[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6522-S6524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am so glad to be out here today to deal 
with the issue of reducing prices on drugs for seniors and others. 
There are so many things we must do. Some are small. Some are large. We 
want to do all of them.
  We Democrats know how bad drug prices are for seniors. We know how 
bad the sabotage of our healthcare system is for seniors. If you don't 
have insurance, you probably can't pay for the drugs no matter what 
happens.
  I would say to my good friend the Senator from Texas that we have a 
whole lot of legislative ideas, not just his. He demands his. It is 
good, but it is hardly large. There are millions and millions who need 
help who are not affected. The Senators from Illinois and Iowa have a 
bill to lower prescription drug costs. The HELP Committee has a bill 
that would help community health centers. The Senate Finance Committee 
has a good bipartisan bill to lower costs for seniors who are very

[[Page S6523]]

strong supporters of allowing Medicare to negotiate prices. That would 
do more than anything else.
  I ask my friend from Texas, Will he get his leader and himself to 
allow us to bring an amendment to a bill on the floor that protects 
seniors who have preexisting conditions from their insurance companies 
withdrawing from them? Will he let us do that? That is far more 
consequential than his well-intended good but not largely effective 
bill. The No. 1 thing--ask AARP--the No. 1 thing that will protect 
senior citizens and others from high drug prices is to allow Medicare 
to negotiate with them, something the Senator has blocked repeatedly. 
Will he change his position?
  Let's not have this charade, this manipulative charade, where my dear 
friend from Texas comes to the floor with a bill he proposes but blocks 
everything and his party blocks everything that would have a far larger 
consequence.
  No. 1, allow Medicare to negotiate. Every Member of our caucus is for 
that. It will lower drug prices dramatically. No. 2, stop the 
administration--the administration the Senator from Texas supports 95 
percent of the time--even my microphone is excited about these remarks. 
I, once again, thank our capable staff who always come to the rescue.
  We need Senator Cornyn to come to the rescue of senior citizens and 
not play a little game like this. Again, preexisting conditions are 
probably the No. 1 bane of people. We want to bring an amendment to the 
floor to protect those people--a mom whose daughter has cancer, and the 
drug company says, ``You're off,'' and the insurance company says, 
``You're gone.'' Isn't that important? Let's not make a comparison, but 
wouldn't it do far more for the health of the American middle class and 
working people than this bill? Let's do them both, but we are not going 
to cherry-pick one unless the Senator from Texas walks across the aisle 
and joins us in saying: I want to help you get a vote on eliminating 
preexisting condition prohibitions. I want to join you in seeing that 
Medicare can negotiate with the drug companies and greatly lower 
prices.
  So, of course, I object. We Democrats believe we should bring a bill 
to the floor that has a debate and allows amendments because there is 
so much to be done here--not one small, decently put together and 
decently intended proposal but many more. We know, if we allow our 
Republican friends to just pass their little bills, we will never get 
the big picture done. That is how this place works. So let's come 
together and do it all.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, like the minority leader, I hope we are 
able to pass a larger bipartisan package this year. I serve on the 
Finance Committee--
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. After I am through.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
  Mr. CORNYN. I serve on the Finance Committee and on the Judiciary 
Committee, where this bill came from, and I know Senator Murray and 
Senator Alexander have a package out of the Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions Committee. I welcome the opportunity to have those bills 
come to the floor and to offer amendments and debate them and pass them 
because I agree that the country would benefit by bringing down 
healthcare costs, by bringing down prescription drug costs, and I 
believe that work is long overdue, but my bill is not going to sink the 
prospects of that larger package of legislation.
  What we have in front of us is an uncontested, bipartisan bill that 
we can pass today. Let's pass it. Let's not let the perfect be the 
enemy of the good. What I hear the minority leader saying is that it is 
either everything or nothing.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a correction?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will yield for a question after I am 
through talking.
  When there is a statement, in effect, of ``I want everything to be 
done now or there will be nothing done at all,'' do you know what 
happens? Every single time that argument is made and that position is 
taken, nothing happens. Nothing happens. That is what people hate about 
Washington, DC, and when they look at C-SPAN, if they do look at C-
SPAN, and see these debates. It is everything or nothing.
  The Democratic leader, who has now objected to the unanimous consent 
request to take up and pass a bill that he has called good and well-
intentioned and has said is not large, has objected to it. I think the 
only people who would be rejoicing at this very moment would be the 
very same people who are gaming the patent system and who are keeping 
the out-of-pocket prices of prescription drugs high for seniors. Those 
are the people who are popping champagne corks right now because this 
is nothing more than a big, wet kiss for the people who are gaming the 
patent system right now to the detriment of the American people.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I yield to the Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would the Senator support a unanimous consent request so 
that we could protect people with preexisting conditions, and would he 
support bringing that to the floor in the same way?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend the Democratic 
leader that I support coverage for preexisting conditions, and I am not 
aware of anyone in the Senate who opposes it. If such a bill is 
scheduled for a vote on the floor, I will be more than happy to 
participate in that process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator support a proposal that is coming out 
of the House to allow Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies to 
greatly lower prices?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in speaking through the Presiding Officer, 
I say to my friend that nothing gets done around here unless it is 
bipartisan. Right now, the bill that the House has sent us is one that 
divides people along party lines, which means it is unlikely we would 
build the bipartisan consensus we would need to get it done in the 
Senate. I am more than happy to engage in that debate and to vote on 
amendments on such a bill, but I am not going to agree to price-fixing 
by the U.S. Government, which will make more scarce and less available 
the lifesaving prescription drugs that many people need. Yet I am happy 
to engage in that debate, to vote, and to let the Senate and Congress 
work their will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his answers.
  I would say this: Let him use his power and position as leader to go 
to the majority leader, who has prevented any debate on anything on 
drugs to come to the floor, including these two most significant issues 
that I have talked about. Let us put a package together of all three 
and have a debate on each, a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on each, and really 
make progress for those who are paying too much in drug prices. I await 
his working with me on that. Then we could bring all three bills to the 
floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as always, I am happy to work with the 
Senator from New York on things on which we find our interests aligned. 
Obviously, there are going to be things on which we disagree. 
Frequently, there are. Yet he and I have worked together on legislation 
on which we have been able to find enough common interest to be able to 
build a consensus and get things done. They call that ``legislating'' 
around here.
  There are other things that we should be doing here on a bipartisan 
basis. For example, taking up and passing the appropriations bills, 
including the Defense appropriations bill, so our U.S. military can 
remain the most powerful, the best equipped, the best trained, and the 
best led military in the world. That is of overwhelming importance. Yet 
our colleagues on the other side have objected to and have blocked, on 
at least two occasions, that

