[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9659-9674]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the 
Billingslea nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Marshall Billingslea, of 
Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing, Department 
of the Treasury.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we are beginning to receive the first 
bits of information about the Senate Republican healthcare bill, which 
has until now been shrouded in absolute secrecy.
  I can see why. Even as we continue to get more details, the broad 
outlines are clear. This is a bill designed to strip away healthcare 
benefits and protections from Americans who need it most in order to 
give a tax break to the folks who need it least.
  This is a bill that would end Medicaid as we know it, rolling back 
Medicaid expansion, cutting Federal support for the program even more 
than the House bill, which cut Medicaid by $800 billion.
  Let me remind everyone in this Chamber, Medicaid is not just a health 
insurance program for Americans struggling in poverty, though that is 
an important and necessary part of it. Medicaid is increasingly a 
middle-class program. Medicaid is how many Americans are able to access 
opioid abuse treatment, Medicaid foots the bill for two-thirds of all 
Americans living in nursing homes, and Medicaid provides the cushion, 
particularly in rural areas, so hospitals can survive and give topnotch 
healthcare to all of us.
  From what is reported, in just 3 short years under the Senate bill, 
Republicans will take millions off their Medicaid coverage, and then, 
starting in 2025, the plan will institute even more Medicaid cuts, and 
each year those cuts get deeper than the year before. Within 10 years 
of this new funding system, the cuts to Medicaid could total hundreds 
of billions of dollars above the more than $800 billion the House bill 
already cuts from the program.
  Every senior in America should read the fine print of this bill. It 
looks as if American seniors could be paying way more. Why do this? 
Looking at the bill, the answer is, because the Republicans want to 
give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans--those making over 
$200,000 a year--and set themselves up to give these folks another, 
even larger tax cut in their tax bill.
  Even though much of the early reporting says that the bill will keep 
certain protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, the 
truth is, it may well not guarantee them the coverage they need by 
allowing States to waive essential health benefits. What the bill is 
saying to those Americans is that insurance still has to cover you, but 
it doesn't have to cover what you may actually need. It doesn't have to 
cover all or even most of your costs.
  If you need treatment for opioid addiction, your plan may no longer 
cover it. If you are pregnant and need maternity care, your plan may 
have decided that is too expensive. The coverage that Americans with 
preexisting conditions actually need may well become either 
unaffordable or even nonexistent under this bill.
  Simply put, this bill will result----
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Democratic leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Not right now--at the end of my remarks.
  Simply put, this bill will result in higher costs, less care, and 
millions of Americans will lose their health insurance, particularly 
through Medicaid. It is every bit as bad as the House bill. In some 
ways, it is even worse.
  The President said the Senate bill needed heart. The way this bill 
cuts healthcare is heartless. The President said the House bill was 
mean. The Senate bill may be meaner.
  The Senate Republican healthcare bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing, 
but this wolf has even sharper teeth than the House bill.
  It is clear that Republicans know that cutting Medicaid will hurt so 
many people in the middle class, so many in my home State of New York. 
Republicans know that people want essential health benefits, so they 
have created a disguise by saying that these changes will not occur for 
a year. But, in reality, the Senate Republican bill is a wolf in 
sheep's clothing, only this wolf has even sharper teeth than the House 
bill.
  We are potentially voting on it in a week--with no committee 
hearings, no amendments in committee, no debate on the floor, save for 
10 measly hours, on one of the most important bills we are dealing with 
in decades. That brings shame on this body. We won't even know the full 
cost or consequence of the bill until CBO scores it, and that could 
take a few days more.
  How can my friend the majority leader expect this body to fairly 
consider this legislation, prepare amendments, and debate it in 1 week 
with only 10 hours of debate? How can he expect his own Members to do 
the same? Many of them on the Republican side are learning the details 
of the bill the same way we Democrats are: They are reading it today.
  Now, listen to what the majority leader had to say in 2009 when we 
were debating healthcare--his words:

       This is a very important issue. . . . We shouldn't try to 
     do it in the dark. And whatever final bill is produced should 
     be available to the American public and to Members of the 
     Senate, certainly, for enough time to come to grips with it. 
     . . . And we are going to insist--and the American people are 
     going to insist--that it be done in a transparent, fair, and 
     open way.

  Is 5 or 6 days enough time for the American people and the Members of 
the Senate to come to grips with a bill that affects one-sixth of the 
economy and the lives of every American in this country? I don't think 
so, neither do the American people and neither do a whole bunch of 
Republican Senators.
  Senator Cassidy: Would I have preferred a more open process? The 
answer is yes.
  Senator Collins: I don't think it gives enough time to thoroughly 
analyze the bill, but we will see when it comes out.
  Member after Member--Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Jerry Moran, Marco 
Rubio, Bob Corker--has repeatedly said that this process--in their 
words and now in mine--is unfair, it is truncated, and it is rushed.
  For my dear friend the majority leader to say we are going to have an 
open amendment process is turning truth upside down. I would ask our 
leader, rhetorically, because I know the answer: Can we allow at least 
1 hour on each amendment, not 2 minutes? Will we have more time than 10 
hours to debate the bill? I hope so. But, if not, please don't call 
this an open and fair process. If you want to rush it through, admit 
the consequences.
  The debate over healthcare has been fierce. We know that Republicans 
and Democrats had differences when we debated the Affordable Care Act. 
At least we had a debate. At least we had committee hearings and a 
process. More broadly than that, at least we Democrats were trying to 
pass a healthcare

[[Page 9660]]

bill that helped more Americans afford insurance and tried to bring 
costs down and end some of the most egregious practices of the 
healthcare industry.
  What is this bill--TrumpCare--trying to achieve? It seems designed to 
slash support for healthcare programs in order to give tax breaks to 
the very wealthy.
  When the CBO score comes out, I believe it will verify that millions 
of Americans in this great country will be unable to afford insurance 
or the insurance they can afford won't cover the services they need.
  Somewhere in America there is a family who takes a trip each Friday 
to visit grandma or grandpa at a nursing home, who sacrificed all of 
their savings to pay for their healthcare until they had no more 
savings and now rely on Medicaid to help pay the cost of long-term care 
in a nursing home.
  Somewhere in America there is a father who is eaten up inside 
watching his son struggle with opioid addiction, who knows in his heart 
that his son will be able to go on and live a healthy and fulfilling 
life if he could only afford treatment to get him out from under this 
devastating addiction.
  Somewhere in America there is a parent whose child has cancer, a 
mother and father who stay up late at night worried that their 
insurance will either not be available or run out when the family needs 
it most.
  In the America that my Republican friends envision with this 
healthcare bill, those Americans, and many more besides, might not get 
the coverage and care they need.
  We live in the wealthiest country on Earth. Surely, surely, we can do 
better than what the Republican healthcare bill promises.


                 Unanimous Consent Requests--H.R. 1628

  Now I have a unanimous consent request. I am going to have to delay 
my friend from asking questions until we finish our unanimous consent 
requests.
  I ask unanimous consent that any substitute or perfecting amendment 
offered to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, not be in order if the text of 
the amendment has not been filed at the desk and made available on a 
public website for at least 72 hours, along with an analysis by the 
Congressional Budget Office of the bill's budgetary, coverage, and cost 
implications.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my 
colleague Senator Cornyn was going to ask a question, which I will 
answer, which was that the minority leader is referring to a bill that 
he hasn't seen a copy of because it hasn't yet been released. So the 
speech we just heard was about a bill that he hasn't seen.
  With regard to his unanimous consent request, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, leader time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 142 pages thus far of this supposed bill 
have been printed online, and that is what I have used.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, several weeks ago the House of 
Representatives passed a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to 
replace it. It was passed without hearings. It was passed without an 
amendment process, and it was passed before the Congressional Budget 
Office provided the traditional analysis that we count on before we 
take up a measure of such magnitude.
  The measure passed with a party-line vote--all Republicans. Had two 
Republicans voted the other way, it would not have moved forward.
  After it passed, the President of the United States decided to have a 
celebration at the White House. We saw him on television, gathering the 
Republican Members of the House of Representatives and celebrating the 
fact that this measure had passed and that, finally, they were going to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  But then the American people took a close look and the Congressional 
Budget Office issued its analysis, and it turns out that 23 million 
Americans would lose their health insurance because of this Republican 
measure that passed the House of Representatives.
  It turns out as well that there would be a dramatic increase in 
health insurance premiums for people between the ages of 50 and 64.
  It turns out that in my State and many other States hospitals were in 
danger. The Illinois Health and Hospital Association says they would 
lose 60,000 jobs in Illinois with the dramatic cutbacks in Medicaid, 
endangering hospitals in rural areas and inner-city areas.
  The facts started coming out about this repeal bill passed by the 
House of Representatives, and the President of the United States had a 
change of heart and announced to the American people that it was a mean 
bill--a mean bill. The President was right. It was mean legislation--
mean to the millions who lost their healthcare, mean to seniors who 
would find their premiums going up dramatically, and mean to the people 
living in rural areas and small towns who count on those hospitals.
  The President was right. It was mean.
  Then, the responsibility shifts to the Senate. The majority leader, 
Senator McConnell, and his Republican followers had a chance to do a 
bill that was not mean. They had a chance to sit down on a bipartisan 
basis and to have the same process we used to create the Affordable 
Care Act.
  That would have involved public hearings. We had 50 public hearings 
on the Affordable Care Act. It would have involved a real amendment 
process. The Affordable Care Act had 300 amendments. How many were 
offered by the Republicans? There were over 150 offered and adopted in 
a bipartisan process when we passed the Affordable Care Act. The 
American people got a good look at the bill. The Congressional Budget 
Office issued their analysis before we voted on it. We passed it, and I 
am glad we did, and I am proud of that vote.
  But what happened in the Senate when it came to the Republicans? They 
went into secrecy. Thirteen chosen Republican Senators all sat in a 
room and wrote the alternative, or so we are told. They met in secret 
and never once had a public hearing, never once disclosed to the 
American people what was being debated, never once gave an opportunity 
for real bipartisan cooperation to strengthen our existing healthcare 
system--not at all.
  So all we have at this moment is truly press accounts of what has 
been announced to the Republican Senate caucus, what they are going to 
get a chance to read and see. But it is enough to see that when it 
comes down to the basics, there is not much of a change between the 
House of Representatives' effort and the Senate effort.
  You can put a lace collar on a pit bull, and it is still a mean dog.
  What we have here with the Republicans in the Senate is an attempt to 
dust off the edges of the House bill and say: This is not as mean. I 
will tell you, at the end of the day, from the reports we have, this is 
still a mean dog, and one the people of the United States don't want to 
see happen.
  There isn't a single medical advocacy group--not one in my State, and 
I don't know of any nationwide--that endorses what the Republicans in 
the House have accomplished with the passage of their bill, and this 
bill mirrors it, as well, and we can expect the same result.
  So the only thing we can offer the American people is a chance to be 
part of the conversation on a bill that will literally change 
healthcare for millions of Americans. If they are going to be part of 
the conversation, there has to be a chance for amendment and debate, at 
least, and a chance for the American people to see what is in the 
Senate Republican measure.
  So I ask unanimous consent that any substitute or perfecting 
amendment offered to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, be subject to a point 
of order if the text of the amendment has not been filed at the desk 
and made available on a public website for at least 72 hours, along 
with an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of the bill's 
budgetary, coverage, and cost implications; and

