[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10105-10109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued


             Requests for Authority for Committees to Meet

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I have six requests for committees to meet 
during today's session of the Senate. They do not have the approval of 
the Democratic leader for the eighth consecutive legislative day; 
therefore, they will not be permitted to meet after 1 p.m. I ask 
unanimous consent that the list of committees requesting authority to 
meet be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works; Committee on the Judiciary; 
     Committee on Intelligence.

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, Congress and our country desperately 
need to have an honest, meaningful, transparent, and bipartisan 
conversation about improving our healthcare system. It shouldn't be a 
tall order, but around here things that seem common sense to the rest 
of the country are never simple. Instead, partisanship too often wins. 
We have seen that with the Senate Republican healthcare bill, as it was 
crafted behind closed doors without allowing any Democrats or the 
public to see it until it was a proposal.
  It is good news that a vote on the bill was delayed, but we must 
continue to have this conversation as the debate continues. That bill 
was bad for North Dakota. Only when we seek real bipartisan solutions 
do I believe we will be successful in improving our healthcare system.
  We need to reform our healthcare system. I have been saying it for 
years. In fact, I have proposed a number of fixes over the past 3\1/2\ 
years, but none of those fixes are embodied in the Republican 
healthcare bill. It is just not the right direction.
  Just yesterday, I joined many of my colleagues to bring up some 
commonsense bills we can and should take up right now to make sure 
American families aren't hurt in the near term. We called on 
Republicans to work with us, but, unfortunately, they objected. I want 
to work in a bipartisan way. I want real healthcare reform. But, 
unfortunately, I do not believe everyone in Congress feels that way.
  First, we need to talk about the facts of the Senate Republican 
bill--facts that are from very reputable nonpartisan sources.
  Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report 
reinforcing that the Senate Republican bill is just as terrible as the 
bill that came out of the House of Representatives a few months ago. 
The Senate bill would rip away health insurance from 22 million 
Americans by 2026, including 31,000 North Dakotans who would lose 
private health coverage. You can't put a few bandaids on a bad bill and 
expect that North Dakota would not feel that pain.
  Just as in the House bill, the biggest savings would come from severe 
cuts to Medicaid--a program that would see a 26-percent cut in 2026. 
The bill would slash a lifesaving program that 90,000 North Dakota 
children, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and low-income 
families rely on for affordable,

[[Page 10106]]

