[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 31, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5215-S5216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Medicare for All

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past several months, we have 
heard a lot of talk about Medicare for All. Its Democratic supporters 
claim this is the panacea that will solve all of America's healthcare 
woes. They say it will guarantee every person's access to healthcare 
and simplify our healthcare system, but it doesn't take much effort to 
see the flaws in their proposal and in their argument--something we are 
obligated to do, to examine these proposals to see whether they will 
work or not.
  Our Democratic friends proudly own the fact that Medicare for All 
would completely end employer-based health insurance as we know it. We 
heard that a lot last night during the debates of the Democratic 
candidates running for President. It would literally force every 
American into one government-run plan modeled after our current 
Medicare system.
  Part of the problem is, seniors have paid into the Medicare system 
for many years, and we know it is on a path to insolvency unless 
Congress does something. Medicare for All would only make that worse, 
expanding it to every eligible American.
  According to a Kaiser poll released yesterday, more than three-
quarters of Americans favor employer-sponsored health insurance, and 86 
percent of people with employer coverage rate their insurance 
positively. That would include, again, as we heard last night, many 
union members who have been part of the collective bargaining agreement 
with their employers, with management, to negotiate outstanding, 
quality private health insurance. That would go away under Medicare for 
All.
  We know that about 83-percent of the people polled support our 
current Medicare system for our seniors, and a whopping 95 percent of 
people with Medicare coverage are happy with it, but if Medicare for 
All becomes the law of the land, those numbers would plummet because 
Medicare would be unrecognizable to the seniors who paid into the fund 
and who have earned that coverage.
  Families would lose all freedom when it comes to making their own 
healthcare choices. You see a government-selected doctor at a 
government-selected facility. We know what that looks like in the 
United Kingdom and in Canada, where people have to wait in long lines 
just to get seen by their doctor, much less elective surgery. You get 
the coverage the government says you deserve at the time, when the 
government says you can have it. It would completely hollow out the 
existing Medicare Program and inject unfathomable instability into 
America's healthcare system.
  If you get past all of that, which is hard to do, you certainly will 
not be able to stomach the price. Medicare for All, it is estimated, 
would cost taxpayers $32 trillion over the first 10 years alone. Now, 
credit Bernie Sanders, our colleague from Vermont. He is honest enough 
to acknowledge that he is going to have to raise taxes on the middle 
class to pay for that, but $32 trillion is a lot of money, especially 
when our current debt exceeds $20 trillion already and is growing. When 
it comes to how they would pay for it, the only answer we hear from 
everybody other than Bernie Sanders is, ``Let's just tax the rich.''
  This is part of their usual talking points and part of the Democratic 
Party's incredible sprint to the left and their shocking embrace of a 
socialist agenda.
  We saw the start of their move toward socialized medicine in 2009 
with ObamaCare. We famously recall President Obama trying to reassure 
people that if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, and if 
you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor--none of which proved to 
be true.
  Now Democrats want to make these extravagant promises about Medicare 
for All, which we know they cannot keep. It is clear ObamaCare was just 
the beginning. Medicare for All, or the public option, so to speak, 
which some people try to tout as an alternative, is nothing but a 
government competition for private health insurance, and you can't beat 
the Federal Government, especially when it is paid for by Federal tax 
dollars. That is a march toward the elimination of private health 
insurance, including that provided through your employer, which now 
benefits about 180 million Americans.
  Last night, we saw candidates defend these radical policies during 
the Democratic debate. Two of our Senate colleagues who are running for 
President sparred over what another candidate called ``fairytale'' 
promises. They fought to defend their plan to remove all choice from 
Americans' healthcare. They tried to convince their fellow Democrats 
and the American people that they are writing a check that, if elected, 
they can cash.
  We know that is not true. The American people are not going to be 
fooled. They don't want socialized medicine; they don't want to run up 
government

[[Page S5216]]

spending; they certainly don't want to have to pay $32 trillion in 
additional taxes to pay for it; and they certainly don't want 
Washington bureaucrats dictating their families' healthcare choices.
  In a speech last week, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services, Seema Verma, spoke about these radical 
healthcare ideas. She said: ``These proposals are the largest threats 
to the American healthcare system.''
  Let me say that again. Seema Verma, head of CMS, the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services, called these proposals ``the largest 
threats'' to America's healthcare system. So you better believe we will 
keep fighting to resist this socialist agenda and this evermore liberal 
wish list.