[[Page 9661]]

that a motion to waive the point of order be in order, and if a motion 
to waive is made, an affirmative three-fifths vote of those duly chosen 
and sworn is required to waive the point of order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want 
to thank my friend the assistant Democratic leader for confirming that 
the majority leader's remarks obviously were made on the basis of news 
accounts. The bill has only been posted online for the last 20 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Would the majority leader yield?
  I am the minority leader, at this point.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The question is, Does the majority leader know that a 
half hour before we came to the floor were 142 pages of the bill listed 
online? That is what we used in our report.
  I would ask the majority leader a further question: If there is 
anything I said--anything I said--that is not going to be in the bill, 
could he clarify?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what we are seeing here today is just the 
latest broken promise from President Trump and his Republican Party. 
After weeks of secret negotiations, back-room deals, shutting out 
patients, families, and Democrats and even many Republicans from this 
process, Senate Republican leaders are now just days away from putting 
a bill on the floor that could not be more impactful or more 
devastating to families' bank accounts and their health. As even 
Republicans are pointing out, there has not been a single hearing, no 
robust debate, no opportunity for the people who will really suffer 
under this bill to see exactly how bad it would be.
  This disastrous TrumpCare bill deserves full scrutiny under an open 
process, like the process that Democrats conducted when we passed the 
Affordable Care Act. We held hearings, we took amendments from both 
sides, and we certainly didn't leave the fate of women's healthcare up 
to a few Republican men.
  Senate Republicans are right to be ashamed of this mean and heartless 
legislation. Just like the House TrumpCare bill, it will increase 
premiums, it will undermine protections for people with preexisting 
conditions, it will defund Planned Parenthood, and it will allow 
insurance companies--insurance companies--to charge women more. It is 
going to gut Medicaid. It will take away care for our seniors, pregnant 
women, people with disabilities, and it will take health insurance 
coverage away from millions of people across the country--and for what? 
To give another massive tax cut to the wealthy and well-connected.
  I would be ashamed, too, if I had to defend a bill that is cruel. I 
can certainly understand why Republican leaders do not want to give 
people time to see what is in this bill and why they don't even want to 
give their own Members time to see how much their constituents hate it, 
but that is the bed Senate Republicans have now made. If they are going 
to try to pass this disastrous version of TrumpCare, at the very least 
they shouldn't get to jam it through without the public knowing good 
and well what they are up to.
  Mr. President, I ask a parliamentary inquiry: Is the Chair able to 
confirm that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
considered S. 1679, the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was 
ultimately incorporated into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act, in executive session on 13 calendar days prior to reporting the 
bill favorably?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary of the Senate's 
Office through the Senate Library can confirm that.
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is confirmed.
  So I ask unanimous consent today that any substitute or perfecting 
amendment offered to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, not be in order if 
the text of the amendment has not been the subject of a hearing, 
subject of executive session, during which amendments from both the 
majority and minority were considered and reported favorably by the 
Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  None of these Senators have read the bill.
  I have the floor.
  The bill is 142 pages long compared to the 2,700-page ObamaCare bill. 
They can read the bill; if they have objections to the provisions, we 
can debate them, but what they are talking about is a bill that does 
not exist, which they have not read.
  I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The minority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, would my dear colleague from Texas yield 
for a question?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas does not 
have the floor. You have the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would like to just then tell my friend from Texas: 
This is the bill. It was posted online a half hour before we came in. I 
would ask a page to come over and bring it to my dear friend and ask 
him if this is the bill which we have read.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, all Senators have a copy of the discussion 
draft bill. It is a discussion draft which will be open to an amendment 
process, with unlimited amendments which can be offered by both sides, 
before which we will have a fulsome debate.
  Our colleagues here are complaining about secrecy that doesn't exist. 
This bill is online. The American people can read it. You can read it. 
I would suggest that they do read it before they start criticizing it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would ask my friend from Texas to yield for another 
question.
  Mr. CORNYN. I will.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will we get more than 2 minutes to debate each amendment 
we ask for or will we be under the reconciliation process, where we 
have 10 hours of debate and then every amendment only gets 2 minutes? 
Does he consider that--2 minutes, if that is the case--a full and fair 
debate on each amendment?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say, in response to my friend from 
New York, the fact that we are having to conduct this under the 
reconciliation rules is a result of their refusal to participate in the 
process, thus necessitating Republicans doing this under budget 
reconciliation rules.
  If they would do this in a true bipartisan way, where we can get 60 
votes to get on the bill and open to an amendment process, we could 
have a better bill, but given the refusal of our Democratic colleagues 
to participate in the process, this is the only way we can come to the 
rescue of the people who are being hurt by the meltdown of ObamaCare 
today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Just to clarify, did the Senator 
from Texas object to the request of the Senator from Washington?
  Mr. CORNYN. I do object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I heard the objection.
  I just have to say, the exchange we just heard is exactly what we 
have been objecting to. We were told the bill would be online at 9:30 
this morning. It was online at 11. I have a copy of it, but we are 
hearing from the other side now that this isn't the bill. This is a 
discussion draft. We aren't going to see the bill. We will not see the 
real bill, apparently, until next week, even though we were told we 
would see it this morning.
  This has been the problem we have had since this discussion started. 
We started in January with a process which cut us out of this under 
reconciliation. Thirteen men in a private room wrote this ``discussion 
draft,''

[[Page 9662]]

which is not a bill, that we are supposed to now look at and decide 
whether we like it--and the American public--a discussion draft, a bill 
even the other side doesn't know what we have. That is what we are 
objecting to.
  We are asking that the American people--who have a right to know what 
is going to impact every one of their lives, every one of their 
families, every one of their communities, every one of their 
businesses--have more than a discussion draft, more than 10 hours of 
debate, time to look at it, and know how we are going to do an 
amendment process next week.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would be happy to.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Washington if 
she is aware of the fact that under the budget reconciliation process, 
there will be an unlimited number of amendments that could be offered 
by either side to the bill which is ultimately filed?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Oh, Mr. President, I am well aware of that; and I will 
remind our colleagues and everybody in this country what will happen: 
There will be 10 hours of debate, where we hopefully have more than a 
discussion draft that we will be allowed to offer amendments on, and 
there will be no debate on those amendments. No one will know what it 
is. It will be a chaotic process on this floor. The American public 
will not know. We will be able to tell them days later, after this gets 
undone.
  That is not an amendment process. That is not what we went through 
when we passed the Affordable Care Act. The American public deserves 
better.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would ask my colleague a question.
  What would be wrong with 1 hour of debate on every amendment to this 
bill? What is the objection to that, since the majority is proposing no 
debate on amendments, and then saying it is an open process? What is 
wrong with 1 hour of debate on every amendment offered to this bill?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say, in response to my friend the 
minority leader, that it is as a result of their refusal to participate 
in the usual process of passing legislation through the regular order--
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. CORNYN.--that we have to resort to the budget reconciliation 
process which has a set of statutory provisions and rules.
  There will be a fulsome debate. There has already been a debate on a 
bill you haven't read. I suggest you take the time to read it, and then 
we can talk about the details.
  This bill--142 pages compared to 2,700 pages of ObamaCare--doesn't 
take that long to read. This is a start. This is not the finish. This 
is called the normal legislative process. I suggest colleagues, rather 
than criticize a bill they haven't read, they read it, and then let's 
have a credible debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would ask my friend, the majority whip 
from Texas, a series of questions.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. What was the date that reconciliation was added to the 
budget resolution which said we don't need any Democratic votes? Was it 
May, was it April, was it March, or was it the very beginning of this 
session?
  I would ask him another question. Where were the meetings held to 
discuss this bill, and were any Democrats invited?
  I would ask him another question. Why did the majority leader not 
accept our offer to go into the Old Senate Chamber--100 Senators, no 
press, no anything else--and debate the bill?
  How can my good friend--and he is a good friend; we are on the bikes 
in the morning together--my good friend from Texas say there was a 
bipartisan process when, at the outset--at the outset--our Republican 
colleagues said the only thing we will debate is repeal and then 
replace? There was no discussion of whether repeal was the right thing 
to do or the wrong thing to do. Now, overwhelmingly the American people 
prefer fixing ObamaCare--which we offered to do--than repeal and 
replace.
  It is no wonder, I would say to my colleague as he answers these 
questions, that this bill is being brought in the dark of night. It is 
because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are ashamed of the 
bill--because, believe you me, if they liked this bill, they would have 
brass bands down every Main Street in America talking about it, but 
they are trying to sneak it through because mainly their goal is a tax 
cut for the rich.
  I would ask my colleague to answer those three questions, and then he 
can respond to my rhetoric.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am really taken aback by the 
characterization of the minority leader here.
  The minority has made it clear they don't want to participate in the 
process of rescuing the American people from the failures of ObamaCare.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. CORNYN. It has been made clear to us that you don't want to 
participate in the process, and you are turning a blind eye to the 
millions of people being hurt today by outrageous premiums, deductibles 
they can't afford, and a loss of choices because insurance companies 
have pulled out of the individual market. Your response to them is: We 
don't care.
  We care, and we are doing our best to deal with this.
  This is like going by a car accident with somebody seriously injured, 
and rather than stopping and rendering aid, just driving on by. That is 
what our colleagues on the other side are doing. They are turning a 
blind eye, driving right on by a seriously injured person in a car 
accident. We are coming to the rescue of the millions of people who are 
being hurt by ObamaCare today.
  We would love to have our Democratic friends join us and do something 
truly sustainable, but you have to remember, my friends, how this 
started: Democrats jammed ObamaCare through on a party-line vote and 
Republicans weren't able to participate in that process.
  What we are trying to do is we are trying to save the people who are 
currently being hurt and whose healthcare has become unaffordable. If 
you would like to join us in this process, we would love to have you, 
but failing that, we are going to get it done, and you can just drive 
by the car wreck.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, here is the correct analogy: Yes, there 
has been an accident. Yes, someone needs help. Someone who is not a 
doctor, not a physician, doesn't know how to help the patient--our 
Republicans friends go by the side of the road, but they don't know 
what to do.
  So the Democrats come by. We are doctors. We say: We know how to fix 
this system. We know how to fix this patient, and the Republicans say: 
No, don't help with us. We will drive right by. Now the patient is 
ailing.
  I would ask my colleagues, let's forget the past for the moment 
because we have a much better argument than you. We had hundreds of 
amendments offered by Republicans that became part of our bill. I doubt 
there will be a single Democratic amendment that will be--we had hours 
of hearings, hours of debate. You didn't. So you may not have thought 
the process was perfect, but it was a lot more open than yours.
  I have a proposal to my friend. Let us forget this draft bill. Let us 
right now, Democrats and Republicans, sit down and try to come up with 
a bipartisan bill. We are willing to do it today, now, this minute. 
Will you accept that offer?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I thought that was a sincere offer, I 
would take it in a minute--in a New York minute, but it is not.

