[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18943-18944]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with so many issues to wrap up before the 
end of this year and so many enormous challenges facing our country, my 
view is the Senate ought to be embracing bipartisanship at every turn. 
In fact, earlier today the senior Senator from Iowa and I released an 
18-month bipartisan inquiry into Solvaldi, which is the blockbuster 
drug to deal with hepatitis C, and the reason we did is because these 
specialty drugs are the drugs of the future for cancer, Alzheimer's, 
diabetes, and defeating hepatitis C if people can afford them. Using 
the company's own documents, there were real questions about whether 
access and affordability were just kind of an oversight because all 
they truly cared about was maximizing revenue. A Republican, a senior 
Member of this body, a good friend of mine, and I as a Democrat came 
together because we thought this question of making sure the public can 
get access to breakthrough cures and that they be affordable was 
something that would require bipartisan effort. I am very proud that 
the senior Senator from Iowa and I joined in that effort earlier today.
  We ought to be embracing bipartisanship. I come tonight to 
unfortunately talk about this reconciliation legislation because I 
think it is the antithesis of what Chairman Grassley and I sought to do 
earlier today, which was to take a bipartisan approach. The 
reconciliation legislation in my view is a rejection of bipartisanship. 
It is a rejection of bipartisanship because it would, for example, 
undermine women's health, it would mean millions more Americans go 
without insurance, and it puts at risk our ability to have affordable 
health insurance premiums. I think it is going to drive up these health 
insurance premiums.
  So I am going to just spend a few minutes tonight talking about why I 
object to this legislation and again why it really is the antithesis of 
the kind of bipartisanship that we need.
  My first concern is that the Senate is looking once again at a plan 
that would wreak havoc on women's health in our country by denying the 
funding for Planned Parenthood. It is important to recognize the 
horrific act of gun violence that happened at a Colorado Planned 
Parenthood clinic last week. It was another in a long stream of 
tragedies that have taken place across the Nation, including one in my 
home State in Roseburg, OR, in October. This time it marked an attack 
on the public and women's health.
  Millions of women have sought routine, medical care in Planned 
Parenthood clinics just like the one in Colorado. More than 70,000 
Oregonians are served by the 11 Planned Parenthood centers in my home 
State.
  The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is a bedrock institution 
for women's health care in America. In my view it is wrong to bring 
such a misguided, controversial proposal before this body in the wake 
of the horrible, tragic events in Colorado.
  These are the services Planned Parenthood offers that would be at 
risk of disappearing with this reconciliation proposal: pregnancy 
tests, birth control, prenatal services, HIV tests, cancer screenings, 
vaccinations, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted 
infections, basic physical examinations, treatment for chronic 
conditions, pediatric care, adoption referrals, nutrition programs, and 
more.
  This seems to be the latest offering in what amounts to an ongoing, 
coordinated campaign to regrettably undermine the fundamental rights of 
all women in our country to make their own reproductive choices and 
attain affordable, high-quality health care. When you wipe out Planned 
Parenthood's funding, you dramatically and painfully reduce women's 
access to services that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. 
And I want to repeat that; I have done that on this floor before. What 
I have talked about are all those important services: cancer 
screenings, gone; vaccinations, gone; basic physical exams, gone; 
treatment for chronic conditions, gone; pediatric care, gone. The list 
goes on and on and has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. So I 
hope that this campaign against women's health will come to an end.
  The second objection I want to touch on tonight is the harm the bill 
threatens to do to millions of vulnerable Americans by repealing as 
much of the Affordable Care Act, frankly, as Senate procedure would 
allow. Based on the reports of the bill's contents, this is what is at 
stake. According to the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget 
Office, this proposal would mean 14 million more Americans would go 
without health insurance. For people who shop for their own private 
insurance coverage, premiums would increase by 20 percent. That is 
potentially hundreds or thousands of dollars taken out of families' 
pockets. Emergency rooms would once again be the fallback for people 
without a doctor. Typical Americans with insurance would once again 
have to pay the hidden tax of higher premiums to cover the costs of 
those without coverage.
  There have been more than 50 votes to repeal or undermine the 
Affordable Care Act, and there is still no viable plan to replace it. 
As a Member of Congress, you can object to a law and want to make 
changes, but America cannot and will not go back to the days when 
health care was reserved for the healthy and the wealthy. That is what 
this plan does.
  Before I came to Congress, I was codirector of the senior citizens 
group, the Gray Panthers, and I remember what health care was like in 
those days. In effect, the system truly did work for people who were 
healthy and wealthy. If you were healthy, you didn't have any 
preconditions. You didn't have any of these pre-existing conditions. If 
you were wealthy, you could just pay the bill, but it was care that 
worked for the healthy and the wealthy.
  Yet with the Affordable Care Act, that changed. Unfortunately, what 
this destructive reconciliation bill would do would be to take us back 
to those days when health care was reserved for the healthy and the 
wealthy.
  The fact is, despite raising costs for families, causing turmoil in 
insurance markets, and raising the number of uninsured Americans by 14 
million, this bill doesn't even manage to repeal the Affordable Care 
Act fully. That is because of the reconciliation process, because of 
the way it works, which brings me to the final issue I wish to raise 
today.
  Reconciliation is a sharp departure from the usual procedure for 
Senate debate. Usually bills being considered on

