[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6263-S6271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
TREASURY AND THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES RELATING TO
``STATE RELIEF AND EMPOWERMENT WAIVERS''--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 52, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 52) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Secretary of Health and Human Services
relating to ``State Relief and Empowerment Waivers''.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Appropriations
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, even as we consider the package of
appropriations on the floor this week, we must also think about how
both parties can reach an agreement on all 12 bills we need to pass
before Thanksgiving. It is way past time for Democratic and Republican
appropriators to sit down and hammer out bipartisan agreement on
allocations to the various agencies, known as 302(b)s. That is how we
got this done in the past. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have
successfully negotiated two budget deals. The key to those agreements
was that the President allowed Congress to do its work and stayed off
to the side. I believe that, again, if left to our own devices,
Congress could work out an agreement to fund the government.
As everyone remembers, the President's meddling and erratic behavior
caused the last government shutdown--the longest in our Nation's
history. The best way to avoid another shutdown would be for the
President to keep out of the appropriations process and for Republicans
to stop the games and get serious about negotiating in a bipartisan way
forward.
I believe there was a meeting yesterday, and there may be some
progress. I think some progress was made. Let's continue moving in that
direction, the four corners of the Appropriations Committee--House and
Senate, Democrats and Republicans--and put together an agreement we can
all support.
Trump Administration
Mr. President, on the whistleblower, as the House of Representatives
continues its impeachment inquiry as to whether the President
jeopardized national security by pressuring Ukraine to interfere with
our 2020 locations, the White House, their allies in Congress, and the
media have resorted to despicable tactics to falsely discredit
individuals who have provided the House testimony.
Yesterday, LTC Alexander Vindman, an Active-Duty Army officer serving
on a detail in the White House, testified before Congress. Since
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's testimony was announced and especially in
the past 24
[[Page S6264]]
hours, he has been vilified by individuals in the media and elsewhere.
Although he has served our country for more than 20 years, although he
is a recipient of the Purple Heart after being wounded while serving in
Iraq, he has been called derogatory terms, and some have even gone so
far as to call him a spy and question his loyalty to the United States.
These attacks are outrageous. They are unacceptable, and they are not
unlike the attacks the President and his allies have levied against the
whistleblower whose account first alerted Congress to the President's
misconduct with Ukraine. The President has publicly suggested the
whistleblower is treasonous and a spy.
Separately, recent public reports suggest that a Republican member of
the House Intelligence Committee is actively trying to expose and leak
the whistleblower's identity. This is so, so wrong. Disclosing or
causing to be disclosed the identity of a whistleblower is such a
breach of faith of our whistleblower laws, which are designed to see
that the truth gets out. Anyone seeking the release of the
whistleblower's identity is frustrating the truth and is potentially in
violation of Federal law. Not only that, the disclosure of the
whistleblower's identity may result in reprisals and threats to their
personal safety and the safety of their families.
Today, I am sending a letter to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of
the Army asking them to provide us with what actions the Army is taking
to ensure that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is afforded appropriate
protections. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and whistleblowers like him are
standing up for the Constitution they swore an oath to defend. Their
lives and families must not be put in jeopardy by an outrageous attack
or disclosure.
Healthcare
Mr. President, now on healthcare, today the Senate will hold a vote
on a resolution to repeal a Trump administration rule promoting junk
health insurance plans, which offer a way around protections for
Americans with preexisting conditions. The administration has worked to
make it easier for States to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize these
junk insurance plans, many of which don't cover essential benefits,
like maternity care, preventive screening, and mental healthcare. These
junk plans leave families vulnerable and are nothing but a boon to
health insurance companies.
For nearly 3 years, Republicans in Congress and the Trump
administration have sabotaged Americans' healthcare. Funding to sign up
Americans for health insurance has been eliminated. Programs to help
low-income Americans afford insurance has been canceled. President
Trump's budgets have threatened deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
Now, the Trump administration is suing to repeal the entirety of the
healthcare law.
Yesterday--just yesterday--new data showed that 400,000 fewer kids
have health insurance now, most of whom are under 6--innocents. When
they have bad health, they need help. That breaks your heart. The
effect of all this sabotage is very, very real.
Now, think about this issue, about protections for Americans with
preexisting conditions. Think of a mom or dad who has a son or daughter
and they discover that he or she has cancer. They go to the doctor, and
the doctor says: Look, I have this very expensive medication or this
expensive treatment that will help cure your child, but the insurance
policy doesn't cover it.
The family doesn't have enough money to pay for it, and they watch
their child suffer. That should not happen in America. We want to
prevent it from happening.
That is why we hope our colleagues will join us in this CRA to
overturn what the administration has done that would allow that
terrible example to go forward.
Let me continue on healthcare for a minute. Despite making explicit
promises to defend protections for Americans with preexisting
conditions in campaign ads--I even heard some speak about it as
recently as yesterday--Republicans have voted to undermine these
protections in Congress on several occasions. There is no getting
around the fact that junk insurance plans offer a way around these
important protections and drive costs up for everyone else.
Do Republicans want to use taxpayer dollars to fund these junk plans
and add to insurance company profits?
I hope not, but we will see today. Today, my Republican colleagues
face a test. They can vote to defend healthcare protections for
Americans who need it most or they can stand with President Trump and
vote to allow these junk health insurance plans with so many
devastating effects on so many families flood the market.
Syria
Mr. President, finally, on Syria, we were informed yesterday that
after multiple requests, the Senate will finally receive an all-Member
briefing by the administration on the situation in northern Syria this
afternoon. I am glad the briefing is taking place, but it is
regrettable that it has even taken this long.