[[Page 9663]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. CORNYN. The fact is, insurance companies are having to go to the 
State regulators as we speak to get insurance rates approved for 2018. 
That is the urgency we are experiencing here.
  Unless we act--and act in an expedited fashion--here, very soon, we 
will see millions of people have their insurance rates raised by 
another double digits. It has been 105 percent since 2013--105 percent. 
ObamaCare was sold under the premise that families of four would see a 
reduction of $2,500. If you like your policy, you can keep your policy. 
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. All of that is 
false. False. This is a failed experiment.
  They may not be willing to help, but we will, and we will get it done 
and help the American people who are being hurt by the failure of 
ObamaCare today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am struck by this conversation as the 
ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. My colleague and 
distinguished Senator from Texas is on the Finance Committee. He knows 
I know something about writing bipartisan healthcare reform bills. I 
have written them. They have become law. I could tell my colleague, I 
have not once--not once--been asked to be part of any bipartisan effort 
with respect to this legislation.
  I think, colleagues, it is real clear what is going on here. Senate 
Republicans are going to keep telling Americans they are fixing their 
healthcare right up until the second it gets taken away.
  Now, as the ranking member of the Finance Committee, I find it 
bizarre that a health bill of this importance was hidden for so long 
behind closed doors, denying the American people the opportunity to see 
it in an open debate.
  There have been no hearings on this dangerous, destructive proposal, 
not one hearing on whether Medicaid should be slashed to pay for tax 
cuts for the fortunate few, not one hearing on whether the bedrock 
protections for those with preexisting conditions ought to be 
shattered, not one hearing on whether Americans should face higher 
costs, along with annual and lifetime limits, on insurance coverage.
  This secretive process of concealing and rushing this bill, which 
until today had been seen by nobody--nobody outside of the Republican 
leadership and their lobbyist allies who dwell on K Street--the 
secretive process stands in sharp contrast to the process that led to 
the Affordable Care Act.
  I now put forward a parliamentary inquiry. Is the Chair able to 
confirm that the Committee on Finance considered S. 1796, the America's 
Healthy Future Act, which was ultimately incorporated into H.R. 3590, 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in executive session on 
8 separate calendar days prior to reporting the bill favorably?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary of the Senate's 
office, through the Senate Library, confirms that.
  Mr. WYDEN. I have information that indicates that 135 amendments were 
considered in the committee and that of those, 14 amendments offered by 
Republican members of the committee or offered in a bipartisan manner 
were adopted during the consideration of S. 1796. Is the Chair able to 
confirm that?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary of the Senate's 
office, through the Senate Library, confirms that.
  Mr. WYDEN. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no 
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, be in order until the 
bill has been the subject of executive session meetings in the 
Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions, during which amendments from the majority and the minority 
received votes and the bill has been favorably reported from those 
committees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, our 
colleagues are coming here today and saying they want to participate in 
the process to fix what is broken in the Affordable Care Act. Yet I 
have in my hand a newspaper article about a letter that the Democratic 
leader and his colleagues sent saying they refused to participate in 
the process unless we drop all of our plans to repeal and replace 
ObamaCare. They refused to participate in the process.
  I would point out that the failures of ObamaCare didn't just start 
today; it has been failing over 7 years. They did nothing--nothing--
nothing to help the millions of people who are being hurt, who had to 
move from full-time work to part-time work because their employer 
didn't want to pay the employer penalty for not providing ObamaCare 
coverage. We know that many people have been hurt by it and not the 
least of whom are the people who are finding their premiums 
skyrocketing. They will do so again next year unless we come to their 
rescue. They have seen their deductibles so high, they effectively have 
been denied the value of their insurance.
  I had a conversation a couple of days ago--I won't name the 
Democratic Senator because it was done in confidence. The Senator 
confided to me that his own son had effectively seen his premiums go up 
so high that he had--it cost roughly $12,500 out-of-pocket to deal with 
his deductible and to pay his premiums--$12,500. That is not affordable 
to anybody, certainly in the middle class.
  I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to indicate before the 
distinguished majority whip leaves that what is being talked about here 
is like having a hole in the roof of your house. Instead of patching 
it, they want to burn down the house. What we are not willing to 
participate in is burning down the house. We are more than happy and, 
in fact, have proposals and are anxious to work with the majority to 
improve healthcare--not rip it apart, not take tens of millions of 
people's healthcare away, but improve it.
  Before asking a question of the majority whip, I also want to 
indicate for all those listening that we have the bill. We can actually 
read pretty quickly, and it has been out. Even though it is considered 
a discussion draft--we don't know what it is at this point--we have it. 
We are analyzing it.
  What our leader, the Democratic leader, indicated is what we have 
been able to read in this discussion draft, which is not only more of 
the same but is worse for seniors, those in nursing homes, and children 
in Michigan and across the country. That is what is in this, which we 
now have, whatever it is called.
  I would ask the majority whip, instead of burning down the house at 
this point in terms of ripping apart the healthcare system, would you 
join with us in putting forward a bill that would allow Medicare to 
negotiate prescription drug prices for seniors, which my hospitals and 
insurance companies tell me are one of the driving forces that are 
raising the costs of healthcare? Would you be willing to work with us 
on a bill to lower prescription drug prices and allow Medicare to 
negotiate drug prices on behalf of America's seniors?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Michigan 
that we would be happy to work with you on high drug prices. That is a 
serious problem and one of the primary cost drivers of healthcare costs 
today. But this bill doesn't touch Medicare at all. We leave intact the 
healthcare for seniors, and it is not touched by this at all. When the 
time comes for us to deal with Medicare, I think that is a debate we 
should have and we would welcome.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, to the distinguished leader, I simply 
would say I am proposing that instead of this, which is essentially 
burning down the house in America in terms of healthcare, that you 
instead join with

[[Page 9664]]

us in what you have admitted is one of the top drivers of healthcare 
costs in this country, which is what we want to tackle. We want to 
bring down the costs. We want to bring down the cost of prescription 
drugs, the out-of-pocket costs for everyone whose copays and premiums 
are too high. That is what we want to do. Taking away nursing home 
care, taking away the ability for a parent to take their child to the 
doctor or someone with cancer to get the treatment they need or a small 
business owner being blocked from getting healthcare because of a 
preexisting condition--we consider that burning down the house. We are 
opposed to that.
  Frankly, we would love to have a ceremony and light this on fire and 
come back together and work together on the No. 1 driver, which is the 
cost of prescription drugs.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, maybe I misunderstood the question 
initially. I would suggest to the Senator from Michigan that it is the 
Democrats, under ObamaCare, who burned down the house because the 
individual market for healthcare has been decimated--decimated. And we 
are coming to the rescue of those millions of people who don't have 
employer-provided insurance. They don't get their coverage under 
Medicare or any other government program. They get it from the 
individual market. We are talking about individuals and small 
businesses. Right now people have almost no choices in many parts of 
the country, and for those who have choices, it is simply unaffordable.
  It is an important conversation to have on drug prices and Medicare, 
and I am happy to do that. That would do nothing--zip, zero, nada--to 
help the people who are hurting now as a result of the failures of 
ObamaCare, and that is whom we are determined to help by passing this 
legislation after an open amendment process and fulsome debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, in conclusion, I wish to make one other 
comment, and that is, the people in Michigan who are purchasing on the 
private exchange--over half of whom are able to get a policy today for 
their families for less than $100--I would say they would have a 
different perspective.
  We need to fix those things that are not working, but for the 97 
percent of the children in Michigan who can now see a doctor because of 
what has been done; for the hospitals that now see 50 percent fewer 
people walking into the emergency room without insurance, raising the 
costs for all policies; for the savings the State of Michigan is going 
to have in its budget next year of $432 million in savings to taxpayers 
because they did the right thing by allowing children to go to a doctor 
instead of getting sick and going to the emergency room, I would 
suggest this is the wrong direction.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, last week, President Trump reportedly told 
several of our Republican colleagues that the House-passed version of 
TrumpCare's healthcare repeal of the Affordable Care Act was mean. This 
week, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that the President 
would like to see a healthcare bill from the Senate that ``has heart in 
it.'' What did we get? We got a bill from my Senate Republican 
colleagues that is identical to and in some cases even worse than the 
disastrous House-passed American Health Care Act that would rip 
coverage away from 23 million Americans and gut Medicaid by more than 
$800 billion.
  Nothing changes the fact that this undemocratic, secretive process 
has resulted in legislation that is so mean-spirited, it would make the 
Wicked Witch of the West cringe. The Senate Republican bill will rip 
away economic security from young families, make grandma and grandpa 
pay more for health insurance simply because they are old, tear away 
coverage for opioid addiction patients desperate for treatment, and 
punish Americans with preexisting conditions such as cancer, diabetes, 
and Alzheimer's. For once, I agree with President Trump. This bill is 
mean.
  Let's take a closer look about what is really inside of the Senate 
GOP's proposal on healthcare. Let's start by looking at the lower 
quality coverage. First, this bill will roll back the clock to the days 
before the Affordable Care Act, when an insurance card did not 
guarantee comprehensive coverage.
  Because of the Affordable Care Act, there are certain things an 
insurance plan just has to cover--things like emergency services, 
maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health services. There is 
security in knowing that if you pay your premiums, this sort of basic 
minimum coverage is in place when you need it. But Republicans want to 
rip that away. They want to give States and insurance companies the 
option to not cover these things. This would make it so that a consumer 
could easily be faced with an unexpected medical bill for services they 
had assumed were covered with their healthcare plan.
  Independent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that out-of-pocket costs for maternity care or mental health or 
substance abuse disorder services could increase by thousands of 
dollars in a given year under TrumpCare. That is not increasing 
quality, as President Trump promised; that is lower quality. And that 
just increases inequality between the healthy wealthy, who can pay out 
of pocket for their care, and providing lower quality coverage for 
everyone else. That is mean.
  Second, an age tax. Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the 
uninsured rate for Americans ages 50 to 64 decreased by one-half. Those 
are the baby boomers, and it is estimated that more than 28 million of 
these baby boomers will develop Alzheimer's disease between now and the 
year 2050. This reduction in the uninsured rates came about because the 
Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid and put protections in place to 
prevent insurers from charging exorbitant prices just because of age. 
But instead of caring for our family and friends as they age and 
ensuring they can afford quality coverage on what may be a dwindling 
income, TrumpCare punishes you for achieving your milestone 50th 
birthday.
  Under the Republican healthcare proposal, insurance companies can 
charge older Americans five times more than younger Americans for the 
same coverage. That is unconscionable. It doesn't matter if you are a 
50-year-old marathoner in the best shape of your life; you will still 
be paying at least five times more for your insurance than your 40-
year-old neighbor who smokes. As a result, Americans over the age of 60 
could see their premiums increase by an average of $3,200 or 22 
percent. That might not sound like a lot to some people, but for those 
with decreasing incomes and fewer job opportunities, it is the 
difference between being able to eat and being kicked out on the 
street.
  To add insult to injury, the subsidies in TrumpCare to help 
individuals purchase insurance are far less generous than what is 
currently available under the Affordable Care Act. Because that will 
result in premiums that are higher, the tax credits will not keep pace 
to help pay for more expensive insurance, and, as a result, this age 
tax is going to be mean to those who are older in our country.
  No. 3, Medicaid cuts. Medicaid is a lifeline for families across our 
country. More than 70 million Americans--nearly half of whom are 
children--depend upon it. But it is clear that with TrumpCare's cuts to 
the program, Republicans want Medicaid to flatline. For a program that 
covers more than