quality care. That includes 36,000 children in my State.
  The Senate Republican healthcare bill would get rid of the Medicaid 
expansion and cap the amount of Federal funding States can get to cover 
those traditional Medicaid patients. That would drastically reduce the 
amount of Medicaid funds going to the States. This would push those 
remaining costs onto States and counties that can't afford it. 
Importantly, it also would push the cost onto other patients. The 
American Hospital Association estimates that North Dakota Medicaid 
would lose $1.2 billion through 2026. At the same time, North Dakota 
forecasts a $46 million shortfall for 2015 through 2017--that is our 
biennial period--and another $103 million shortfall for 2017 through 
2018. You tell me how our State would pick up these extra costs for our 
families and our children. Unfortunately, we just will not be able to 
do it. We would be forced to discontinue care. That is just wrong.
  Those Medicaid cuts would also imperil rural hospitals, which have 
seen their amount of bad debt fall by 45 percent because of Medicaid 
expansion. Helping those rural hospitals keep their doors open and 
deliver care close to home for farmers, ranchers, and communities is 
absolutely vital to rural development and vital to those people who are 
still working in rural America to put food on our table.
  Additionally, the North Dakota Hospital Association released a study 
showing that healthcare and social assistance accounts for one of every 
seven workers in this State. I am going to repeat that: Healthcare and 
social assistance accounts for one of every seven workers in our State. 
Spending reductions under this Senate bill would curtail those jobs, 
hurt economic development--especially in rural communities--and make 
delivery of healthcare even more expensive for our rural families.
  The cuts to Medicaid would take away coverage from many North 
Dakotans who are also seeking treatment for opioid abuse and addiction, 
which has reached an epidemic level in our State, as well as across the 
Nation. In fact, I had one North Dakota healthcare provider who was 
looking at providing additional behavior and mental health services. In 
the traditional hospital setting, about 14 to 15 percent of the 
patients are on Medicaid. He believes that once this hospital opens, 
anywhere from 60 to 70 percent of the patients will be dependent on 
Medicaid funding for their healthcare. If that money is not there, if 
there is no reliability about that money, how do we build the treatment 
services we need to attack this epidemic?
  I want to dispel a myth about Medicaid, and that is that these are 
just people who can go to work every day, that they are not even 
working, that they are just on the public dole, and that they are just 
getting this money. The truth is that in North Dakota 83 percent of 
adult Medicaid enrollees are in families with a worker. That is a 
statistic according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
  For North Dakotans who get coverage on the individual marketplace, 
this bill would raise premiums 76 percent higher than what would be 
required to be paid under the current law. That statistic, again, is 
according to Kaiser Family Foundation. Seniors would be especially hard 
hit, with premiums more than doubling for those older than 55. The bill 
would disproportionately push the costs on to older Americans, who tend 
to live in rural communities, like all of those across North Dakota.
  Under the Senate bill, in 2026 a 64-year-old with an income of 
$56,800 would pay annually $20,500 for a silver-level healthcare 
insurance plan. That is more than one-third of his or her entire 
income, and that is more than eight times what the same person would 
pay under the current law, which is $6,800.
  The bill would also enable insurance companies to impose lifetime 
maximums on coverage, once again, making it unaffordable for many 
people with life-threatening or long-term illnesses or disorders to get 
the treatment they need to live by.
  This bill is a not so thinly veiled attempt to provide tax cuts for 