Secretary Pompeo also will not participate, which is profoundly
disappointing, given that we must hear from the Secretary of State at
times and on issues such as this.
Nevertheless, those members of the administration who will be there
today must answer several important questions. What is our strategy
moving forward on northern Syria? How are we going to protect troops
and our national interest? And, most importantly, exactly what is our
plan to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS and to make sure that those
who are still imprisoned don't escape and those who have already
escaped don't hurt us?
These urgent questions go to the heart of America's national
security, and we need them answered today.
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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority whip is recognized.
Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, ISIS took a big hit over the weekend when
U.S. forces raided ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's compound in
Syria. Al-Baghdadi died in the raid after he detonated a suicide vest
in a final act of cowardice, killing three children with him. The
second in command was confirmed killed in a second military strike
hours later, leaving the organization temporarily leaderless.
Over the past few years, ISIS has spilled a river of blood across the
Middle East. Its brutality has set it apart even among other terrorist
organizations. Torture, rape, enslavement, crucifixions, beheadings,
and the deliberate targeting of whole populations based on their
religious beliefs--the list of crimes is long and often nearly
unspeakable.
The world is a safer place today because of al-Baghdadi's death. This
impact will only be temporary unless we dedicate ourselves to ensuring
that ISIS is permanently defeated.
The successful raid on al-Baghdadi's compound is a reminder of the
fact that our military may be called on at a moment's notice to head
halfway around the world to fight evil. The men and women of the U.S.
military stand on guard 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, ready to put
themselves between us and danger.
This past weekend, I had the honor of helping to welcome home 112
South Dakota Army National Guard soldiers of the 147th Forward Support
Company and Bravo Battery of the 147th Field Artillery Battalion. These
citizen soldiers were in Europe for nearly a year working with our NATO
allies and increasing unit readiness.
As Members of Congress, we have no more fundamental responsibility
than ensuring that our men and women in uniform are prepared to meet
any threat. We do that by providing timely and adequate funding for the
current and future needs of our Armed Forces. That means funding the
military through regular order appropriation bills--not through
temporary funding measures that leave the military in doubt about
funding levels and unable to start essential new projects.
Unfortunately, our efforts to fund the military in a timely fashion
have been stymied by Democrats who blocked the Senate from passing the
Defense appropriations bill in September before the end of the fiscal
[[Page S6265]]
year. We are now a month into the new fiscal year, and Democrats are
still indicating that they intend to block this year's Defense
appropriations bill.
Let me briefly review what Democrats are blocking. They are blocking
funding to support a pay increase for our military men and women. They
are blocking funding for weapons and equipment that our troops need
right now. They are blocking investment in the equipment and technology
that our military will need to defeat the threats of the future. They
are blocking funding for missile defense, for research and development,
for ships, planes, and combat vehicles to update our aging fleets, and
they are blocking funding for our allies, including $250 million in
military assistance for Ukraine.
Let me just repeat that last point. Democrats, who are currently
trying to impeach the President for allegedly delaying Ukraine funding,
are currently blocking $250 million in assistance for Ukraine. Now, I
am pretty sure that is the definition, if you look it up, of both irony
and hypocrisy.
Toward the end of the summer, it looked like Democrats might actually
be willing to work with Republicans to pass this year's appropriations
bills. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed to a bipartisan deal
laying out funding levels for both defense and nondefense spending,
but, apparently, that was as far as Senate Democrats were prepared to
go. Now that it has come time to honor the spirit of that agreement and
get this year's Defense appropriations bill done, Senate Democrats are
balking.
Democrats would like us to believe they are serious about
legislating; that their yearslong obsession with impeaching the
President isn't distracting them from doing their job. Well, they are
going to have a chance to prove that in the very near future.
If Democrats are actually serious about legislating, if they are
serious about meeting their responsibilities, then they will work with
Republicans to move forward on the Defense appropriations bill and to
get this legislation to the President as soon as possible. I hope that
is what they will choose to do.
As Chairman Shelby noted on the floor last week, Congress's failure
to do its job and fund our military is making the military's job more
difficult, and that, as Chairman Shelby noted, is unacceptable. It
should be unacceptable to all of us. It is time to get our men and
women in uniform the funding they need and the pay increase they
deserve. It is time to get this year's Defense appropriations bill
done. It is time for the Democrats to stop stalling and foot-dragging
and blocking, and for them to work with us to make sure our men and
women in uniform have what they need to protect Americans and keep us
safe.
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.
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.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, at 12:15 p.m., the Senate will vote on
a Democratic proposal to overturn a Trump administration guidance from
the Department of Health and Human Services that would lower insurance
rates all across America. Seems like a strange thing to do, but to
justify that, the Democrats have come up with a scary fairytale that
has no basis in truth, that suggests that somehow this effort to lower
insurance rates would jeopardize the protection for preexisting
conditions that all Americans have according to the law. Of course,
that can't happen because the law doesn't permit it. So I want to talk
about that a little bit today.
What the Senate Democrats want to overturn is a Trump administration
guidance regarding what is called a section 1332 waiver. Now, a 1332
waiver was part of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 that Democrats
passed. No Republican voted for it. So you had the Affordable Care Act,
which says, among other things, that every American who has a
preexisting health condition is protected. That means that if I have a
preexisting health condition, and I want to buy insurance, I have a
right to buy it. I can't be charged any more for it because of my
preexisting health condition, and I am covered if I get sick. That is
what we mean by protection for preexisting conditions. That is in the
Federal law. No American can be denied that protection.