[[Page 18944]]

the Senate floor are subject to an unlimited debate and unlimited 
amendment. Further, it typically takes 60 votes to pass a bill, 
assuring that there is at least some measure of bipartisan support. 
These regular-order procedures give the Senate its unique character. 
The reconciliation procedure is an exception to this usual approach. 
Reconciliation imposes tight limits on debate and on amendments, and it 
allows a vote of a bare majority of Senators--51--to pass a bill. The 
reconciliation procedure originally was created to facilitate the 
passage of budget-related bills which can be particularly important and 
particularly hard to pass. But reconciliation shouldn't be a free pass 
that allows the majority to pass anything it wants on a fast track. 
That would undermine the fundamental character of the Senate.
  I am concerned that the reconciliation process is being misused here. 
Everybody in the Chamber knows what is happening. This bill is not 
designed to address budget-related issues; it is all about repealing 
the Affordable Care Act to the maximum extent possible. Repeatedly, the 
bill's advocates have proposed to repeal ObamaCare--to dismantle 
ObamaCare.
  A few weeks ago, the Parliamentarian advised that the reconciliation 
process could not be used to repeal the individual and employer 
mandates. The Parliamentarian said that would violate what is known as 
the Byrd rule against extraneous amendments because the budgetary 
effects of the provision would be dwarfed by the health policy effects.
  In response, the majority has proposed to formally retain the 
mandates but to completely repeal the penalties enforcing them. That is 
not a straightforward way to legislate. It is a very cynical approach, 
and that is not this Senate at its best.
  The complete elimination of all penalties is tantamount to repeal of 
the mandates. A mandate without an enforcement system is not a legal 
requirement; it is a mere recommendation. It is like having speed 
limits but not fines for violating. By deleting the penalties, the 
proposal fundamentally alters the character and operation of the law.
  Finally, I think this would set a very dangerous precedent for this 
body. These penalties can be eliminated in a reconciliation bill. The 
door is going to be open to all kinds of proposals to strip away 
penalties in a future reconciliation bill. For example, you could keep 
an environmental law on the books, but you could just say: Let's strip 
away the penalties for violating. That would allow a majority to 
fundamentally undermine a nonbudgetary law in a reconciliation bill.
  I have enormous respect for the Parliamentarian and her staff. They 
work diligently to serve the Senate, and they have to make some tough 
calls. I will say that this one leaves me disappointed and perplexed.
  With so many issues--as I touched on earlier--I would hope that the 
Senate would spend more time doing what Chairman Grassley and I did 
somewhere in the vicinity of 9 hours or 10 hours ago. We said there was 
an important issue. It happened to be a health care issue as well--
prescription drugs. We spent 18 months with our very dedicated staffs, 
Democrats and Republicans working together, to try to find some common 
ground. It is a hugely important issue, important to the people of 
Colorado, Oregon, and everywhere else. In effect, we said it was 
important because it was about the future. The drugs of the future are 
going to be specialty drugs, exciting drugs with the opportunity for 
real cures. People are going to have to be able to afford them, and 
using the companies' own documents, this morning Chairman Grassley and 
I pointed out how affordability and accessibility weren't actually the 
issue; the issue was maximizing revenue.
  But most important--whether you agree with the two of us or not--it 
was bipartisan. It was Democrats and Republicans coming together on a 
hugely important issue.
  This reconciliation proposal we will deal with on the floor of this 
Senate is a rejection of the kind of bipartisanship that I was part of 
something like 8 hours or 10 hours ago. It is part of what I believe 
the Senate is all about--what the Senate is at its best--as an 
institution that functions in a bipartisan way. That is why I felt 
compelled to come to the floor tonight and lay out my concerns about a 
very troubling precedent, and that is the one that is being set with 
the reconciliation bill.
  With that, 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. McCONNELL. 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 299, 
H.R. 3762.

                          ____________________