the wealthiest individuals at the expense of rural communities, like 
those across our State. Nearly 45 percent of the tax cuts in the Senate 
bill would go to the top 1 percent of incomes, those people making over 
$875,000 a year. I will say that again. Nearly 45 percent of the tax 
cuts in the Senate bill would go to the top 1 percent of incomes, those 
making over $875,000 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center.
  But what is more telling about these striking statistics is the 
stories. I have heard from so many North Dakotans about how scared they 
are that this bill could pass and how it would hurt them if it ever 
happened. I have heard from North Dakotans with preexisting conditions, 
like cancer or asthma, parents of children with disabilities on 
Medicaid, adults with elderly patients in nursing homes, farmers and 
those in rural communities who rely on rural hospitals, and those 
receiving treatment for opioid abuse.
  The consequences of this bill for North Dakotans are real. I want to 
tell some of those very real stories across my State, because way too 
often we forget this is an issue that could not be more personal.
  I want to introduce you to Allison and Jennifer Restemayer. This is 
her wonderful family. This is Allison here. Allison, from West Fargo, 
was almost 2 years old when she was diagnosed with a rare genetic 
disease. Allison's parents were told she would become severely mentally 
delayed by age 3, and she would likely pass away by the time she was 10 
years old. I am so proud to tell you and so glad to tell you that this 
prediction did not come true.
  Over the past several years, Allison has been able to get new, very 
expensive therapy that helps slow the progression of her disorder. 
Because there are currently no lifetime limits on coverage, Allison's 
family has been able to afford this treatment. Today, Allison is 16 
years old. Allison needs physical therapy multiple times per week to 
truly make a difference in her life day to day and to help her live 
longer. Her private insurance covers just 12 physical therapy 
appointments per year. Allison is one of many children with 
disabilities or special needs on Medicaid, which covers the rest of her 
physical therapy.
  For her and her family--you can see them here--who are so proud of 
the courage of Allison, it has been a lifeline, and it has been a 
lifegiver. But the Republican bill would enable insurance companies to 
impose lifetime maximums on coverage, which many North Dakotans, like 
Allison, would reach in no time. It would slash Medicaid--both 
expansion and traditional Medicaid--making it harder for families like 
Allison's to afford coverage and critical treatment for their children 
with special needs. The Restemayers should never ever have to worry.
  I have spent a lot of time with Allison, and I think anyone who meets 
her knows that this world is a much better place with Allison healthy 
and alive. We are so proud to call her one of our friends. She has been 
an inspiration to me and my staff. She has participated in a lot of 
dialogues, and her advocacy has been absolutely instrumental in telling 
the story of families like hers in North Dakota.
  I want to talk about Emerie and Amy Thom. At just 2 months old, 
Emerie, from Bismarck, had her first set of seizures and was diagnosed 
with a rare neurological condition. Her parents, Amy and Johnny, have 
crisscrossed North Dakota and visited many hospitals out of State to 
get Emerie the care she needs and to control her life-threatening 
seizures.
  Emerie is now almost 4 years old and has spent a total of 8 weeks in 
the hospital since she was born. She receives therapy multiple times 
per week and needs various medical equipment. Just 1 month of therapy 
out-of-pocket would cost her family--good, hard-working people--$3,000. 
Emerie is on Medicaid, which has enabled her family to afford her 
hospital stays, her home healthcare, and her therapy. It has also 
enabled them to keep their daughter home with them in a loving family 
relationship, in a lovely family situation.