In the very same law, the Affordable Care Act, Democrats wrote
another provision to give States more flexibility in how they spend
ObamaCare money with the hope that they might be able to lower rates
for Americans who have health insurance. That would be a good thing
because in Tennessee, and across the country, really, since ObamaCare
passed, rates have gone up 163 percent. Those rate increases especially
hurt people who make a little bit more than $50,000--say a songwriter
in Nashville or a farmer like Marty, whom I ran into in the Chick-fil-A
outside Nashville, who said: I can't afford health insurance. I have to
pay $15,000 or $20,000 because I don't get any ObamaCare subsidy.
States are trying to take advantage of this provision of the
Affordable Care Act--ObamaCare--that says States may have some
flexibility in how they spend Obamacare money. The law also says states
cannot jeopardize preexisting conditions protections for anybody.
Now, the best evidence that what we are talking about is a scary
fairytale is that 12 States already have used a 1332 waiver. Remember,
this is the provision in the Federal law that was designed to give
States more flexibility in how they spend Federal dollars. Twelve
States have already used that provision in law to lower rates. There
are 12 waivers from States that have been approved by the Trump
administration, and premiums have gone down in all 12 States as a
result of this action. This is what the Democrats want to stop. They
want to stop States from using this provision which the Democrats
invented in 2010 to lower insurance rates. That is why it is a scary
fairytale that only on Halloween anybody could imagine could come up
with.
Now, 7 of the 12 waivers that were approved by the Trump
administration were under an Obama definition of Section 1332, and 5
have been approved since the new guidance that is the subject of the
vote today. For any State to get a 1332 waiver, the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services has to approve it. Seema Verma is the
Administrator of that agency. She has made it very clear, No. 1, that
none of the 12 waivers that have been approved jeopardize preexisting
health condition protections for anybody. In other words, the waivers
did lower rates for some people, but they didn't hurt anyone's ability
to buy insurance who had a preexisting condition. Just because it
helped some people didn't mean it hurt other people.
Seema Verma went on to say very clearly:
To be very clear, the 2018 guidance--
The one we are talking about today--
does nothing to erode ObamaCare's preexisting condition
provisions, which cannot be waived under Section 1332.
In other words, the law the Democrats wrote in 2010 does not allow
States to waive the preexisting condition. Seema Verma goes on to say:
``Section 1332 does not permit States to waive Public
Health Services Act requirements such as guaranteed
availability and renewability of health insurance, the
prohibition on using health status to vary premiums, and the
prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions.
Furthermore, a section 1332 waiver cannot be approved that
might otherwise undermine these requirements. This
administration stands committed to protecting people with
preexisting conditions.''
The bottom line is, 12 States have already used section 1332 waivers
to reduce premiums. More States want to come up with other ideas to do
the same. In none of the 12 States were preexisting condition
protections jeopardized for one single person. Seema Verma says it
cannot be, under the law, and if any of the other States have some sort
of new proposal--she wouldn't approve it.
There is no doubt there is a good reason why so many Governors may
want 1332 waivers. In fact, many of the States that have already been
granted waivers have Democratic Senators as well as Democratic
Governors. Many States are trying to reduce health insurance rates
because ObamaCare has driven those rates so high. In the four
[[Page S6266]]
bipartisan Health Committee hearings I chaired in September of 2017,
virtually, every witness told our committee that the process of
applying for a 1332 waiver was too cumbersome, too inflexible, and
expensive for States to use.
In the fall of 2017, provisions to improve that waiver application
process were included in bipartisan legislation that was proposed by 12
Republican Senators and 12 Democratic Senators. At one point, the
distinguished Senator from New York, the minority leader, Senator
Schumer, said it was such good policy that every Democrat ought to vote
for it.
In 2018, Senate Democrats blocked that bipartisan legislation, which
would have, by the way, lowered insurance premiums by 40 percent over 3
years, and it became clear Democrats were refusing to change even a
word of ObamaCare.
I encouraged Secretary Azar and the administration to take a look at
the section 1332 waiver and, within the current law, do whatever they
could to give States more flexibility. Fourteen Governors wrote the
Secretary seeking help to make 1332 waivers work so they could start
lowering premiums in their State.
In October of 2018, the Trump administration issued new guidance with
much needed flexibility so States can use 1332 waivers. Democrats who
vote at 12:15 to overturn this guidance are taking a tool away from
their States, a tool that many States want, to lower health insurance
rates and, in every single case, without jeopardizing protection for
preexisting conditions.
That was the whole purpose of the 1332 waiver. That is why Democrats
put it in the Affordable Care Act. That is why 13 States have approved
those waivers and 12 have been approved just for one type of solution
called reinsurance. That is when States take some money and put it in a
reinsurance pool. A State can take the sickest people in that State and
put them there. When the sickest people are out of the other pool, it
lowers rates for the people who are left. States can do reinsurance
with Obamacare money. States lower health insurance rates for these
people in the pool. You make sure the people who are sickest have
insurance, and you don't take away anyone's right to buy insurance who
has a preexisting condition.
In each of the States, health insurance premiums have gone down as
much as 43 percent in some cases. North Dakota has seen the average
ObamaCare premium decrease 20 percent; Colorado, 16 percent; Delaware,
13 percent; Montana, 8 percent; Rhode Island, 6 percent. You want to
overturn a guidance that attempts to give States more of that same kind
of flexibility to lower insurance premiums without affecting the
ability of any American to buy insurance with preexisting condition
protections? There is no reason States shouldn't be able to have that
flexibility.