[[Page 9665]]

one-fifth of the Nation's population, including the sickest, the 
oldest, and the poorest amongst us, Medicaid is especially 
irreplaceable.
  But Republicans harbor an ancient animosity toward Medicaid. 
Republicans say that we need to restructure Medicaid's financing to 
help control the program spending and make it more efficient. That is 
just another way of saying to America's most vulnerable that you are 
just not as important as those who donate to our campaigns.
  Raiding the Medicaid coffers achieves two goals. First, it tears 
holes in a critical social safety net for more than 70 million low-
income and working-class Americans. Second, it provides the GOP with an 
open checkbook to pay back their donors with huge tax breaks.
  Republicans might want to refer to these changes as capping the 
Medicaid program, but don't be fooled. What capping really means is 
decapitating access to primary care, decapitating the ability of 
grandma and grandpa to secure a nursing home bed, and decapitating 
access to treatment for substance abuse and mental health conditions. 
Gutting the Medicaid program--that is mean.
  Next, they are going to reduce access to care. This one is simple. 
Less insurance coverage equals less access to care. While it is 
possible to get a doctor's appointment and treatment without health 
insurance, it is usually at prices that are impossible to afford for a 
typical uninsured person. Most working Americans can't conceive of 
paying more than $150 every time they want to visit a primary care 
doctor or footing the bill for a couple of thousand dollars in the 
event they need more specialized care. The best medicines and the most 
effective treatments are only as good as the insurance coverage people 
have to help them to access to it.
  How will these 23 million Americans who lose insurance under 
TrumpCare get the care which they need? They will not get the care. 
Unfortunately, when patients do try to access care, it will be because 
their illness has progressed to the point where it can no longer be 
ignored. Instead of seeking care with a primary care doctor in a less 
expensive healthcare setting, most uninsured patients will end up going 
straight to the emergency room--the most expensive site for care. And 
the cost of that uninsured patient--well, that is just going to get 
absorbed by everyone else in our country, as our rates for treatment 
and insurance coverage increase to make up for this uncompensated care. 
So reduced access to care--that is mean.
  Then we move on to higher premiums. Higher premiums are going to be 
the new rule in our country because that is going to be what happens if 
the Republicans are successful in repealing the Affordable Care Act. 
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, TrumpCare 
would increase premiums by an average of 20 percent in 2018. In 
Massachusetts alone, premiums for next year could increase by $600, 
threatening coverage for more than 180,000 of my constituents with 
private insurance. Because of everything else in TrumpCare, even though 
you are paying more, you will be getting less. It is like paying for a 
Cadillac, but only getting a tricycle. This will only prevent Americans 
from securing access to the care and the treatment they need and they 
deserve. Less care for more cost--that is going to be mean. Premiums 
are going to go up for everyone.
  Finally, it threatens all of those in America who have preexisting 
conditions. For so many Americans, allowing insurance companies to 
refuse coverage or charge more because of a preexisting condition is 
inhumane, and it is immoral. Anyone who tried to buy individual health 
insurance before the Affordable Care Act remembers this problem. Before 
the healthcare act passed, in most States, if you had a preexisting 
condition, you could either be denied coverage, charged a much higher 
premium, or forced to wait potentially for years before receiving 
treatment for the condition to be covered. For many people, this meant 
they either had to go without needed care or spend their entire 
savings. For those with the most serious conditions, it was the 
difference between life and death.
  The anxiety of suffering from an illness was only exacerbated by 
financial insecurity. It was a cruel and unusual form of punishment. 
Sadly, the Republicans want to take us back to this era. Threatening 
preexisting conditions--that might be the meanest of them all because 
protections for families who have preexisting conditions is something 
that goes right to the heart of what the Affordable Care Act provided 
as a protection.
  Why would millions of Americans have to suffer these cruelties, these 
indignities, these punishments? That is the most outrageous part of all 
of this. President Trump and the congressional Republicans are 
proposing this healthcare heartlessness, all so they can give tax 
breaks to the wealthiest in our country.
  We heard it from President Trump himself last night when he talked 
about the people he hired for his Cabinet. ``I just don't want a poor 
person,'' he said. But who does he want running the government and our 
economy? He wants the wealthiest people in America. He wants people who 
are billionaires to be making the decisions as to how we run our 
economy. President Trump has in place a goal of turning over to the 
richest people in our country the responsibility for putting together 
the plan to cut the programs for the poor and the working families in 
our country.
  The Republicans and their wealthy planners have put together a very 
simple one-step program: The rich get richer, and the rest get sicker 
in the United States. Make no mistake, this healthcare plan is of the 
rich, by the rich, and for the rich. It is giving billions in tax 
breaks to people who don't need or deserve them, paid for by people who 
can't handle or afford it. That is cruel, that is inhumane, that is 
immoral, that is just plain wrong, and my Democratic colleagues and I 
will not stand for it.
  We are standing up to say no to ripping away coverage for millions of 
Americans. We are raising our voices to say no to increasing costs for 
middle-class families. We are saying here today that we are going to 
say no to this legislative malpractice. The health of the American 
public is too important for us to be so mean, so callous to the people 
we were elected to serve.
  This Republican proposal has never been about policy. It has always 
been about politics, and it is time to stop playing political games 
with people's lives, with people's healthcare.
  Healthcare is a right and not a privilege. That is the promise we 
made to the American people with the Affordable Care Act, and it is a 
promise we must keep.
  The President is keeping his promise to the rich in our country. They 
have now written a healthcare plan for one-sixth of our economy that 
slashes $800 billion that would be used for the poor, for the sick, for 
the working class, for senior citizens in nursing homes by $800 billion 
in order to give an $800 billion tax break to the wealthiest people in 
our country. That is wrong.
  This is a critical moment in our country's history, and we, as 
Democrats, are going to battle every single day here on the Senate 
floor and across this country to make sure that every person 
understands what the consequences of this incredibly callous, mean bill 
will mean--lower quality coverage, an age tax on the elderly, Medicaid 
cuts that hurt families across our country, reduced access to care, 
threatening of the protections for preexisting conditions, and 
resulting in higher premiums for everyone. It will be a disgrace.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first I want to thank Senator Markey for 
his comments. I share his concerns. I agree with what he has said about 
the risk factors of the bill that was announced this morning by the 
Republican leader and what it could do to millions of people around 
this country and what it will do to coverage for hundreds of thousands 
of people in my

[[Page 9666]]

State of Maryland who will lose coverage and just about every 
Marylander whose healthcare will be impacted if this bill were to 
become law.
  I want to start by saying that I think this is a shameful moment for 
the Senate--the Senate, whose traditions have made it be known as the 
most deliberative body in the world; the Senate, which has been known 
as a body that allows for robust debate and benefits from the views of 
all 100 Members, where each of us has opportunities to get our voices 
heard. That tradition has been badly damaged by what the majority 
leader has done in bringing a bill that affects one-sixth of the 
economy of our country to the floor of the Senate without the 
deliberation by our committees and without transparency to the American 
people.
  When I got to the Senate, I worked hard to get on the Senate Finance 
Committee. I did that because the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance 
Committee contains areas that I have devoted a good part of my public 
career to, including issues of taxation and issues concerning social 
programs in our State. But it also included healthcare, an area that I 
worked on when I was first in the Maryland State legislature. I wanted 
to be on the committee that had a role in developing the health policy 
of this Nation. I thought I could add to that debate with my 
experience, and I wanted to make sure that the people of Maryland had a 
voice as we developed healthcare policy in America.
  That role is being denied by what the Republican leader is doing in 
bringing this bill to the floor without the benefit of hearings. Let me 
just repeat that. There has not been one hearing held on the 
legislation being brought forward by the majority leader. There hasn't 
been one committee markup of the bill.
  Now, let me explain to the general public what a markup is. It is 
when the committees that have expertise on a bill--in this case, it 
would be the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee 
and the Senate Finance Committee--have had a chance to bring the public 
in to get their views on the legislation, have had the committee staff 
go through it and explain all of the aspects to the members of the 
committee, with an opportunity for us to offer amendments to improve 
the bill, and then, ultimately, taking a vote on the recommendation to 
the full Senate. That is the regular order, but it is particularly the 
regular order on complex pieces of legislation.
  I don't think there is a Member of this body who would say that this 
is not a complex field when we are dealing with healthcare--one-sixth 
of our economy. But the process that was used denied the people of 
Maryland and the people of this Nation the opportunity to have their 
voices heard through their elected representatives. It is a shameful 
moment.
  Now, I know this has been done before on the floor, but I will just 
repeat it one more time. Compare this to how the Affordable Care Act 
was passed by the Senate. We had transparency, opportunities for the 
public to have input. We had hearings--many, many hearings that took 
place. My staff tells me there were 50 hearings or roundtable 
discussions or walk-throughs. We had 26 consecutive days of Senate 
debate. There were hundreds of amendments offered by both Democrats and 
Republicans that were adopted on the bill before the bill reached the 
floor of the Senate. That all took place before we started the debate 
on the bill.
  You cannot justify this process. This is an abuse by the majority, 
and it will affect the functioning of the Senate.
  There are concerns about what this bill will do. The process is 
terrible. The impact on the Senate is terrible. But the real tragedy 
here is the impact, if this bill were to become law, it would have on 
healthcare in America.
  So let me talk a little bit about my State of Maryland. It has been 
projected under this bill that those who will not have insurance 
coverage will go back basically to what it was prior to the passage of 
the Affordable Care Act; that is, a little over 400,000 Marylanders are 
at risk of losing basic health coverage. Now, it is going to affect 
everyone with insurance in Maryland, and I will get to that in a 
moment. But as many as 400,000 people are in jeopardy of losing their 
insurance because of what is done with regard to the alliances and the 
Medicaid Program itself. Many more will lose quality coverage.
  Senator Markey talked about preexisting conditions. You claim that 
there is protection for preexisting conditions, but it does not 
guarantee that the services will be provided because the States are 
given tremendous discretion as to what would be required as essential 
benefits within the healthcare plans. So if someone has a mental 
illness or someone has a drug addiction, is there a guaranteed coverage 
that that person would be able to get services? If that person has a 
preexisting condition, it may very well not be covered because of the 
absence of essential health benefits.
  Let me just give you another example of what could happen under this 
bill, and this is a real example on gender discrimination. Obstetrics 
coverage is critical for a childbearing woman. Now, if that becomes an 
optional coverage because of the State plans and discretion that it is 
given, obviously only those women who are planning to have children 
will take that coverage. Why would someone who doesn't need that 
coverage take the coverage? What are the consequences of allowing that 
type of choice? It is very clear.
  Younger women are going to pay a lot more for their health insurance 
than they otherwise would. Is that fair? I think not. I think not. That 
is the consequence of the type of changes that are being made in the 
Affordable Care Act.
  I was very instrumental in making sure that we had full coverage for 
pediatric dental. Why? Well, unfortunately, in my State in 2007--the 
year I first started in the Senate--we had a youngster, Deamonte 
Driver, who lived not far from here, who died because of an untreated 
tooth decay. It became abscessed and went into his brain. He had to go 
through a couple of surgeries, and he lost his life. What was needed 
was $80 of dental care. He couldn't get access to it because there was 
no coverage for it. He had no access to that care. He lost his life 
and, of course, the healthcare system had to pay a lot of money when it 
only needed to spend $80 to keep him healthy.
  Well, we took care of that and fixed that with the essential benefits 
now, including pediatric dental. Is that protected under the Republican 
bill? The answer is unclear--probably not. It is up to the States. It 
may be different in one State versus another. We don't have the 
protection.
  Then we get to the affordability issue for Marylanders to be able to 
afford to have health insurance. Under this bill, there will be 
discrimination on those that are older. They are going to have to pay 
more for their health insurance. Is that right? No, it is not right. I 
heard the majority leader this morning give examples of how the 
Affordable Care Act is in danger, and he cited high premium increases. 
One of the States he quoted was the State of Maryland, and it was very 
misleading the way he did that. He was talking about the individual 
marketplace, and he was talking about one segment of that. What he 
didn't tell you is that CareFirst, the insurance company that is 
proposing that rate increase, indicated that at least half of that 
increase is the result of action taken by the Trump administration, 
because the Trump administration has not made it clear whether they 
will fund the cost-sharing provisions, which keep the costs down and 
affordable in the individual marketplace. That is a self-inflicted 
increase in premiums by the Trump administration.
  There is a second issue that CareFirst mentioned, and that is the 
President's insistence on not enforcing the individual mandate, and, by 
the way, that is in the Republican bill. It means that younger, 
healthier people will choose not to have health insurance. Now, if they 
happen to ride a motorcycle and wrap themselves around a tree and get 
flown to the Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore and we are going to treat 
him, guess who is going to pay the bill? All of us are going to