[[Page 10107]]

  It is because of the access to Medicaid that this family has been 
able to stay in their home and keep their jobs, but the Senate 
Republican healthcare bill would rip Medicaid away from families like 
Emerie's. This family does not deserve that, and neither does any 
family who is working hard to take care of their children. These are 
all of our children, the children we see today who suffer from 
disabilities, who live and inspire us with their disabilities and their 
hope. This small help these families ask for from the Medicaid system 
should not be threatened, and these families should not be calling 
congressional offices begging us to please, please do everything we 
can.
  Finally, I want to talk about Frances. Frances is one of the nicest 
people you are ever going to meet. For 25 years, she was a third grade 
teacher in Fessenden. When she was 21 years old, while she was 
teaching, she was diagnosed with a syndrome that affects the nerve 
endings in her body. She became paralyzed but taught herself to walk 
again. For the rest of her life, she will have to face the challenges 
that come with this disorder. Today, Fran can't walk anymore, and she 
has been in a wheelchair for the past 24 years.
  For most of her life, Fran lived independently with her husband, who 
passed away in 2000. In the past few years, she has reached a point 
where she needs full-time care. She is now 84 years old. She lives in a 
nursing home in Harvey, and she has been there for 4 years. Fran had 
been in and out of nursing homes a few times beforehand, all which 
required private pay. Because of the extreme costs, Fran doesn't have 
any money or savings left. She spent it all on her healthcare.
  Now she is one of many seniors on Medicaid, which enables her to 
afford the quality, long-term care she needs to live with dignity and 
support. At the nursing home, she gets extensive assistance with 
bathing, dressing, and doing any activities. Fran doesn't know what she 
would do without Medicaid. She doesn't have any children to help her. 
Her siblings are all older than she is, and they wouldn't be able to 
provide her with the level of care she needs. If it weren't for 
Medicaid, Fran would be out of options.
  The Senate Republican bill threatens the coverage that Fran has and 
that so many others rely on. You know what, we cannot let that happen.
  This issue has many faces. These are just three North Dakota faces I 
want to talk to you about. These families aren't interested in 
politics. They couldn't care less about politics. They want the ability 
to take care of themselves. There is no guilt to any of these 
conditions. There is no ``you did it to yourself'' to any of these 
conditions. This is the human condition.
  We have to decide as a country, are we together in taking care of 
each other, or are we all on our own? That is the issue. How do we take 
care of the sickest among us? Are we together, or are we on our own? I 
believe we are stronger when we stand together to provide care to each 
other and to those who are not as fortunate.
  I was talking to some of the families. It is hard when you are a mom, 
I think, to think about, well, what was your life with your child 
growing up? I had two children, born extraordinarily healthy. They 
barely missed a day of school, they were so healthy. They had an 
opportunity to engage in every level of activity, giving me and my 
husband the freedom to pursue other things in our lives. That is a 
gift. It is also a gift that we as a society can help those who don't 
have that level of good fortune but have children who need some special 
attention, children whose care you cannot afford on your own.
  From the discussions I have had with so many of the families, very 
few of us could ever afford the medications and the therapies that 
guarantee quality of life not only for the child but for the family in 
terms of respite care.
  Allison, Emerie, and Fran, we are going to keep talking about this, 
and we are going to keep evaluating all of the proposals that come our 
way. When they don't do right by you, Emerie, Allison, and Fran, when 
it is not the right solution for your family, it is not the right 
solution for North Dakota, and it is not the right solution for this 
country. We have work to do.
  I know the Presiding Officer has been one of the leaders in analyzing 
and reviewing these bills. We have had a chance to have some 
discussions. I hope we will have further discussions about how we can 
continue to care for these wonderful North Dakotans.
  The Presiding Officer knows story after story, having been a 
physician. Being a physician, my husband can tell you story after story 
about people who are challenged. In this system of healthcare, we all 
have to decide whether we stand alone or together. I believe America is 
stronger when we stand together and help each other.