Let me give you an example of what this guidance that we are talking
about today would mean. In 2017, Iowa submitted a waiver application
that would have restructured the premium subsidies. That is the money
Iowa gets from Washington under ObamaCare. According to Iowa Governor
Kim Reynolds, Iowa's waiver would have given 18,000 to 22,000 Iowans
access to more affordable insurance. These were Iowans who made too
much to qualify for Federal subsidies and were left behind by
ObamaCare's skyrocketing profits. This might be a farmer in Iowa making
$55,000 a year and, with no subsidy, paying $15,000 or $20,000 for an
insurance policy. The rates would be lower under Iowa's proposal.
Under the old guidance, Iowa's innovative waiver couldn't be
approved. Now, with the new guidance--the one you seek to overturn
today--Iowa can work with Administrator Verma to get the kind of
creative waiver so 18,000-22,000 more Iowans can afford health
insurance. To be clear--to emphasize--just as with the other 12
examples that have been approved, no new waiver can be approved that
would take away the right of any Iowan who has a preexisting health
condition to buy insurance at the same price as if that person didn't
have a preexisting health condition and to keep insurance coverage when
that Iowan gets sick.
It is simply a scary Halloween fairytale drummed up by the other
side--for reasons I can't imagine since so many of their States are
benefiting from 1332 waivers--to take away from States the ability to
reduce health insurance costs. As I said earlier, any waiver that is
approved--as 12 already have been--to help some people get lower cost
health insurance cannot hurt another person in that State by taking
away their right to buy insurance at the same price that covers their
preexisting condition. States with 1332 waivers include these States
with Democratic Senators who will be voting today: Hawaii, Maryland,
Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Wisconsin. Do they really want to take
away from their State the ability to lower health insurance premiums in
a way that doesn't jeopardize preexisting conditions? That is pretty
strange. Then there is Colorado, Montana, Delaware, Rhode Island,
Alaska, North Dakota--the same.
I think this just gets back to the point that Democrats have elevated
ObamaCare to the 67th book of the Bible, and they can't change a word
of it, even though they wrote the 1332 waiver in the Affordable Care
Act to give States the flexibility to reduce healthcare premiums, which
12 States now have done. Democrats also wrote, in the Affordable Care
Act, that you cannot take away from any American the right to buy
insurance at the same price if you have a preexisting health condition.
That has been reaffirmed by the Trump administration. It is in the law.
To suggest otherwise, as I said earlier, is a scary fairytale dreamed
up for Halloween.
I hope that all Senators--especially from those States who have seen
the 1332 waiver work so well--will vote not to overturn the guidance
that gives more Americans a chance to pay lower healthcare premiums.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Wisconsin.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1556
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Mark
Warner and the entire Senate Democratic caucus to force a vote on his
resolution to protect Americans with preexisting health conditions and
stop the Trump administration from using American taxpayer dollars to
promote junk insurance plans that don't even have to cover people who
have preexisting health conditions.
The difference between the two sides of the aisle here is really
clear. The Senate Republicans have worked with President Trump to pass
repeal plans that would take people's healthcare away and allow
insurance companies to charge more for people with preexisting health
conditions.
When their effort failed legislatively, instead of working in a
bipartisan way to lower healthcare costs for working families,
President Trump and his administration spent 2 years working to
sabotage our healthcare system. The Trump administration's sabotage has
made it harder for people to sign up for quality, affordable coverage,
and there are more Americans who are uninsured today than when
President Trump took office.
The Trump administration is even in court to support a lawsuit to
overturn the Affordable Care Act completely, which will take away
guaranteed health protections and raise costs for Americans with
preexisting health conditions. If they succeed, insurance companies
will again be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for
nearly 130 million Americans who have preexisting health conditions.
Meanwhile, this administration has expanded what we call junk
insurance plans. These are plans that can deny coverage to people with
preexisting health conditions and don't have to cover essential
services like prescription drugs, emergency room visits, and maternity
care.
I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to think about this
for a moment. President Trump supports overturning the law that
provides protections for people with preexisting health conditions
while he expands these junk plans that don't provide those protections.
This is what the Senate Republicans support. This is their plan.
Last year, we forced a vote on my legislation to block President
Trump's expansion of junk insurance plans that don't have to cover
people with preexisting health conditions. The final vote tally was 50
to 50, with the entire Senate Democratic Caucus and one
[[Page S6267]]
Senate Republican voting in support of my legislation. Those who say
they support healthcare coverage for people with preexisting health
conditions should support the No Junk Plans Act. Today, I want to take
another vote.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration
of S. 1556 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration;
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that 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 Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, the
Senator from Wisconsin is exactly correct. Every Senate Democrat has
voted to take away a low-cost insurance option from what the Urban
Institute says is 1.7 million Americans. These people can't afford
other kinds of insurance. That is what they want to take away, and she
is attempting to do that once again. I have plenty of constituents who
have a right to get their insurance but who can't afford it. This is
the only kind of insurance they can buy.
This kind of insurance was good enough for the George W. Bush
administration. It was good enough for the Clinton administration. It
was good enough for the Obama administration right up until the last
few days, and it should be good enough under the Trump administration.
