ObamaCare. It has halved the amount of time that people have 
to enroll in coverage, it slashed funding for outreach and enrollment 
efforts, and it deliberately misled consumers about the benefits of the 
ACA and individual requirements for coverage. But we have the power to 
combat these efforts.
  Let's get people enrolled. Open enrollment started on November 1 and 
will end for most people on December 15. Minnesotans are lucky in that 
they have until January 14 to sign up for coverage. But everyone who 
doesn't receive coverage from their employer or through Medicare needs 
to sign up now, so I urge my colleagues to get their constituents to 
visit healthcare.gov and shop around and then enroll in coverage.
  Lastly, it is time to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, community health centers, and the National Health Service 
Corps. These have always been bipartisan programs. There is no reason 
this should be any different today.
  The anxiety that people in Minnesota and across the country feel 
about their access to healthcare is not inevitable; it is the result of 
political decisions made here in Washington, DC. Let's prove to the 
country that we are not here to fight with each other, we are here to 
fight for them. Let's show them that we can get something done. Let's 
take action to protect healthcare and give our constituents, at long 
last, some peace of mind.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  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.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to call for bipartisan 
action on healthcare.
  I think it was interesting to learn that the citizens of Virginia who 
voted yesterday listed as their top issue healthcare. There was 
obviously an issue there where there had been no Medicaid expansion, 
and they were unhappy with the way it had been handled by the 
legislature there as well as Republicans who were in charge of the 
legislature, and they appeared to be pushing for a change.
  We have an opportunity here to make a bipartisan change. I think it 
is exactly the kind of message that we got yesterday. In my State, we 
have a Republican legislature and a Democratic Governor. They came 
together to do something about some of the rates, particularly in our 
rural areas. They focused on reinsurance, cost sharing--some of the 
things in the bipartisan agreement reached between Senator Alexander 
and Senator Murray. We have 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans 
cosponsoring that bill. Support includes the American Cancer Society, 
the American Diabetes Society, the March of Dimes, and the Arthritis 
Foundation--and those are just the A's.
  The American people want us to work together to make fixes to the 
Affordable Care Act. The day it passed, I said that it was a beginning 
and not an end. Unfortunately, we have been stymied in trying to make 
those kind of changes, and this is one bipartisan big opportunity to do 
it. I think it is a sensible bipartisan approach.
  As we all know, both Senator Alexander and Senator Murray held a 
series of hearings and discussions on commonsense solutions to bring 
down insurance costs with Senators on both sides of the aisle. There 
were Governors and insurance experts, and we worked hard to make sure 
there was some agreement on this bill. I fought for provisions that 
would help States apply for and receive waivers to give them some 
flexibility to construct their healthcare system and to bring down the 
costs without losing Federal funding. That is something my State did. 
As I mentioned, my State, with a Republican-led legislature and a 
Democratic Governor, came together to apply for a waiver and a 
reinsurance provision.
  The bill would also expedite the review of waiver applications for 
proposals that have already been approved for other States that are 
experiencing certain circumstances--emergency circumstances--where they 
need to make changes.
  The legislation also shortens the overall time period that States 
would have to wait for the Federal Government to decide whether to 
approve their waivers.
  All of these are good fundamental concepts--this idea that States 
should have some flexibility, that they should be able to apply for 
waivers, and that they should be able to get their answers as soon as 
possible from the Federal Government. That is what this bill is about. 
Not only does the bill improve the process for waivers and flexibility 
for the States, like we have seen in Minnesota, where already the 
projected

[[Page S7092]]

numbers brought the rates down something like 20 percent, but the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Murray-Alexander bill 
would actually cut the deficit by $3.8 billion over the next 10 years. 
That is hard to argue with.
  It is clear that this legislation could get support from both sides 
of the aisle to make healthcare better for Americans. We have a 
majority of Senators supporting this bill. So we need to get it done 
because the longer we wait, the more the markets don't know what is 
going on, the more confusion that is created, and the more the 
administration is doing things that sabotages the Affordable Care Act.
  We need this stability in the system. Passing the bill would be an 
important step forward, but we still must do more to bring down the 
costs for middle-class families. A big part of that is addressing the 
skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. I have heard from people 
across Minnesota who are struggling to afford the medicine they need. 