                     Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019

  Mr. President, on another matter, we will soon be able to vote on a 
bipartisan, 2-year budget agreement to provide some certainty and 
stability to the Federal Government and Federal spending. The President 
and Speaker Pelosi have reached this deal in order to avoid the 
possibility of another government shutdown and instead leave time and 
space for a wide-ranging debate on our government spending habits.
  I know the Presiding Officer believes as I do; that it is past time 
to have a genuine, far-ranging debate about government spending habits 
that is not just focused on discretionary spending, which is what this 
budget caps deal does, but on all the money the Federal Government 
spends, which includes the 70 percent of spending which is on 
autopilot, which this deal does not discuss or deal with.
  I will be the first to admit this budget agreement isn't perfect. It 
never is. Anything negotiated means both sides have to give up a little 
bit in order to find common ground. As I indicated, I certainly wish it 
were more aggressive. I wish it did something to deal with our 
entitlement programs as we continue to face growing deficits, but I am 
glad to see that the agreement offsets roughly a 1-year increase for 
nondefense discretionary spending above current law and allows our 
government to be funded on time and on budget.
  It also avoids 30 poison pill policy riders on everything from 
taxpayer funding for abortion to immigration law, keeping them from 
reaching the President's desk.
  Above all, this agreement delivers on our most fundamental 
responsibility, which is to provide for our common defense. When our 
friend, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, first came here, he said: I 
am a conservative, which means there are really two things that take 
priority when it comes to the Federal Government. One is national 
defense, and the other is infrastructure. He said everything else comes 
below that on the priority list. I found a lot of wisdom in those 
words. Providing for the common defense is the most important thing 
Congress does, along with the administration.
  We know under the previous administration, the Pentagon and our 
national defense were underfunded dramatically. It operated without any 
kind of stability or predictability, and this took a serious toll on 
our military readiness.
  After nearly a decade of neglect, President Trump and Senate 
Republicans are working to rebuild our military and rebuild that 
readiness and modernize our force.
  Let's look at the Army Future Vertical Lift--or FVL--as an example of 
why this investment is so very important. FVL is a cross-functional 
team within Army Futures Command headquarters in Austin, TX, that aims 
to develop two new helicopters for the Army in the 2020s. These next-
generation aircraft will replace aging military helicopters and provide 
our servicemembers with the capabilities they need today and tomorrow.
  But right now, these programs are progressing without timely funding. 
It is hard to make plans when you don't know how the money is going to 
flow. Without a budget deal and on-time appropriations, the Army has no 
choice but to significantly delay these programs for years to come, 
meaning that the Army will continue to operate helicopters built in the 
seventies and eighties.
  The same goes with our artillery. Those years of underfunding have 
allowed Russia and China to surpass our capabilities in a number of 
areas, including long-range precision fire. In this and other areas, 
the military must develop longer range weapons to provide an advantage 
over our adversaries and maintain our qualitative edge.
  As a newer program, the Army would not be able to continue research, 
development, and testing under a continuing resolution or without a 
budget deal, putting us another year behind in modernizing our force in 
an era of great power competition. That means China and Russia continue 
apace while we are slow to try to catch up.
  That is why this deal is so important. It provides stable and 
reliable funding so that our military leaders can plan for the future 
and provide for the common defense.
  Our newly confirmed Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, talked about this 
at length when testifying before the Armed Services Committee a couple 
of weeks ago. He talked about the Department of Defense receiving 
funding on time last year and said that it really allowed us to 
accelerate the readiness gains we have made to advance our 
modernization efforts and to do all of the things the national defense 
strategy tells us we need to do.
  You would think there would be broad bipartisan support for providing 
America's military with the necessary resources to keep the American 
people safe. Somehow, though, some of our Members believe that this 
critical national security mission is optional.
  Unfortunately, there are some in our midst who look to reduce 
military funding at every possible turn. Fortunately, we have a 
President who shares our commitment to national security. Thanks to the 
Trump administration's tough negotiating, this deal provides the 
stability the Pentagon needs, including critical investments in 
military readiness. Compared to current law, it provides a larger 
increase in discretionary funding for defense than nondefense 
discretionary programs and would allow us to regain the ground lost 
under the Obama administration.
  I appreciate the President's work, along with that of the House and 
the Senate, to deliver a budget deal that supports America's military, 
and I look forward to supporting this agreement later today and 
certainly later this week.

                          ____________________