According to the Urban Institute, all the Trump short term plan rule
does is give 1.7 million Americans an opportunity to buy short-term
insurance while they move from one job to another or while they look
for a different situation. According to the Urban Institute, those 1.7
million Americans would otherwise go uninsured, and that is what the
Democrats are for.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, obviously, I am disappointed with the
objection.
I would point out that these junk plans are often called short-term
plans, but the change that was made by this administration was to go
from a 3-month sort of transition plan that, as my colleague indicates,
could be used when one changes employment or other short-term use, and
now they are available and renewable for up to 3 years. These plans do
not preserve the protections under the Affordable Care Act to cover
people with preexisting health conditions and essential health
benefits.
You don't have to take my word for it. We can read directly from the
fine print on the actual plans that are being debated.
One of these junk plans from Companion Life, which is currently
available in my home State of Wisconsin, reads: ``This plan has a pre-
existing limitation provision that may prevent coverage from applying
to medical conditions that existed prior to this plan effective date.''
Another junk plan from Golden Rule says that the plan doesn't comply
with the guaranteed essential benefits provided by the Affordable Care
Act.
To quote directly from the plan, the description reads: ``Even if you
have had prior Golden Rule coverage and your preexisting conditions
were covered under that plan, they will not be covered under this
plan.''
It is abundantly clear that these plans don't cover protections for
people with preexisting conditions.
The people of Wisconsin did not send me to Washington to take away
people's healthcare. I want to protect the guaranteed healthcare
coverage that millions of Americans depend on. I want to help more
families get the quality, affordable healthcare they need.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1905
Despite the sabotage that I have described from this administration
against the Affordable Care Act, in Wisconsin this year, things are
getting better with the new Governor. Thanks to strong leadership from
Governor Evers and the investments his administration is making,
Wisconsinites will have more choices and more affordable rates for
quality health insurance plans this year. Wisconsinites in every corner
of the State will be able to find healthcare plans this year that
include essential benefits like prescription drug coverage, maternity
care, emergency room visits, and mental healthcare at more affordable
prices.
Governor Evers is providing funding for more health insurance
navigators and is conducting awareness campaigns in the State so that
families in Wisconsin will have the information they need to sign up
for quality and comprehensive healthcare plans. That is why enrollment
navigators are so important. We need to keep up the funding for
navigator programs so that more people can find affordable healthcare
plans that meet their needs. Navigators help millions of Americans,
including those in rural communities, sign up for quality healthcare
coverage.
The Governor of Wisconsin understands the importance of navigators,
but Washington has failed to step up. Unfortunately, since President
Trump took office, his administration has slashed Federal funding for
the navigator program by 84 percent. Trusted navigator programs, like
those in Wisconsin, have had their funding cut by nearly 75 percent
since 2017, meaning fewer people in Wisconsin have received the support
they need to obtain affordable coverage.
That is why I introduced the ENROLL Act this year with my good friend
from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey. This bill restores funding for the
navigator program and helps to ensure that Americans have better access
to the affordable healthcare coverage that they need and want. The
ENROLL Act passed the House of Representatives earlier this year. We
should also pass it in the Senate so that Americans can more easily
enroll in quality healthcare coverage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration
of S. 1905 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration;
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that 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 Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, in
2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that
navigators were not cost-effective in enrolling people in health
insurance.
During the 2017 open enrollment period, navigators received over
$62.5 million in Federal grants while enrolling 81,426 individuals.
That is less than 1 percent of those enrolled in the Federal exchanges,
which comes out to a cost of $767 per enrollee. In other words, the
taxpayer is paying $767 per enrollee for each person enrolled. The CMS
also found that nearly 80 percent of the navigators failed to reach
their enrollment goals.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed to see my Republican
colleague again object to the legislation that will help more Americans
access quality, private health insurance, Medicaid, or the Children's
Health Insurance Program. This is especially harmful to families in
rural communities who already lack access to in-person assistance for
shopping and enrolling in quality, affordable health insurance
coverage.
So let me lay plain for everyone what we are seeing here from the
Republicans and this administration.
Today, the Republicans objected to passing my ENROLL Act, which would
provide funding for healthcare enrollment assistance to help people
find high-quality, affordable plans that would actually meet their
healthcare needs.
Today, the Republicans objected to passing my legislation to stop the
expansion of junk insurance plans that don't even have to cover people
with preexisting health conditions.
The Republicans are working to make it harder for one to sign up for
high-quality, affordable healthcare.
This administration is encouraging Americans to buy junk insurance
plans that don't provide the health coverage
[[Page S6268]]
that they need and that can deny coverage to people who have
preexisting health conditions.
Finally, the Republicans and the Trump administration are supporting
a lawsuit that would overturn the entire Affordable Care Act and take
healthcare away from literally millions of American families.
The choice for the American people could not be clearer. I am working
with my Democratic colleagues to help make things better for the
American people. Sadly, the Senate Republicans are helping the Trump
administration make things worse. I will not give up this fight.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
S.J. Res. 52
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, we are going to vote on a CRA later this
afternoon, and this has been the issue dominating D.C. and did in my
campaign: the cost of healthcare.
I am going to vote against the CRA, and I am not going to go into the
particularities of it. I just want to tell you how it works on Main
Street USA and kind of my perspective of how we really solve healthcare
in a way that is going to be affordable and last for a long time.
I just finished visiting all 92 counties in Indiana talking to
Hoosiers, young and old, small businesses to farms. Everyone is
concerned about where is healthcare cost going in the future.
We don't seem to, here, have a real good plan for it. As a Main
Street entrepreneur that took it on myself a few years ago to create a
sustainable, affordable plan, most people think it absolutely can't
happen using free market principles. I will go into a few details of
how that works in my own business.