This is about the woman in Duluth who told me that she chose not to 
fill her last prescription because that one drug would cost a whole 25 
percent of her income. It is about a woman in St. Paul who, even with 
Medicare, couldn't afford $663 a month for the medicine she needs. It 
is about someone from Crystal, MN, who told me: I am practically going 
without food to pay for the prescription. It is heartbreaking that this 
is happening in America.
  Reducing the cost of prescription drugs has bipartisan support in 
Congress, and the President has said he wants to get something done. He 
has said: The drug companies are ``getting away with murder.'' Those 
are his words. That is what he said.
  So what can we do? Republicans and Democrats could come together and 
act right now. I have a bill that has 33 cosponsors that lifts the ban 
that makes it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices for prescription 
drugs for 41 million seniors. I think 41 million seniors are pretty 
good at getting bargains and deals, and they deserve to have someone 
negotiating on their behalf; that is, the government negotiating for 
Medicare. Except, why don't we negotiate, like we do for the VA, and 
like other countries do? We don't negotiate because there is a 
provision in law that says that the government is not allowed to 
negotiate on behalf of 41 million seniors with the drug companies. They 
are just set. Guess what that means. That is a big part of the reason 
why our drug prices are double the cost of those in Canada--because we 
are just taking it and we are not negotiating.
  Another idea, bringing up Canada, is that Senator McCain and I have a 
bill that would allow less expensive drugs to be sold in the United 
States. To me, that is a way of putting pressure on our own drug 
companies to put out better prices if they know there is going to be 
competition.
  Senator Grassley of Iowa and I have a bill to stop something called 
pay-for-delay. That is when big pharmaceutical companies actually pay 
off generic companies to keep less expensive products off the market. 
This bill would save taxpayers $2.9 billion. Do you know why? Because 
right now there is no competition or very little competition, and they 
are actually paying their competitors to stay off the market. The 
competitors have decided: Well, I get more money to be paid to stay off 
the market than if I actually competed.
  Think about what a rip-off that is for the American people. We are 
allowing this to go on while the consumers are paying the price. How 
much? We know the government alone is going to save $2.9 billion if we 
stop this practice. Consumers would save most likely around that same 
amount because they are paying all the copays. Both the government is 
ripped off and the consumers are ripped off, and the only ones making 
money off of it are the drug companies.
  Another idea is, Senator Lee and I have a bill that would allow 
temporary importation of safe drugs that have been on the market in 
another country for at least 10 years when there isn't healthy 
competition in our own country. Again, if your drug companies that are 
messing around, charging high prices and not allowing competition in--
if you know there might be foreign competition coming in, that is an 
incentive because you want to then make sure that doesn't happen 
because you know that if you keep your prices high and you do things to 
disallow competition, you are going to have some major competition. I 
don't know how else we bring the prices down without allowing more 
competition.
  I also have a bipartisan bill with Senators Grassley, Lee, Feinstein, 
and Leahy, which is called the CREATES Act, to put a stop to other 
pharmaceutical company tactics, such as refusing to provide samples to 
generic companies that are supposed to be allowed to compete with them. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would 
save approximately $3.6 billion.
  As we hear about tax reform and hear about the debt we might be 
seeing expand if something like this goes forward, then we ask 
yourselves: What is not in those bills? Why aren't we saving some money 
for the American people and reducing the debt by allowing for this 
competition, by allowing for the samples, by allowing for more 
generics, by stopping this practice of companies paying each other to 
keep their competitors off the market?
  What this healthcare debate has been about for the last year, where 
repeatedly there have been attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act--
it has been about that. The American people made it really clear, they 
want to make it about something else. They want to make it about 
improvements to the system we have now to make it easier for them. One 
way is the Alexander-Murray bill, which I strongly support. I am one of 
the cosponsors. It is smart. It works with the States, both Democratic 
and Republican States--blue States, red States. We want to see that 
kind of flexibility. The other way is to take a stand, be willing to 
take on the pharmaceutical industry, and take on some of the cost 
issues when it comes to prescription drugs.
  Let's come together in the Senate, as an initial move, and pass the 
Murray-Alexander bill. We must do that, and we must do it by the end of 
the year. Then we can go on from there to actually do something about 
the cost of prescription drugs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, there are a number of matters where we 
disagree in the U.S. Senate, and they range from deeply held 
foundational beliefs to the smallest details of legislative language. 
Despite these disagreements, I believe there is a lot we can all agree 
on.