[[Page 9667]]

pay the bill through uncompensated care. It is going to raise my 
insurance policy and everybody's insurance policy. That person should 
have had insurance, but that person thought he or she didn't need that 
insurance. So they didn't take out the policy.
  You find that those who will take out the insurance policies are the 
higher risks because they know they need the insurance. So those with 
high-risk issues will be in the pool raising the costs and that is why 
CareFirst has a higher ask, because they know it is less likely that 
healthier people will be in the pool than projected under the original 
Affordable Care Act. Why? Because of President Trump.
  So when the leader says that the Affordable Care Act is falling 
apart, the Affordable Care Act is strong, but it has been made 
vulnerable by the actions of the Trump administration, and the 
provisions in this bill will make it even weaker.
  Now, 1.2 million Marylanders are in our Maryland Medical Assistance 
Program, or Medicaid Program. Many of these people are working 
families. Many of these people are our seniors who need long-term care 
and are in the Medicaid Program because it pays for their long-term 
care expenses. Many of these people are veterans or returning warriors 
who are under the Medicaid Program.
  Under the Republican-released bill, they may make it a gentler slope 
before we get to the full impact of the Medicaid reductions, but the 
Medicaid reductions, if I understand correctly, are even more severe 
than under the House-passed bill.
  Now, I could speak for Maryland. I know our legislature. Our 
legislature is going to try to do what is right, but they have limited 
resources in order to try to meet the needs that are out there. It is 
just not right to say that we are passing these problems on to the 
States when the States don't have the fiscal capacity to deal with 
them. Who gets hurt? The 1.2 million Marylanders who rely upon the 
Medicaid Program and all Marylanders who don't want to see what we call 
cost shifting, when someone who doesn't have health insurance ends up 
in our emergency room and doesn't pay the bill and everyone else pays 
those bills.
  So why are we doing this? What is the reason we have gone through 
this pain? I have heard my colleagues talk about it, and it is 
absolutely true. The Republicans need to make room for the tax cut. 
They are pretty clear about it. Close to $1 trillion in tax cuts is 
what they need to do. Who benefits from tax cuts? The wealthy, those 
who have access to healthcare. Who pays for the tax cuts? Those who are 
the most vulnerable in our community. That is just wrong.
  My staff has put together a lot of individual letters that have been 
sent to us. I don't even need to go through them. I can tell the 
Presiding Officer just the experiences I have had walking on the 
streets to Baltimore or, quite frankly, walking anywhere, including 
here in Washington.
  When people come up to me and say: Senator Cardin, keep up the fight. 
Do you know what is going to happen if that healthcare bill becomes 
law? We have done some tests and we have certain genes, we are in a 
high-risk pool for cancer. We are not going to be able to get coverage 
if you let insurance companies go back to the practices they had before 
the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
  People say that if they didn't have the insurance they now think they 
are going to lose, they would have to go through personal bankruptcy. 
That is not a hypothetical. Before the passage of the Affordable Care 
Act, unpaid medical bills was the leading cause of bankruptcy. Are we 
going to go back to those days?
  I talked to a parent who has a child with a disability--and to think 
what the cost of that child is going to be in the healthcare system. 
They don't possibly have the means to be able to afford that if they 
didn't have access to healthcare coverage without discrimination. You 
leave these discretions to how the insurance companies will respond 
with their businesses, they are going to figure out a way so a family 
who has a disabled child will not have adequate coverage. That is what 
is at risk. Senator Markey is right--healthcare should be a right, not 
a privilege, and we are moving in the wrong direction.
  In Maryland, we have hospitals that are located throughout our State 
to meet the needs of the people of Maryland. We have hospitals that are 
located in areas where they have a lot of elderly and a lot of poor 
people, but because of the way we deal with our hospital 
reimbursements, we don't have cost shifting. We can have what is known 
as an all-payer rate, where whoever goes into the hospital, they pay 
the same rate so a hospital can locate in an inner city or poorer 
neighborhood. If you increase the cost sharing for people who don't 
have insurance, hospital facilities will not locate in those 
communities, adding to the costs of everyone's healthcare.
  One of the great benefits, one of the great achievements of the 
Affordable Care Act, is that we now have facilities that are more 
conveniently located to people in this country, whether they live in a 
rural area or urban setting. Some are healthcare centers and some are 
health clinics, but they are more conveniently located because more 
people have third-party coverage and have insurance in order to pay 
those bills.
  So I read with interest that certain segments of the advocacy 
community are going to be given certain concessions in this bill, and 
they think they are going to be OK. One is, I understand--and I am not 
sure what this term means, and maybe someone can explain it to me--
medically complex children. These are children, I assume, who have 
special needs.
  If I understand the bill correctly, there is going to be a carve-out 
in the Medicaid system so that these complex cases will be, at least 
for a period of time, reimbursed. Where are they going to get care?
  Right now they are getting care, in many cases, in a school-based 
health clinic that is going to be closed under the Republican bill that 
is out here because it is not qualified to receive reimbursement. The 
expansion of our qualified health centers under the Affordable Care Act 
is going to be in deep jeopardy. I met with the CEOs of our qualified 
health centers where we have expanded to deal with pediatric care, 
dental care, and mental health. That is in jeopardy of being contracted 
if you don't have the reimbursements from the people who live in that 
community that we have under the Medicaid expansion. That is in 
jeopardy. So don't believe you are protecting any vulnerable population 
when you don't provide the structure in which you can have reasonable 
reimbursements so that doctors, hospitals, and clinics can locate in 
communities and be treated fairly under our reimbursement structure.
  I am deeply disappointed. I am deeply disappointed with what we have 
done to this great institution on this, such an important subject. I am 
deeply concerned, about the impact this is going to have on the people 
of Maryland and our Nation, and I will join my colleagues in doing 
everything I possibly can, during the limited opportunities we have 
only on the floor of the Senate, not in our committees--to do 
everything I can to protect the interests of the people of Maryland and 
our Nation so healthcare can be a right and not a privilege.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for 
articulating the issues in this discussion draft that has been released 
this morning.
  As I hear him talk about these complex kids, how the cap is going to 
work, and when people are going to be affected, it reminds me of the 
book, ``The Smartest Guys in the Room.'' Right? Basically, people cook 
up schemes they think other people can't understand or the broader 
public will not catch on to in the hopes they can pass something. That 
is exactly what is going on here, a hoax and a scheme that is not cost-
effective for the American taxpayer and will literally cut people off 
of access to healthcare, and literally, if the

[[Page 9668]]

House bill was mean, this is doubling down on mean.
  So I thank my colleague from Maryland for articulating the complex 
kids issue because these are concepts. If this is a discussion draft, I 
would hope my colleagues would come to the floor and discuss it--
discuss the concepts that are in this bill and debate them, but that is 
not what is happening. In fact, we know very little detail at this 
point in time because people are assessing the information and trying 
to read and assess in between the lines.
  I can state what I know and have gleaned so far by the accounts, and 
that this is a continuation on the war on Medicaid. I say that because 
with regard to this war on Medicaid, we didn't know where the Senate 
would go in their proposal. We know what the House decided to do. The 
premise and structure of the House bill is to cut Medicaid by capping 
it and continually driving down the amount of Federal obligation to 
this program.
  I will tell you, it is not even a smart idea. If you want to reform 
and deliver better healthcare at a lower cost, there are many ways to 
do that and save dollars and give better patient care, but that is not 
what the House proposal is. It was a budget mechanism. I am not just 
saying that. I am talking to my healthcare providers at home, I am 
talking to university professors, people who know and understand 
healthcare and have studied it for a long time. What the House did and 
now the Senate is doubling down on is nothing but a budget mechanism to 
cut people off of healthcare--as my colleague said, the most vulnerable 
of our population.
  It is a wrong-headed idea. It is not going to help us control costs. 
Medicaid reduces bankruptcy rates, helps people stay employed, and 
boosts our GDP. Why would we want a draconian idea like cutting 
Medicaid as the centerpiece of a budget proposal by our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle? As people have said, because they want to 
take that revenue and give it away in tax breaks for the wealthy. I 
guarantee you that is not what we should be doing.
  The access to Medicaid is so important. Our veterans access the 
healthcare system through Medicaid. Many of them receive care through 
the VA, but also they receive services through Medicaid. Veterans would 
be impacted and would lose care. Our children who are seen at 
hospitals, such as the Children's Hospital in Seattle, are Medicaid 
populations, and they would not have the resources to get access to 
care. Our institutions that are covering individuals at Medicaid rates 
would take a hit.
  All the Senate proposal does is basically move that cap, but it is a 
steeper cap at a point in time that makes and exacerbates this problem 
of cutting people off of access to care. So if the House bill is mean, 
this is just doubling down on mean.
  There is nothing about destructing this safety net that is so 
important to Americans that goes hand-in-hand with the philosophy about 
how to drive down costs to healthcare. If you think about it, if we 
came out here and had a discussion with 100 U.S. Senators and said a 
great way to drive down the cost of healthcare would be to cut people 
off of healthcare, most people would say that is not a smart idea 
because when people are cut off of healthcare, we know that 
uncompensated care exacerbates healthcare needs, challenges other parts 
of our system, and delivering care to them makes it more expensive. 
When we have had discussions and roundtables about the proposal that 
the House had put out, providers in my State told me point-blank, 
covering the Medicaid population has helped drive down and control the 
rate of insurance in the private markets. By saying we are going to cut 
Medicaid at a more drastic rate, we are going to just send a signal to 
the market that rates for the private insurers should go up.
  I don't think that is what my constituents want. They want us to 
innovate. They want us to drive quality care and managed care into 
parts of the United States where it doesn't exist. They want us to take 
care of our most vulnerable population, and they want to make sure we 
are not delivering that off people who are going into the emergency 
room 50 times in a year because they don't have insurance.
  We know the Medicaid rate is critically important. Medicaid costs up 
to one-quarter less than private insurance. It is a way to deliver 
care. We know measures we put into the Affordable Care Act, such as 
moving people off of nursing home care to community-based care, has 
saved Medicaid dollars. More States should do it.
  We know plans such as bundling up the individual market into larger 
programs so they can have clout like others who work for a larger 
employer has also driven down costs. So those are the things we should 
be accelerating, not this notion that we move forward as a country by 
cutting the most vulnerable off of healthcare.
  I ask my colleagues to come out and discuss this concept, discuss 
this idea, how it will affect the healthcare providers in their States. 
I plan to do that with my State. I hope they will come out here and 
tell us why it is a smart strategy to cut people off from Medicaid. I 
know no State that has the money to make up for the Federal share of 
Medicaid that is going to be doubled down in this bill.
  I do not want to see a war on Medicaid. What I want to see is 
innovation. What I want to see is that covering people with some level 
of insurance basically helps save everybody on their insurance bills as 
well. I hope my colleagues will take this discussion draft and be proud 
to come out here and discuss it, but we have heard very little of that 
thus far.
  Let's look at the real numbers, and I guarantee that we will hear 
from Governors, we will hear from States, we will hear from providers, 
we will hear from businesses, and we will hear from people who do not 
think this is a good idea.
  Already there are comments from the National Association of Area 
Agencies on Aging: ``This strategy will also put . . . Medicaid [and] 
states [and consumers] on a fiscally precarious path.''
  We have heard from other people that the Medicaid cap is up to twice 
as bad for States, will cause problems, and also from children's 
healthcare groups: ``Converting Medicaid into a per capita cap . . . 
would dismantle critical protections . . . to care for all enrollees.''
  These aren't just partisan comments. These are the facts. What my 
colleagues don't realize is that by taking a huge chunk out of 
Medicaid, you are taking a huge chunk out of the safety net so many 
Americans depend on. It will not help us lower costs. It will 
exacerbate an escalation of rates for everyone in the market.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time on the Billingslea 
nomination expire at 2 p.m. today and that if cloture is invoked on the 
Svinicki nomination, the postcloture time not expire until 5:30 p.m. on 
Monday, June 26.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in March, Mr. Comey briefed Ranking 
Member Feinstein and this Senator on the Russia investigation. This 
included telling us who was and who was not under investigation.
  After that meeting, I publicly called for Mr. Comey to tell the 
public what he had told us about whether President Trump was under 
investigation. I did this because the public had a right to know. Mr. 
Comey told me and other congressional leaders that the President was 
not under investigation. He even told the President himself, and I 
understand that he repeatedly told this to the President. But Mr. Comey 
didn't listen to my request for transparency. I think transparency in 
government is very important because transparency brings 
accountability, and government needs to be accountable. Mr. Comey 
didn't listen to the President's request. Only months later has the 
truth finally come out.