ObamaCare was addressing an issue that has been boiling up for a long
time. I took on the insurance companies to fix it in my own company
back in 2008--covered preexisting conditions, no caps on coverage.
But ObamaCare was a solution that was never going to work. It was Big
Healthcare in cahoots with Big Government. Never have I seen that
result in something less expensive and more effective.
I believe in free markets driving the solutions, and the healthcare
industry is who I blame for being in this pickle. That sounds unusual
coming from a free market guy that doesn't believe in government.
But not all markets are free. One of the most disappointing things is
when my own Republican colleagues mistake the healthcare industry for
being one that is free and transparent. It has evolved over the years
to where it has become as bloated and dysfunctional as the Federal
Government that runs trillion-dollar deficits.
ObamaCare decisions are made by healthcare industry executives and
Federal Government bureaucrats, instead of by patients, employees, and
mostly employers who are the only ones that really have skin in the
game when it comes to our healthcare system.
I believe the underlying principles of ObamaCare were right on. No
one should go broke because they get sick or have a bad accident.
I believe that you cover preexisting conditions with no caps on
coverage. Kids staying on the plan until they are 26? Fine. But it
didn't work from the beginning, and it won't be an affordable--it was
the Affordable Care Act. It turned into the un-Affordable Care Act, and
it is not a solution in the long run.
The solution will be to get the industry out of the doldrums and to
realize that when 80 Senators weigh in with an idea of how to fix your
business, the cat is out of the bag. You have a problem. Sadly, in a
place like this, which you can see can get sidetracked in so many
different ways and then never really craft solutions that last in the
long run, that is kind of what we are up against now.
The bills that have come through from three different committees--
primarily Finance and the one I am on, Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions--do some good things. Senator Grassley and I did an op-ed this
week about negotiating drug prices in a way that is going to bring them
down. These bills have real things that will work. I am disappointed
that they are not aggressive enough, but we need to start somewhere.
The drug companies have been notoriously involved in--after they do
such a good job coming up with a solution, a remedy, then hand it over
to a broken distribution system that ends up--and I will tell a little
story.
When I was uninsured, after I had to get off my great company's
insurance that was based upon wellness, not remediation, and my
employees and patients were encouraged on dollar one to shop around and
find solutions--that worked. Here, the industry does everything it can
to not make it work. This should have been a simple thing to do.
Luckily, I don't have many prescriptions. I knew it was a generic
that should cost 15 to 20 bucks. I had six or seven places to choose
from in my hometown. I went to the first one that would have been the
most convenient and fumbled around for 2, 3, 4 minutes. They kept
asking me what my insurance plan number was. I said: I have none. I am
uninsured. I want your best deal.
It came back $34.50.
I made another call to a place that I know has been on the leading
edge. It took them 10 seconds, $10, and they said: By the way, we can
have it ready in 10 minutes.
That is the way things worked in the real world.
Any of us that run businesses where you have transparency,
competition--take LASIK surgery for instance. It is the only part of
healthcare that actually works. Do you know why? Insurance companies
aren't involved. Providers deal with patients, consumers. Ten, 12 years
ago, $2,000 to $2,500 an eye, done with a scalpel. Now the technology
is better, and you can get it done for $250 to $500 an eye. That is the
way things should work.
The solution is not more of what we tried that has failed. It
certainly isn't Medicaid for All. How can that work when, if you are
honest about how much it is going to cost, it would nearly double the
size of our Federal Government. Plus, why would you turn something like
that over when we can't even get it right in the Veterans'
Administration, where about 10 million patients are covered, not 330
million? That would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. It
would be a disaster. We can't afford it. Of course, no one around here
ever asks the question about how you pay for anything.
We are going to completely exhaust the Medicare trust fund in 6 to 7
years. Employers and employees have been paying into that since the
1960s. That will probably be the first reality check this place has--
maybe along with the fact that foreign countries and everyone else are
not going to keep lending us money to finance trillion-dollar
deficits--which, by the way, will hit $1.5 trillion in 6 to 7 years,
when the interest on the debt is going to be more than we are paying
for defense.
In conclusion, our healthcare system needs radical change, but it
needs to be changed in a way that takes the power from the industry and
government and gives it back to the patient/consumer, like it works in
the real world.
I will use this example: I know that in my hometown, if you are
buying a big-screen TV--which, by the way, costs about one-fourth to
one-third of what it did 10 years ago, kind of like LASIK surgery--I
know people in my hometown would probably drive 50, 60 miles to save 50
bucks on a thousand-dollar purchase. We don't do that. The healthcare
consumer has atrophied. They talk about they love employer-provided
insurance. Well, that is because the consumer pays for very little of
it.
I will give a few details of what can happen when you are innovative,
when you incorporate the concepts of skin-in-the-game, doing more than
asking others to pay for it. In our own plan, people enter their
deductible less than they did 11 years ago because the incentives were
put in place. But I found a way to do it uniquely, where most CEOs
didn't want to take the risk.
I believe in insurance for everyone. I believe in access. You heard
me earlier. In this day and age, preexisting conditions--that ship has
sailed. I backed
[[Page S6269]]
that up with actions in my own business. But I don't believe that you
can take more of what is proven never to work and try to get it to be
where it is twice the size of our current government.
Republicans can lead on healthcare but only if we stop acting as
apologists for a healthcare industry that is dysfunctional and broken
to the core, and then you set yourself up, for politicians here--and a
public that generally falls for it--that that is going to be the
solution.