  I hope I speak for every Member of Congress in saying that in this 
great Nation of ours, hard work should always be rewarded. If you play 
by the rules and do the right thing, you should have an opportunity to 
earn a good life for yourself and for your family. Our mothers, 
fathers, and others before us have worked hard to ensure that we have a 
fair shot at the American dream. Unfortunately, it feels like the 
fabric of the American dream has started to fray for far too many 
families. Even more troubling, we are seeing nominees from this 
administration who seem committed to actively unraveling the support 
and the protections that help workers get ahead.
  Today we are considering the nomination of Peter Robb to be general 
counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Robb would be 
responsible for ensuring safe working conditions and fair compensation 
for American workers. He would be tasked with protecting the treasured 
right of workers to engage in good-faith negotiations with their 
employers.
  However, a brief look at Mr. Robb's career reveals a clear track 
record of working to undermine our Nation's workers and middle class on 
behalf of corporate executives. To Mr. Robb's credit, he is not trying 
to hide his record or run away from his record. All you have to do is 
visit his firm's website, and you will see the experiences he is proud 
to display. I believe it is a preview of how he will approach his 
position at the National Labor Relations Board. His self-proclaimed 
accomplishments include: advising large corporations on mergers, 
acquisitions, and plant closings; securing labor injunctions; and 
bringing suits against labor organizations.

[[Page S7093]]

  When someone tells you who they are, believe them. While I certainly 
believe that every American and corporation is entitled to vigorous 
representation by their lawyers, I also believe Senators must evaluate 
every nominee's full body of work. Let's be clear about how Mr. Robb 
has chosen to spend his professional life: helping management close 
plants and cut jobs, suing unions, delaying workers' rights to 
collectively bargain, and defending companies that violate workplace 
safety and fair pay laws.
  At a time when corporate profits and executive compensation have 
skyrocketed and worker wages are stagnant, I have no confidence in Mr. 
Robb's ability to be a neutral arbiter between labor and management, 
let alone advocate for the safety and the well-being of America's 
working men and women. Our Nation's workers deserve a nominee who will 
protect their right to negotiate for fair pay and safe working 
conditions, not someone who has spent his entire career litigating 
against workers. I will be voting against Mr. Robb's confirmation, and 
I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today we are voting on the nomination 
of Peter Robb for general counsel of the National Labor Relations 
Board, NLRB.
  As general counsel, Mr. Robb will have the important job of helping 
workers who feel their right to organize collectively has been violated 
or assisting employers when some of their employees want to form a 
union.
  Mr. Robb will have an opportunity to help restore the Board to the 
role of a neutral umpire in labor disputes.
  While partisanship at the Board did not start under the previous 
administration, it became far worse.
  When the Board is too partisan, it creates instability in our 
Nation's workplaces and creates confusion for employers, employees, and 
unions.
  For example, in 2015, at the previous general counsel's urging, an 
NLRB decision dramatically expanded ``joint employer'' liability, and 
this increased liability makes it much more likely a company will find 
it more practical to own and operate its stores, taking away the 
opportunity for a worker to own and run their own franchise.
  This decision was the biggest attack on the opportunity for small 
business men and women to make their way into the middle class that 
anyone has seen in a long time, threatening to destroy the American 
Dream for owners of the Nation's 780,000 franchise locations.
  Or consider the previous general counsel's aggressive application of 
the National Labor Relations Act to protect certain employees' 
belligerent, threatening, and discriminatory conduct.
  One troubling decision involved an employer that fired a picketing 
employee who engaged in racist and offensive conduct on a picket line.
  The Board found that the employee's remarks were ``racist, offensive 
and reprehensible,'' and violated the company's nondiscrimination 
policies and the union's conduct rules; yet the Board still ruled that 
the employer's discharge of the employee was unlawful.
  This type of Board decision defies common sense and makes it more 
difficult for employers to maintain safe workplaces free of 
discrimination and harassment.
  Mr. Robb is extremely qualified to be general counsel of the NLRB.
  He currently works as the director of labor and employment at the law 
firm Downs Rachlin and Marin.
  He served as chief counsel to NLRB Member Robert Hunter and was a 
regional field attorney for the NLRB in Baltimore.
  Mr. Robb earned his B.A. in economics from Georgetown University and 
his J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law.
  His experience and prudence will serve him well at the NLRB.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Peter Robb for 
general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.
  Mr. PETERS. 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. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.