[[Page 9669]]

  Well, it ought to raise the question with anybody: What happened in 
the meantime? What happened because Mr. Comey refused to tell the 
American people that the President wasn't under investigation? The 
short answer is something you see almost hourly, particularly in this 
city: media hysteria. Countless media articles falsely claimed the 
President was under investigation for colluding with Russia. 
Unfortunately, a number of our Democrat colleagues in the House and 
Senate played right along. Over and over again, the media published 
selective leaks. They published classified half-truths. All this was 
used to make false allegations of sinister conduct by the President. 
And, of course, there were a lot of people who believed it.
  The intelligence community conducted an assessment of Russia's 
efforts to interfere in the election. That assessment said one of 
Russia's goals was to undermine public confidence in our democratic 
system.
  Because Mr. Comey refused to tell the public that the FBI was not 
investigating the President, conspiracy theories and, of course, wild 
speculation have run rampant about the election, the President, and 
Russia. These conspiracy theories and wild speculation have played 
right into Russia's aim of undermining faith in our democratic system.
  That doesn't come out very often in these stories, but we have to 
understand that Russia makes a career of not only undermining 
democratic systems in the United States, look at what they have done in 
Ukraine militarily, and look at what they have done in France with the 
elections and in the Netherlands with the elections. They are talking 
about upcoming elections in Germany, where the Russians will try to do 
the same thing because autocrats don't like democratic systems that 
work and whatever they can do to undermine those democratic systems is 
going to obviously make them look better in comparison.
  Those national security concerns should have taken precedence. Mr. 
Comey said he was worried about a duty to correct the record if 
evidence of collusion involving the President came to light later on. 
But that concern was merely hypothetical--in other words, pure 
speculation. In the unlikely event that it came to pass, the public 
should know if the FBI is pursuing a criminal investigation against the 
President, just as the public should know if the FBI is pursuing a 
criminal investigation against a major party's nominee for President. 
But Mr. Comey agreed with Attorney General Lynch to shade the truth in 
favor of the Clinton campaign's rhetoric and call what was an 
investigation a ``matter'' instead of using the word ``investigation.'' 
This came about because of an order by Attorney General Lynch.
  After a year of the entire might of the U.S. intelligence community 
and the FBI looking for evidence of collusion with the Russians, where 
is that evidence? But after all of this chaos and mountains of innuendo 
about the President and collusion with Russia, the truth finally came 
out: The FBI was not investigating President Trump in the Russia probe. 
The media was wrong. The Democrats were wrong. The wild speculation and 
conspiracy theories ended up harming our country. They played right 
into Russia's hands.
  How did we all learn the truth? In President Trump's letter removing 
Mr. Comey from office. At first, most didn't believe it. The media 
scoffed when they read what the President said in that letter. They 
insisted that Mr. Comey would never tell the President that he was not 
under investigation. We learned earlier this month from Mr. Comey 
himself that he had done exactly that. It wasn't a surprise to me 
because Mr. Comey had told me the same thing.
  I have to note something else here. Mr. Comey didn't just tell the 
President, Senator Feinstein, and me that the President was not under 
investigation. He had also told the Gang of 8. Of course, the Gang of 8 
includes the Senate minority leader, Mr. Schumer. But even after Mr. 
Comey told the Gang of 8 that the President was not under 
investigation, the minority leader told the media that the President 
was under investigation, and, of course, that further helped feed media 
hysteria. The minority leader even tried to say that the Senate 
shouldn't vote on the Supreme Court nomination because the President 
was under investigation, and the whole time, he knew it wasn't true.
  Media hysteria and baseless political attacks filled the vacuum left 
by Mr. Comey's failure to inform the public--to be transparent, to be 
accountable.
  The odd thing about it is none of this fiasco had to happen. If Mr. 
Comey had just been transparent with the public, as I urged him to be, 
it could have been avoided.
  Unfortunately, now it looks as if Mr. Comey and the media might be 
doing the same thing to Attorney General Sessions.
  Two weeks ago, Mr. Comey said he didn't tell the Attorney General 
about the conversation he supposedly had with the President about 
General Flynn. Mr. Comey said this was because he believed the Attorney 
General was going to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
  Mr. Comey said the FBI was aware of the facts that he couldn't 
discuss in an open setting that could have made the Attorney General's 
continued engagement problematic. Well, that vague statement sounds 
very mysterious to people who don't know the whole truth. They will 
wonder: What were those secret facts? What did the FBI conclude about 
those secret facts? Was the Attorney General under investigation? Did 
the Attorney General collude with Russia?
  Once again, Mr. Comey is not being as transparent about senior 
government officials and the Russia investigation as he could or should 
be. Now the speculation is running rampant again, this time about the 
Attorney General instead of the President.
  CNN reported that Mr. Comey told the Intelligence Committee behind 
closed doors that the issue was a possible additional meeting between 
Sessions and the Russian Ambassador. The media has begun to speculate 
all sorts of nefarious things. So here we go again. The rumor mill is 
back in business. It is insinuating improper ties with Russians and 
undermining people's faith in another senior government official, with 
the follow-up that it also undermines people's confidence in our 
institutions of government, and maybe even in our Constitution.
  This is the same destructive pattern, and it plays right into the 
Russians' hands again. Well, this time around, we shouldn't put up with 
it. We ought to say enough is enough. There is no reason Mr. Comey 
couldn't have told the public the whole truth.
  Once again, 3 months ago, Mr. Comey specifically told Members who was 
and who was not under investigation in the Russia probe. He should also 
tell the public whether the FBI ever had an open investigation on 
Attorney General Sessions. He should tell the public whether the FBI 
checked out the times Sessions met the Russian Ambassador. He should 
tell the public whether the FBI looked into the Mayflower Hotel event 
that went on. He should tell the public if the FBI found nothing 
improper about these meetings. If there was nothing to it, he should 
say so publicly. He should not be telling Senators one thing behind 
closed doors and then making public insinuations that are different. He 
is the person who can nip this ridiculous speculation in the bud.
  Mr. Comey should have told the public earlier what he told Members 
about the President, and now he should tell the public what he told 
Members about the Attorney General. Enough of this nonsense.
  The investigations of Russian interference and of circumstances 
surrounding Mr. Comey's firing will continue. I am confident that we 
will eventually get all the facts, one way or another, and we are going 
to go where the facts take us. In the meantime, it is time to stop the 
rumor-mongering. It is time to stop the innuendoes and half-truths. It 
is time to stop leaking national security information to score 
political points. And it is time to stop playing into Russia's hands by 
intentionally sowing false doubt about your political opponents. 
Instead, it is quite obvious that it is time to get back to doing the 
people's business.

[[Page 9670]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a relevant supplemental article from the Washington Post.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 14, 2017]

     The Sessions Hearing Shows Who's Really Colluding With Russia

                         (By Marc A. Thiessen)