On our first foray into surrendering that right to the government
through ObamaCare, it yielded what it was predicted to--higher costs
and fewer options.
The only prescription for our ailing healthcare system is consumer-
driven, transparent competition. I look forward to unveiling more of
those ideas, and that is why I will vote against the CRA this
afternoon.
I put the challenge and the onus on the back of the healthcare
industry to get with it before you have a business partner that you are
not going to like--the Federal Government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Kay Hagan
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, while I am so sad to be here, I am always
glad to have the opportunity to recognize Senator Kay Hagan.
There are certain people who carry with them a warmth and kindness
that lift up others, even in places that are not always warm or kind
and even when the going gets tough. Kay was exactly that kind of person
and one of the best examples I can think of. She wasn't only that--not
at all. As another mom in the Senate, I saw how deeply she was
dedicated to her family--her husband, Chip, and her children,
Jeannette, Tilden, and Carrie. Kay was smart, witty, and fierce, and
she was an unwavering champion for North Carolina families and
communities.
Nine years ago almost to this week, Kay came to the floor to advocate
for health reform, and she did it as she always did--by putting North
Carolinians first.
Kay came here and she shared the story of Tim and Marilyn, a family
from Mooresville, NC. They had racked up tens of thousands of dollars
in debt because Marilyn's preexisting condition meant her only option
was a high-cost, high-deductible plan. Kay called powerfully for
protections for preexisting conditions.
Nearly a decade has now passed since the Affordable Care Act became
law, so not everyone remembers how, in that fight, every single Senate
vote mattered, and there were certainly some Senators who listened to
the pundits and the naysayers at the time who wanted the bill to fail.
Kay tuned out all of that and listened to people from her home State,
like Tim and Marilyn, instead, and because she did, more than 4 million
North Carolinians with preexisting conditions have protections in law
today. They have the peace of mind Kay wanted so badly for Tim and
Marilyn and every one of her constituents.
Democrats are going to be talking a lot about healthcare this week,
and in particular, we are taking a very important vote on upholding
those protections that Kay fought so hard for. So especially throughout
this week, I will be thinking about Kay. I will be thinking about the
difference her love for her State has made in the lives of people
across North Carolina and our country. I will be grateful, as so many
others are, for her amazing friendship, her wisdom, and her willingness
to stand up for what is right.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
S.J. Res. 52
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been just over 2 years since the
Senate voted down legislation that would have repealed the Affordable
Care Act. If we had voted down the Affordable Care Act, that would have
also erased the protections for Americans with preexisting medical
conditions.
In the time since then, two things have happened. One, my colleagues
from across the aisle have read the writing on the wall. They
recognized that the American people support the protections for
preexisting conditions on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis; and, two,
the Trump administration released the rule that we are discussing
today--a rule that would allow taxpayer dollars to subsidize these
short-term junk plans that actively undermine the insurance market and
jeopardize the one very popular part of the ACA, protecting folks with
preexisting conditions.
I know that my colleague, Senator Baldwin, was here earlier, and
Senator Brown, Senator Wyden, and Senator Murray. They have outlined in
some detail the challenges around these junk plans, or some refer to
them as short-term plans. The truth is, these plans don't have to cover
things such as emergency room visits, maternity care, or other
essential benefits, and they once again allow insurance companies to
discriminate against Americans based on their medical history.
With all due respect to my Republican colleagues, you can't have it
both ways. If you support protections for preexisting conditions, you
can't sit by and let this administration dismantle them. You have to
stand up and defend these protections because, as you know, folks in
Virginia are depending on them and constituents in your States are as
well.
Very shortly, each Member of this body will have a chance to go on
the record with this resolution of disapproval.
I fear some Members of this body have forgotten what it was like
before the ACA, when an unexpected surgery or a diagnosis of a chronic
illness could mean a one-way ticket out of the middle class.
Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical. Earlier today, a group of
us had a press conference where a young woman from my State came
forward, and not only did her child have an enormous medical condition,
but her husband was then diagnosed with lymphoma, and she was diagnosed
with brain cancer.
Without the protections of the ACA, she testified she would not be
able to afford healthcare coverage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I will speed this up.
Let me also point out that, recently, one of my constituents, a man
named Jesse, received a $230,000 medical bill for his back surgery.
Unbeknownst to him, he purchased one of these so-called short-term junk
plans only to discover that he now fell into the category of having a
preexisting condition, and this plan didn't cover his challenge.
Jesse is 1 of the more than 3 million Virginians with a preexisting
medical condition. Nationwide, more than 130 million Americans have
preexisting medical conditions like diabetes, asthma, or cancer.
Before the Affordable Care Act, an insurance company had every right
to deny these individuals coverage, charge them unaffordable premiums,
or terminate their plans. We cannot go back to those days.
Unfortunately, this administration has used every tool at its
disposal to destabilize the market in the hopes that it will come
crashing down so they can finally repeal the ACA.
The rule we are talking about here today is a perfect example, among
many others, of what this administration has done. They have defunded
cost-sharing payments that reduce premiums in the marketplace. They
have shortened the enrollment period and cut the budget for outreach
navigators--all folks who have helped Americans find a plan that works
best for them.
Look at the recent case. The Texas v. United States lawsuit that
could be decided this very week would, overall,
[[Page S6270]]
strike down the health insurance system as we know it, with no
replacement plan in place.
The truth is, if these protections for people with preexisting
conditions are going to survive, we have to have a stable insurance
market.