  With that, 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Abolish Human Trafficking Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to come to the floor to talk about 
healthcare, a subject I know the Presiding Officer feels passionate 
about as a medical doctor. But before I delve into the healthcare 
debate, I want to discuss briefly two important bipartisan pieces of 
legislation that I have been working on with my colleagues across the 
aisle and that are moving forward today.
  I know the strange thing about this place--by ``this place'' I mean 
Washington, DC--is that the bipartisan work we are able to do rarely 
gets much attention. What gets attention in the news is when we fight 
over controversial topics, but bipartisan legislation that actually 
helps people and that gets done here is rarely heralded or even 
noticed. So I think it is worth highlighting a couple of examples 
today.
  Today, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we passed the Abolish Human 
Trafficking Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar. As the 
father of two daughters, I am always reminded of the profile of a 
victim of human trafficking in this country, a girl between the ages of 
12 and 14 years old, who perhaps has run away from home. Who knows what 
the circumstances are at home? But they are looking for a better life, 
only to find themselves in too many instances exploited and the victims 
of human trafficking.
  This bill reauthorizes several critical trafficking victims 
protection act programs that help fight the scourge of trafficking so 
that survivors can get the help they need and our law enforcement 
officers can go after the perpetrators of this terrible crime.
  A vital provision of this bill is an extension of the Domestic 
Trafficking Victims Fund, which provides critical resources that 
victims need to recover from this crime. Part of the fund is financed 
through fines collected on convicted traffickers, and last year it 
provided almost $5 million in services for victims. Let me dwell on 
that for just a minute.
  When I was privileged to be attorney general of the State of Texas, 
part of the job was to administer the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund. 
This was a fund into which fines and penalties of people convicted of 
criminal acts went into the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, so we 
could then use grants for the victims of crime to help them recover. 
That is exactly the kind of model we created with the Domestic 
Trafficking Victims Fund. My hope is that over time it will produce 
more money that will be available to help the victims of human 
trafficking to a greater extent. That is the idea, and these are not 
tax dollars, so that is an additional benefit. It is actually the fines 
and penalties of the perpetrators that go into this fund that then help 
the victims to heal.
  This bill also makes the Human Trafficking Advisory Council permanent 
so that the group of survivors who advise people like us on what 
additional tools are needed to combat trafficking can continue to do 
so.
  On the preventive end, this legislation lends a hand to our Nation's 
law

[[Page 10108]]

enforcement so they can track down perpetrators of the crime and bring 
them to justice. It implements screening protocols for the Department 
of Homeland Security so that law enforcement officials at every level 
know how to spot trafficking victims and how to respond. This is 
actually a really important element of fighting human trafficking.
  A few years ago, when we had the Super Bowl in Dallas, TX, I was 
shocked to learn that the Super Bowl is one of the largest human 
trafficking events during the year. That is pretty sobering and, 
frankly, disgusting. Training people, including law enforcement, to be 
able to identify victims of human trafficking, some of whom may not 
consider themselves a victim until it is too late, only to find 
themselves a victim of modern day human slavery--but being able to 
identify victims of trafficking so that we can get law enforcement 
involved and get them rescued is a big, important part of fighting this 
crime.
  In the long run, this legislation requires the Department of Justice 
to implement a national strategy to reduce the demand of human 
trafficking by essentially putting the johns--the people who buy sex 
from trafficking victims--out of service. This is a cause that clearly 
crosses partisan lines, and it is literally a nonpartisan issue.
  I am glad we are making progress on this. I am thankful for the 
bipartisan support of my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, 
as well as the Judiciary Committee members like the chairman, Senator 
Grassley, and the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, and many other 
Members on both sides who are cosponsors.