       According to the U.S. intelligence community, Russia's 
     objectives in meddling in the 2016 election included not only 
     hurting Hillary Clinton's chances but also undermining 
     ``public faith in the U.S. democratic process,'' ``impugning 
     the fairness of the election'' and calling into question 
     ``the U.S.-led liberal democratic order.'' If the spectacle 
     of the past few months is any indication, Russian leader 
     Vladimir Putin is certainly succeeding in these latter goals.
       And here is the great irony: Those who are falsely claiming 
     that Trump was under FBI investigation for collusion with 
     Moscow are, in fact, the ones inadvertently colluding with 
     Putin to undermine American democracy.
       Case in point is the campaign of McCarthyite character 
     assassination on display in the Senate Intelligence Committee 
     hearing Tuesday. No doubt Putin was smiling as Attorney 
     General Jeff Sessions was forced to rebut what he correctly 
     called ``appalling and detestable'' accusations that he 
     colluded with the Russians and lied to the Senate. Sessions 
     testified that the much-vaunted ``third meeting'' between 
     Sessions and the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel--
     which Sessions reportedly failed to disclose--did not happen, 
     at least not beyond possible incidental contact that he 
     doesn't even recall.
       There was a time when airing unproven allegations of 
     coordinating with the Kremlin was seen as bad form. Now it is 
     common practice in Washington. These kinds of false charges 
     and innuendo directly assist Russia in its efforts to 
     undermine public confidence in our democratic institutions. 
     Those raising such accusations without proof are, wittingly 
     or unwittingly, doing the Kremlin's bidding.
       For months, Democrats (a.k.a. ``The Resistance'') have been 
     spinning the false narrative that President Trump was under 
     FBI investigation to call into question the validity of his 
     presidency. In March, Democrats used it as a pretext to argue 
     that Trump did not have the legitimacy to fill a Supreme 
     Court vacancy. Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer 
     (N.Y.) declared in a floor speech that the Senate should not 
     vote on Neil Gorsuch's nomination because Republicans 
     ``stopped a president who wasn't under investigation'' from 
     filling the seat. Two days later, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-
     Mass.) said the same thing, declaring, ``The FBI has revealed 
     that the sitting president of the United States is under 
     investigation. And it raises a really, I think, important 
     question and that is whether or not a president who is under 
     investigation by the FBI ought to be ramming through a 
     Supreme Court nominee that would have a lifetime 
     appointment.''
       The media gleefully echoed these false claims. The day 
     before Comey testified, CNN blared: ``In testimony, Comey 
     will dispute President Trump's blanket claim that he was told 
     he wasn't under investigation.'' In fact, Comey said 
     precisely the opposite. When Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) 
     asked, ``While you were director, the president of the United 
     States was not under investigation. Is that a fair 
     statement?'' Comey replied: ``That's correct.'' Even then, 
     CNN was not willing to concede its error, declaring in a so-
     called ``correction'' that ``Comey does not directly dispute 
     that Trump was told multiple times he was not under 
     investigation'' (emphasis added).
       No, Comey did not fail to ``directly dispute'' it, he 
     directly confirmed it. The CNN story--and its non-correction 
     correction--was ``fake news.''
       Not only that, Comey also testified that Trump never tried 
     to get him to stop the probe into Russia's election meddling, 
     which Comey explained was a separate matter from the FBI's 
     investigation of disgraced former national security adviser 
     Michael Flynn. Not only did Trump not ask Comey to stop the 
     probe, the former FBI director told Sen. Marco Rubio (R-
     Fla.), ``He went farther than that. He said, and if some of 
     my satellites did something wrong, it'd be good to find that 
     out.'' Rubio pressed Comey, asking whether he was testifying 
     that Trump effectively said, ``Do the Russia investigation. I 
     hope it all comes out. I have nothing to do with anything 
     Russia. It'd be great if it all came out, people around me 
     were doing things that were wrong.'' Comey replied, ``That 
     was the sentiment he was expressing. Yes, sir.''
       Given these facts, Trump has legitimate reason to be 
     frustrated. If you knew you were not under investigation by 
     the FBI, but everyone was saying you were, you'd want the 
     truth to get out. And you might be upset with an FBI director 
     who refused to lift the ``cloud'' hanging over your 
     administration by confirming that he was not investigating 
     you.
       That said, Trump has been fueling the liberal feeding 
     frenzy with his tweetstorms taking his critics to task. If 
     Trump knows he did nothing wrong--and if he really wants to 
     find out whether any of his ``satellites'' did--he should 
     stop talking and tweeting about the investigation, let 
     special counsel Robert S. Mueller III do his work and focus 
     on his job: governing. His daughter Ivanka Trump was recently 
     asked how she dealt with the media frenzy over Russia. She 
     replied, ``I'm trying to keep my head down, not listen to the 
     noise and just work really hard to make a positive impact in 
     the lives of many people.''
       That's a good strategy--and one her father ought to 
     emulate.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. 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 Senator from Massachusetts.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, today we finally got a look at the 
monstrosity of a bill that the Republicans have been hiding behind 
closed doors for weeks. Yes, it is finally clear how the Republicans 
were spending their time, locked in those back rooms.
  Now we know the truth. Senate Republicans weren't making the House 
bill better--no, not one bit. Instead, they were sitting around a 
conference room table, dreaming up even meaner ways to kick dirt in the 
face of American people and take away their health insurance.
  Remember, the Senate Republicans worked for weeks on this new bill. 
They worked really, really hard on it. It is pretty clear now exactly 
who they were working for. This bill has one flashing neon sign after 
another telling us who the Republican Party cares about, and it is not 
American families.
  The Senate bill is crammed full with just as many tax cuts as the 
House bill--tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, tax cuts for 
wealthy investors, and tax cuts for giant companies. All those tax cuts 
don't come cheap. They start to add up after a while.
  Senate Republicans had to make a choice--how to pay for all those 
juicy tax cuts for their rich buddies. I will tell you how: blood 
money.
  Senate Republicans wrung some extra dollars out of kicking people off 
the tax credits that help them afford health insurance. They raked in 
extra cash by letting States drop even more protections and benefits, 
like maternity care or prescription drug coverage or mental health 
treatment.
  Then they got to the real piggy bank, Medicaid, and here they just 
went wild. Senate Republicans went after Medicaid with even deeper cuts 
than the House version--the Medicaid expansion gone, ripped up, and 
flushed down the toilet. The rest of the Medicaid Program? For Senate 
Republicans, it wasn't enough that the House bill was going to toss 
grandparents out of nursing homes or slash funding for people with 
disabilities or pull the plug on healthcare for babies born too soon. 
Senate Republicans wanted to go bigger.
  The Republican bill claims to protect kids with disabilities by 
leaving them out of the calculations that decide how big the Medicaid 
cuts will be in each State. I don't know if the Republicans were 
expecting a round of applause for pitting kids with breathing tubes 
against vulnerable seniors or someone needing treatment for addiction, 
but I do know this so-called exemption will not do a thing to help 
these kids. The Republican cuts still slash hundreds of billions of 
dollars for Medicaid, leaving States with no choice--no choice but to 
cut services that kids with disabilities desperately need.
  Medicaid is the program in this country that provides health 
insurance to 1 in 5 Americans, to 30 million kids, to nearly 2 out of 
every 3 people in a nursing home. These cuts are blood money. People 
will die. Let's be very clear: Senate Republicans are paying for tax 
cuts for the wealthy with American lives.
  Think about what would happen if the Republican bill becomes law next 
week. Picture a woman in her eighties

[[Page 9671]]

who lives at home. She is shaky on her feet. She needs help preparing 
her meals or taking a bath, but her only income is her Social Security 
check. Right now, Medicaid helps pay for home and community-based 
services so she can stay in her home, someone who comes by to help for 
a few hours a week. Because of that help, she gets to stay home, to 
live independently. The Republicans are determined to cut taxes for 
millionaires and billionaires, so their healthcare plan cuts Medicaid 
money that helps millions of seniors stay in their homes.
  Without these services, this elderly woman can't live alone. Where 
does she turn? The usual answer would be a nursing home. Wait. Medicaid 
pays for most nursing home care in this country. The Republicans are 
determined to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, so they have 
cut Medicaid funding so much that there is no help for this woman at 
home and no nursing home bed for her either.
  What does she do? She stays home without help. She can't climb the 
stairs anymore. Her world shrinks. Eventually, most likely, she falls 
and ends up in the hospital. The care is expensive, and she is 
miserable.
  Finally, let's say the hospital gets her back on her feet, but there 
is nowhere for her to go when she is discharged. She heads back home to 
wait for the next fall, maybe the one that will be fatal.
  In their determination to cut taxes for the rich, is this what 
Republicans have planned for frail seniors in our country? Wait until 
they are all used up and then leave them out at the curb for the next 
trash pickup?
  It isn't just seniors who will be hit hard. How about a premature 
baby born with lung defects? His parents both have full-time jobs, but 
no matter how hard they work, no matter how many hours they put in, 
they will never be able to pay for the millions of dollars in 
surgeries, equipment, medicine, and therapy that their child needs. 
Right now, Medicaid makes sure that kids with complex medical needs 
have coverage for feeding tubes and medication and surgery and physical 
therapy.
  Senate Republicans were so determined to offer tax breaks for the 
rich that they have taken away this baby's Medicaid. What happens next? 
Maybe the parents try their best, but they can't pay. Maybe they try a 
Kickstarter campaign, but it is not going to bring in enough to cover 
the medical bills. They take out a second mortgage, and then they go 
bankrupt and lose their home.
  Is that the Republican plan for this family--go live in a homeless 
shelter with your little baby, whose only crime was to be born 14 weeks 
early?
  Senate Republicans can wave their hands and say that everyone will be 
fine, but it is time for the rest of us to take a long, hard look at 
exactly what would happen to the people who have to live with the 
Republicans' reckless cuts.
  Senate Republicans know exactly what they are doing with this 
healthcare bill. Their values are on full display. If they want to 
trade the health insurance of millions of Americans for tax cuts for 
the rich, they better be ready for a fight because now that this 
shameful bill is out in the open, that is exactly what they are going 
to get.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss, for just a couple of 
minutes this afternoon, the issue of healthcare and, in particular, the 
legislation that was unveiled today, what is referred to as a 
``discussion draft.'' It is legislative text, but it is not the final 
word on this issue. So we have to begin in earnest to engage in debate 
because we are going to be very limited in the time that we have.
  I think the best way to describe this legislation can be very simple, 
actually, in terms of the impact on a lot of Americans. Unfortunately, 
I don't think this is really an effort to improve the healthcare 
system. I think it is a scheme. It is a scheme that sells out the 
middle class. It hurts seniors and children and devastates the 
protections and healthcare for individuals with disabilities over time, 
and all of that is done to finance tax breaks for the very rich. There 
are other ways, of course, to describe it, but I will focus mostly on 
Medicaid.
  As it relates to Medicaid, this isn't a repeal and replace, or repeal 
and improve, or repeal and reform. This is repeal and decimate when it 
comes to Medicaid. The cuts may be stretched out, but they are, in 
fact, deeper over time.
  So if you are one of the 1.1 million children in Pennsylvania who 
receives Medicaid or one of over 720,000 Pennsylvanians with a 
disability who benefits from Medicaid, your healthcare could be at 
risk. My test would be that if any of those individuals lose their 
Medicaid benefits, it is a bad bill. I would hope that would be the 
test for every Member of the Senate.
  The other adverse consequence of this legislation is that it will 
cripple efforts to battle the opioid addiction in our country. We just 
had a great consensus at the end of last year where both parties came 
together on two pieces of legislation--one that dealt directly with the 
opioid epidemic, the so-called CARA bill, or the Comprehensive 
Addiction and Recovery Act. Then later in the year, there was another 
bill that provided some additional funding. All of that would be 
compromised, undermined, or degraded, at least, if this legislation 
went through because the biggest payer--certainly, in the top two, in 
terms of our paying for opioid treatment and services--is, of course, 
the Medicaid Program.
  So what we have here before us is a bill that is a tax giveaway to 
the wealthiest. The top one-tenth of 1 percent would receive thousands 
and thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars. One estimate of 
the earlier version of the House bill said, if you were in the top one-
tenth of 1 percent, you would get $197,000 each. Those people don't 
need $197,000 from a tax break from a so-called healthcare bill. They 
would, I think, expect that we would take care of the people that need 
healthcare: Vulnerable children. Some 40 percent of the children in 
America get Medicaid. Almost half the births in the country are paid 
for by Medicaid. People with disabilities are disproportionately 
dependent upon Medicaid, and they should have a right to expect--and 
their families should have a right to expect--that, if you have a 
disability, you should get Medicaid today, tomorrow, years from now, 
decades from now, and as long as you need it. You should have that 
guarantee. This bill takes away that guarantee for those families with 
a loved one with a disability.
  One of the many stories that we get from back home are from parents. 
Many of them are writing because their child has a disability or 
multiple disabilities, and they are dependent upon Medicaid. Here is 
just one:

       My son, Anthony, was born at 25 weeks and he weighed one 
     tiny pound. We were overcome with medical bills which 
     Medicaid thankfully paid for us. Since his birth he has had 
     multiple health crisis, seizures, sleep disorders just to 
     name a few.
       Most recently, Anthony was diagnosed with Autism spectrum 
     disorder, Tourette's syndrome, severe obsessive compulsive 
     disorder and Dyspraxia. He has suffered the most physically 
     and mentally because of his Tourette's. It's severe and he is 
     frequently unable to attend school due to his ``tics.'' They 
     are painful and debilitating. They make him unable to eat, 
     breathe and see at their worst. Far from what is commonly 
     depicted in the movies and on TV.