[[Page S6524]]

Defense appropriations bill. Now we have a short-term continuing 
resolution that expires this November 21. I am told or have read that 
there is likely to be a follow-on continuing resolution that takes us 
up to December 20, but that is important work, too, because none of us 
wants to see another government shutdown. No one wins with government 
shutdowns.
  This sort of gamesmanship that occurs by blocking bills that should 
have support by overwhelming bipartisan numbers in the Senate is 
important, too--things like paying the military, making sure that it 
maintains its readiness to fight and win the Nation's wars, and even 
more importantly, making sure it keeps the peace.
  I know the majority leader has a challenge in trying to figure out 
how to schedule legislation on the Senate floor, but it certainly 
doesn't help when our Democratic colleagues repeatedly object to things 
like appropriations bills and put us into this dysfunction when it 
comes to paying the Federal Government's bills.
  I would say to my friend from New York that I am always happy to work 
with him and with any other Member in the Senate, no matter what one's 
political party is and no matter what one's ideological persuasion is, 
because I actually believe we were sent here to solve problems and to 
get things done.
  What I dislike and what I am disappointed about is the dysfunction 
that we see in the U.S. Senate, whereby, even though it is less than a 
year before the election, politics have overwhelmed our ability to get 
things done. I came to the floor to say that maybe we can't do all of 
this right now, today, but we can do this, and let's build on it once 
we have gotten the bill passed.
  I am disappointed that the Democratic leader has seen fit to object 
to passing this bill that he himself called good and well-intended and 
that is supported by organizations like the American Association of 
Retired Persons. I do not understand it, but maybe somebody else does. 
Their saying that we can't do something because it doesn't include 
everything we want to do here, right now, is disappointing to me, and I 
don't think it is what the American people sent us here to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the interchange, 
and it will continue. We Democrats will not rest until we get votes, 
simple votes--not bring the house down--on issues of great consequence 
with regard to drug prices and the American people while the other side 
blocks them.