                        Jobs for Our Heroes Act

  Mr. President, the second piece of legislation I want to mention is 
the Jobs for Our Heroes Act of 2017. This, too, is a bipartisan bill 
that makes it easier for our veterans to get jobs in our Nation's 
trucking industry. The men and women in our military learn valuable 
skills that can easily be transferred to the private sector when they 
leave the military and become a veteran, and this bill is designed to 
help veterans transition from their military service to getting jobs in 
our Nation's trucking industry. This is an area that is constantly in 
need of trained people with commercial drivers' licenses who can work 
in this industry.
  As I suggested, many of our military servicemembers have experience 
driving similar vehicles while serving in the Armed Forces. Yet for 
them to get a job in trucking, they are required to go through a very 
expensive and time-consuming training program as if they have 
absolutely no knowledge or job experience whatsoever, largely 
duplicating what they already know just because of the regulations. 
That doesn't make any sense to me.
  The legislation that I have introduced with Senators Elizabeth 
Warren, Tammy Duckworth, and Thom Tillis takes into consideration the 
previous training and experience of veterans and allows them to apply 
for an exemption so they can quite literally get on the road and start 
working without delay.
  This bill is twofold. Not only does it encourage our transportation 
industry to hire veterans, it helps our veterans transition into 
civilian life, connecting them to a well-paying job and a meaningful 
career. I expect the Commerce Committee to consider and pass this bill, 
as well, today.
  These are two bipartisan examples that show we actually can work 
together in the U.S. Senate in ways that will help all of our States 
and the people we serve.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. President, there are subjects that are controversial. If there is 
one that sort of stands out above the rest, it is healthcare. 
Unfortunately, this has become all too much of a polarizing issue 
politically.
  I happened to be in the Senate Chamber on Christmas Eve in 2009, at 
7:30 in the morning, right before Christmas, of course, when our 
Democratic friends jammed through on a party-line vote the Affordable 
Care Act, now known as ObamaCare. I remember the promises the President 
made at the time. President Obama said: If you like your policy, you 
can keep your policy. That proved not to be true. He said: If you like 
your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Well, that wasn't true, either. 
Then he said: Well, you will be able to save $2,500 per family of four 
on your premiums. What experience has shown us is that instead of a 
$2,500 savings, a family of four has experienced a $3,000 increase in 
their premiums. That is 105 percent in the 39 States or so that have 
ObamaCare exchanges.
  ObamaCare has been a failure if you consider the promises that were 
made and the promises that were broken. In experience, what we have 
seen is insurance companies, because of flaws in the design, literally 
leaving the States, leaving insured people with no option when it comes 
to their insurance. Perhaps they do have an insurance policy available, 
but their premiums have gone through the roof, as I indicated earlier--
105 percent on balance since 2013. Their deductible is frequently so 
high that they are denied the benefit of what insurance they have 
because they are basically self-insured at $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, or 
more.
  Yesterday, we announced that our work on a market-driven, patient-
centered healthcare reform plan to replace ObamaCare would continue 
over the next few weeks. As I said yesterday, I expect that we will 
revisit the Better Care Act when we come back for the July work period, 
which is the week after the Fourth of July. As the Republican 
conference has continued our discussion on our plan to replace the 
failed Affordable Care Act, three things have become clear to me.
  Let me start with the first one. The first one is that our Democratic 
colleagues are not willing to lift a finger to help. Surely, they have 
constituents, as I do in Texas, who are contacting them, telling them 
about their horror stories with regard to no access to policies, 
premiums that are sky high, and deductibles that are unaffordable. 
Apparently, they are unmoved by those stories.
  As we continue to move toward a Republican healthcare solution, which 
is what we are left with when our Democratic colleagues refuse to 
participate, I want to remind my colleagues as to why we have this 
choice before us and why the hard work is worth it.
  All of us have our stories from our States about premium hikes and 
lost coverage and frustration at the hands of a convoluted law, but I 
want to talk about the story of a young lady from Fort Worth, TX.
  She is a nurse who graduated from Texas Christian University in 2010. 
By her own account, she is young, in good health, and has a fulfilling 
career in the healthcare industry. Her first job took her to the Rio 
Grande Valley in South Texas. While she had to pay out-of-pocket for 
care, she only had a monthly healthcare premium of $71, but after the 
ObamaCare bill passed in 2013, she said: ``My plan disappeared.'' In 
other words, she was one of those who suffered from the broken promise 
that if you liked your plan, you could keep it, because it disappeared.
  There was a new plan, but her deductible rose to $8,500. Now, I do 
not know many people who could pay out-of-pocket $8,500 for their 
healthcare before their health insurance kicked in. To add insult to 
injury, her monthly premium skyrocketed from $71 to $300. She is paying 
$300 a month for a policy with a deductible of $8,500. It is not worth 
very much. One year later, this plan under Blue Cross Blue Shield also 
disappeared, leaving her to consider the cheapest marketplace plan for 
$400 a month. She started at $71, went to $300, and then went to $400 a 
month for, what she called, a ``dismal'' policy.
  Ultimately, she did find a more affordable plan for $247 a month. 
Yet, every year, she has seen her premium grow. She started out at $71, 
finally to end with $247. That is three times-plus what she originally 
paid, and her premium continues to grow every year.
  Yet, as a nurse, her perspective is not just about herself. She cares 
passionately about her patients as well.
  She wrote this to me:

       I'm irritated, but at least I can afford it. But who can't? 
     A lot of folks and a lot of my patients! I certainly couldn't 
     if I had a family.


[[Page 10109]]


  Doing nothing is not an option, which is why I am mystified that our 
Democratic colleagues have simply refused to participate in the 
process. For 7 years, we have promised the American people we would 
replace ObamaCare with something better that would include market-based 
solutions in order to provide care that more people could afford. This 
is based on a principle that, I believe, is a core principle: If people 
have the choice between products, they will choose the one that is best 
for them at a price they can afford. Competition actually benefits 
consumers by providing a better product at a cheaper cost. That is what 
market-driven competition is all about.
  To me, the choice is pretty simple. We either get rid of this failed 
law and replace it with real reform or ObamaCare will continue to 
collapse, and millions more people will continue to be harmed.
  Now, this is something former President Clinton said, you will 
remember, during the campaign, which proved to be a little bit of an 
embarrassing comment when he said that ObamaCare was the ``craziest 
thing in the world.'' This was the former President of the United 
States, a Democrat, who was the husband of the Democratic nominee for 
President in the 2016 election. He called ObamaCare the ``craziest 
thing in the world'' because he knew well that no matter who won the 
election, whether it was Hillary Clinton or President Trump, that we 
would be talking about how to protect the American people from this 
failing system known as ObamaCare.
  Yet our Democratic friends are apparently resigned to continue to let 
the American people suffer rather than try to do what is right and help 
make things better.
  The work we are left to do is hard, but it is no excuse for not 
trying. ObamaCare is hurting our country, and we have a chance to make 
it better and to right the path. I remain hopeful and optimistic 
because doing nothing is not an option.
  Let me just conclude with this observation: What we are trying to 
accomplish with the Better Care Act encompasses four things.
  First, we are trying to stabilize the current insurance market to 
make sure there are actually insurance policies available for people to 
buy rather than to see them flee the marketplace.
  Second, we are trying to make sure we do everything we can to bring 
insurance premiums down--in other words, to make it more affordable--by 
eliminating some of the mandates that make it unaffordable right now.
  The third thing we are trying to do is to protect people with 
preexisting conditions. The Better Care Act or the BCRA as it is 
known--the Better Care Reconciliation Act--maintains the status quo 
when it comes to protecting people against preexisting conditions. We 
do not want anybody who has lost his coverage to be denied coverage 
because of a preexisting condition when he tries to buy insurance from 
another insurance company. That is what happens when you change your 
job. That is what happens when insurance companies decide to leave the 
marketplace. They simply cannot afford to continue to write policies so 
you have to change policies, like this young lady--the nurse whom I 
mentioned--had to do on a couple of occasions.
  The fourth thing we are trying to do is to stabilize one of the most 
important safety net programs in our country, which is Medicaid. There 
are three basic entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security. We are doing everything we can to stabilize Medicaid because 
we believe it is important for low-income citizens to have access to 
healthcare through Medicaid if they cannot afford it through private 
insurance.
  I want to just address some of the misinformation and, I think, 
outright falsehoods we have heard from some people about what the 
Better Care Reconciliation Act does to Medicaid.
  I keep hearing people say this cuts Medicaid. It reduces the rate of 
growth of Medicaid, which is true. We basically put Medicaid on a 
budget, and we grow it year, after year, after year, as I will mention 
in a moment, but nowhere other than in Washington, DC, would anybody 
consider this a cut.
  For example, in 2017, we will spend $393 billion on Medicaid. Now, 
because this is a State-Federal cost share, in my State, it is either 
the No. 1 or No. 2 most expensive item in our spending under our State 
budget each year. It crowds out a lot of other things because it is so 
expensive. Yet it is uncontrolled, so, in 2017, we will see $393 
billion spent.
  At the end of the budget window--10 years, reflected by 2026--the 
Federal Government will have spent, under the Budget Control Act, $464 
billion. That is a $71 billion difference between 2017 and 2026. In no 
other alternate universe that I am aware of would this be considered a 
cut. This is an increase in Medicaid.
  Now, we can have discussions--and we should and we are having 
discussions--as to: Is this an adequate rate of growth of Medicaid to 
meet the growing population and to make sure people are taken care of?
  Nothing we do in this bill drops anybody from Medicaid, and the 
suggestion that it does is simply, I would suggest, not accurate, nor 
is it a cut. We can have discussions about what the proper rate of 
growth is, and we are having those discussions, but it is a fact, 
reflected by the Congressional Budget Office--which is the official 
scorekeeper in Congress--that, in 2017, we will spend $393 billion, and 
under the Better Care Reconciliation Act, we will spend $464 billion, 
which is a difference of $71 billion over that 10 years.
  I know we will have a lot more to talk about as we continue to debate 
this bill. My hope is that we will have a bill that we will be able to 
send to the Congressional Budget Office, which will take a couple of 
weeks to score--that is a requirement--before we can actually bring it 
to the floor. I hope that at some point in the not-too-distant future, 
we will be able to bring a bill to the floor and have a real debate and 
have an amendment process that will allow everybody and anybody in the 
Senate to offer amendments in order to change or modify the bill.
  In the end, I believe we have to decide because doing nothing is not 
an option. Doing nothing means consigning the people who are being hurt 
by ObamaCare today to continue to be hurt and to be priced out of 
healthcare entirely. To my mind, that is not a responsible thing for us 
to do.
  That is why I support the Better Care Reconciliation Act. It is not a 
perfect bill, but it is the next step in helping us turn our current 
healthcare disaster around. At some point, I hope our Democratic 
friends will join with us, as they have done under the two bills I 
mentioned earlier, for this is one of the most important things we will 
do in the Congress. If you think about what touches people's lives in 
such a personal way, it is hard to think of anything that does that 
more than healthcare.
  Right now, we are hearing a lot of scare stories and inaccuracies 
about what this bill does. There is plenty of room for debate and 
differences of opinion based on the facts, but as the saying goes, you 
are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own 
facts. Facts are facts, and based on the facts, we ought to argue our 
policy differences and then vote.
  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. Blunt). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________