We can and should have legitimate debates about 1332 waivers. Certain
States have used those in a very productive way, but that is not what
we are talking about today.
The Trump administration's rule is not a good-faith effort to bring
down costs or drive innovation. It is a direct effort to undermine the
stability of the insurance market and is an attack on the viability of
protections for Americans with preexisting conditions.
Again, I know we are going to vote on this CRA action very shortly. I
urge my Republican colleagues to support it so folks with preexisting
conditions can go about their daily lives knowing they will be
protected.
Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues giving me those
extra couple of minutes.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I know it is Halloween, and it is time
for trick or treat, but I urge my colleagues not to be tricked by this
scary fairytale dreamed up by the Democrats that would suggest that the
section 1332 waiver that give States more flexibility, which they
wrote, somehow jeopardizes protections for people with preexisting
health conditions, which they also wrote. Both are in the 2010
ObamaCare law.
Preexisting health conditions are protected. The law says so. The law
does not allow any 1332 waiver, which is the subject of what we are
voting on in a few minutes, to change that.
Twelve States have had their 1332 waivers approved by the Trump
administration, and in no case did it affect preexisting conditions.
Seema Verma, who has to approve all of these waiver applications from
the Department of Health and Human Services, says the law doesn't
permit any change in preexisting condition protections, and if somehow
a waiver asked for it, she would not approve it.
What my Democratic friends are voting for today is to take away a
tool from States that has been used to reduce rates by 43 percent in
Maryland, 20 percent in Minnesota, and 15 percent in New Jersey. It has
been used in Hawaii, Wisconsin, Colorado, Minnesota, Delaware, Rhode
Island, Alaska, and North Dakota.
Why would you take away a flexibility option that you wrote to give
your own voters lower health insurance rates?
I know it is Halloween, but don't be tricked. Don't believe this
scary fairytale. Protection for preexisting conditions when you buy
health insurance is the law. Nothing in the 1332 waiver guidance
changes that.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will vote to reject yet another
attempt by the Trump administration to sabotage the Affordable Care
Act, ACA. The President has tried to do everything within his power to
dismantle the law. He has tried to repeal it through Congress twice and
failed both times. When that did not work, his administration joined
Republican State attorneys general in a lawsuit that would strike down
the ACA with no plan to replace it, one of the reasons Congress
rejected his initial repeal efforts. Now, this President has decided to
unravel the ACA through other means.
We have seen efforts to destabilize the health insurance market by
not making cost-sharing payments, reducing funding to help enroll
individuals in plans, or by allowing insurers to sell less
comprehensive plans through short-term coverage or association health
plans. This administration has also welcomed waivers from States that
want to restrict Medicaid coverage by conditioning benefits on whether
or not someone has a job.
Throughout its ongoing efforts to sabotage the ACA, the Trump
administration issued its rule to allow States to discriminate against
Americans with preexisting conditions. This rule gives States new
options for pursuing a section 1332 ``state innovation waiver'' under
the ACA. Section 1332 of the law gives states additional flexibility to
implement State-specific improvements that expand coverage, reduce
costs, and provide more comprehensive benefits. I am proud that Vermont
was the first State to apply for a waiver when the application process
first started in 2016.
Now this administration wants to significantly change the
enforcement of the four important guardrails enacted by Congress that
waiver proposals must meet in order to be approved. These guardrails
ensure that the waivers must offer comprehensive plans at an affordable
rate that protect patients with preexisting conditions and do not
increase the Federal deficit. Under this rule, States can increase
costs for vulnerable populations and reduce their quality of coverage.
That is unacceptable, especially for this President who promised on the
campaign trail that ``everybody is going to be taken care of.'' The
intent of the 1332 provision was to let States innovate, so long as
they continue to cover the same number of people and maintain the
consumer protections set forth in the law. Vermont's waiver is
consistent with the ACA and seeks to expand coverage to improve
healthcare outcomes for all Vermonters.
By allowing States to permit the sale of health insurance plans that
do not cover essential health benefits such as maternity care,
emergency room visits, or mental healthcare, those that need
comprehensive health insurance coverage will be forced into a high cost
plan, or stuck with an insurance plan that can deny benefits for
whatever reason. These consumer protections were at the heart of the
ACA and are why Vermont and a number of other States have enacted State
laws to maintain these critical protections for those with preexisting
conditions.
Throughout their numerous attempts to sabotage the ACA, this
administration has made dubious claims that they support protections
for Americans with preexisting conditions. Certainly, their well-
established record clearly and unequivocally refutes this claim. Today,
Senate Republicans can show the American people that they do genuinely
want to protect Americans with cancer, diabetes, arthritis, substance
use disorders, behavioral health disorders, or any of the other
preexisting conditions that States would not have to cover under this
rule.
This vote is about the more than 130 million Americans with a
preexisting condition who need strong protections. It is about who we
are as a nation and how we care for our people. Congress must ensure
that all Americans have access to comprehensive, high-quality health
insurance plans that meet their needs at an affordable rate. The
passage of Senator Warner's the Protect Pre-Existing Conditions
Congressional Review Act resolution would be a step in the right
direction. We must not send our country back to the days when insurance
companies could discriminate against people with preexisting
conditions. We must not go backward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
The clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. ALEXANDER. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California
(Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator
from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:
[[Page S6271]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 337 Leg.]
YEAS--43
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--52
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--5
Bennet
Booker
Harris
Sanders
Warren
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 52) was rejected.
____________________