  Then, this father goes on to say:

       Two years ago I was forced to quit my job of twenty years 
     as a therapist to stay at home and care for Anthony because 
     of the amount of doctors' appointments he has and the number 
     of days of school he misses every year. Luckily with medical 
     assistance--

  That is the Pennsylvania version of Medicaid--

     covering his services I am still able to do so. If we lost 
     coverage, we would not be able to provide the support he 
     needs. We are sure of that.
       I truly realize that unless you are actually living this 
     kind of life, it's easy to turn a

[[Page 9672]]

     blind eye. I can assure you that my story is much like 
     thousands of others that DEPEND--

  And he has that word ``depend'' in all capital letters--

     on funds from medical assistance to cover doctors, 
     medications, therapies and durable medical equipment that 
     children with disabilities require. Families of children with 
     disabilities are desperate to not lose those benefits.
       My son Anthony is currently attending school almost 
     regularly and functioning the best he has for a very long 
     time thanks to the services he received from medical 
     assistance.

  That is otherwise known as Medicaid.
  So that is the reality for a lot of families. Now, I can hear some 
folks in the Senate saying: Well, maybe Anthony will not be affected 
because the Medicaid provisions are going to be up to the States, and 
the States can handle that. We are just going to put a cap on the 
dollars, and we are going to wind down the Medicaid expansion that 
covered 11 million Americans at last count, and the States will handle 
it.
  So we are sending back these challenges and the disproportionate 
burden that States will have to bear to make sure that Anthony--who has 
all those challenges in his life--has the coverage of Medicaid. The 
Federal Government will just wash its hands of that responsibility.
  No, Medicaid is a guarantee now, based upon your eligibility. That 
guarantee should remain. We are a great country. We have the strongest 
economy and the strongest military in the world, and we have the 
Medicaid Program. We don't have to sacrifice those kids or sacrifice 
the healthcare for one child who depends on Medicaid. We don't have to 
sacrifice that child in order to have another part of our budget funded 
appropriately. That is an insult, and anyone who is going to choose to 
support legislation that would fund tax cuts for the wealthiest, while 
at the very same time and in the very same bill would result in others 
losing coverage--and I am not only talking about children with 
disabilities. I am talking about adults who have coverage--20 million 
people in the last couple of years. Any Member of the Senate who 
chooses tax cuts for the wealthy over those children and over those 
individuals, I think, should examine their conscience, to use an old 
expression, because this kind of policy that results in the most 
vulnerable among us losing their healthcare coverage is obscene. There 
are a lot of other words we could use--words we can't use here--because 
that is the definition of an insult to our values and to our country.
  We are a better country than what we will become if this Chamber 
votes in favor of a bill that will decimate Medicaid, the way this bill 
will. I realize it might take a long time. I realize it might be 
another Presidency or many Congresses from now, but the deed will be 
done here that will lead to that kind of misery. We have no sense of 
the misery that will be imposed upon those families because we have 
never had this before.
  We had a program in place for 50 years, and it has helped a lot of 
kids with disabilities. It has helped a lot of families to be able to 
hold down a job while their child gets the benefit of Medicaid because 
of a disability. It has helped a lot of poor children rise up from 
poverty and overcome terrible poverty because when they were kids--when 
they were very, very young--they got early periodic screening diagnosis 
and testing--the kind of early intervention and good healthcare that 
children get on Medicaid.
  A lot of seniors get into nursing homes. A lot of middle-class 
seniors from middle-class families get into nursing homes solely 
because they get the benefit of Medicaid, in addition to Medicare.
  The last thing I would say is that I think Senators in this Chamber 
should think about the basic inequity when they have healthcare. 
Everyone here has healthcare. All the families here have healthcare. 
All of our loved ones who are dependent upon us have healthcare. Yet 
some will vote to take away healthcare from some, and, in the very same 
bill, vote for gross, obscene tax cuts for the wealthiest among us--
most of whom, I would bet, don't want those tax cuts. They would rather 
see us take care of the vulnerable.
  So it is a basic choice. This isn't complicated. This is a very 
simple choice. I hope that in the course of this debate, some will come 
forward with some courage, some guts, and some compassion and do the 
right thing and vote this bill down.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, last month, Republicans in the House of 
Representatives passed a healthcare bill. They call it the American 
Health Care Act. It has been widely described as cruel and poorly 
crafted. Last week, President Trump described it as ``mean.''
  The House bill, by design, would take health coverage away from tens 
of millions of Americans. It ends the guarantee of affordable coverage 
for people with preexisting conditions. It cuts Medicaid, which is the 
principal program for ensuring children, people with disabilities, and 
seniors in nursing homes. It cuts Medicaid by more than $800 billion, 
and to compound that cruelty, the same legislation gives an enormous 
tax cut--over $30 billion--to those at the top of the income scale.
  We just heard this morning some of what is in the Senate bill, the 
Senate version of the American Health Care Act. In fact, not only does 
it not do what President Trump claims the Senate was working on--it 
doesn't address the mean aspect of it--but it actually makes it worse. 
In a State like New Hampshire, it provides for even deeper cuts to our 
expanded Medicaid Program, a bipartisan program that provides for 
treatment for substance use disorders for people dealing with the 
heroin and opioid epidemic. It would tax older Americans more than 
younger Americans for their health insurance and defund Planned 
Parenthood. There are all kinds of reasons. It would eliminate the 
requirement that people with preexisting conditions are able to have 
healthcare coverage. And all of this was done in secret behind closed 
doors.
  My office has been deluged with messages from constituents who oppose 
the Republican leader's bill. This shows whom we have heard from in 
recent weeks. I have received more than 5,400 messages opposing the 
bill and 108 in support, so 5,461 are in opposition, and 108 are in 
support.
  I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle must be 
receiving similar volumes of mail and phone calls from their 
constituents, and they are hearing what I am hearing from my 
constituents: that if we go forward with this legislation that the 
House passed and that the Senate is considering, we are going to have 
people lose their access to healthcare and many people will have to pay 
more.
  So I appeal to Republican leaders. I urge you to stop and reconsider 
what you are doing. I want you to listen to some of the people we have 
heard from in New Hampshire, everyday Americans whose lives would be 
devastated by this legislation.
  Several months ago, I asked people across the State of New Hampshire 
to tell me their stories about the Affordable Care Act, to tell me 
their concerns, to let me know how it has made a difference for them.
  Here we see one of the people I heard from. This is Deodonne 
Bhattarai and her son Bodhi. They live in Concord, NH. As you see, 
Bodhi is in a special chair. Deodonne writes:

       Our three-year-old son is a bright, curious, funny little 
     boy who also has Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

  That is a degenerative neuromuscular disease that causes his muscles 
to be very weak.

       Our insurance initially denied coverage for his wheelchair, 
     but because of the Affordable Care Act--

  The ban on discrimination against those with preexisting conditions--

     my son is now able to explore his world independently.

  She goes on to say:

       I have [read news reports about the Republican 
     legislation], and I fear for our ability to maintain not just 
     insurance coverage but the type of quality coverage my son's 
     life depends upon.


[[Page 9673]]


  Next we have a picture of the McCabe family. They are from Kingston, 
NH, and this is their story:

       Our daughter, Ellie, was born with a rare and serious heart 
     defect called Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome.

  You can see Ellie there. She looks like a healthy, inquisitive little 
girl, and she is looking healthy because she underwent her first 
surgery when she was just 3 days old.
  The McCabes go on to say:

       It terrifies us to think about what would have happened to 
     our family if Ellie hadn't been protected by the pre-existing 
     conditions protections in place thanks to the Affordable Care 
     Act. Without those protections, either we would be in serious 
     debt for the rest of our lives or Ellie would not have had 
     her life-saving surgeries.

  Next, this is Dr. Marie Ramas. She serves at the Lamprey Health Care 
Center in Nashua, NH. That is a clinic I recently visited. She wrote to 
me:

       I have a 24-year-old patient who was born with a congenital 
     condition that did not allow his leg bones to grow 
     completely. This patient was unable to afford proper care and 
     had been walking with an old prosthetic for the last 3 years.

  Imagine not being able to get your prosthetic replaced for 3 years.

       Thanks to expanded Medicaid and to the ACA protections for 
     those with pre-existing conditions, he's now getting quality 
     care and can afford a new prosthetic.

  So his life has been changed by the Affordable Care Act.
  I have also heard stories from scores of entrepreneurs and small 
business owners who have benefited from the Affordable Care Act.
  This is Steve Roll of Keene, NH, and he wrote:

       In late 2015, I left my job to start my own business. I've 
     built a profitable business and expect to hire employees 
     within a year or two. Before the ACA, I wouldn't have taken 
     the risk to start a business because I have a pre-existing 
     condition and I wouldn't have been able to get an individual 
     health insurance policy. If the ACA is repealed, I'm 
     concerned that I'll need to put my business on hold in order 
     to go back to a corporate job just to get the healthcare 
     benefits.

  Well, the healthcare legislation that has been produced by the 
Republican leadership in the Senate would take away the requirement 
that people with preexisting conditions have to have access to 
healthcare.
  We have another businessperson here, Dave Lucier. He is the owner of 
Claremont Spice & Dry Goods in western New Hampshire. Dave wrote this:

       Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance costs were more 
     than a third of my business expenses. Now they're less than 
     an eighth. The ACA made it possible for me to go out on my 
     own and realize my dream of starting a small business here in 
     Claremont.

  And his business is doing well.
  Many women have written to me about how the Affordable Care Act has 
ended discrimination against them by the health insurance industry--
discrimination because of their gender. In particular, they are 
grateful that the Affordable Care Act includes maternity care and 
contraception among the law's essential health benefits.
  This is Maura Fay of Exeter, NH. I talked about her last night when I 
was talking about the impact of this Republican bill on women's health. 
Maura wrote:

       My husband and I are self-employed. Before the ACA, we were 
     paying rates that were simply unsustainable for a middle-
     class family like ours. When I was pregnant in 2013, we were 
     forced to pay a maternity rider of an additional $822 a 
     month. I'm worried about the rollbacks in regulations around 
     essential health benefits, especially since so many of them 
     impact women. Maternity coverage shouldn't come with an 
     additional $800 a month price tag.

  Here in Washington, some folks seem to think that repealing the 
Affordable Care Act is all about politics, that it is about winning 
this debate. But for ordinary people in New Hampshire--people like 
Maura, like the McCabe family, like all the people I have shown 
pictures of this afternoon--for ordinary people in New Hampshire and 
across America, repealing the Affordable Care Act isn't about politics. 
For so many of them, it is about life-and-death. It is about the kind 
of lives they are going to lead. It is about whether they are going to 
be able to continue to afford healthcare, whether they are going to 
continue to pay their mortgage and buy prescription drugs. We need to 
listen to these ordinary people in each of our States whose lives and 
financial situations will be turned upside down if the Affordable Care 
Act is repealed.
  This process has really not been in keeping with our democratic 
process in America. For the Republican leadership here in the Senate 
and before that in the House to pursue a partisan approach to 
healthcare, to deny Democrats and even deny many of my Republican 
colleagues the ability to engage in the writing of this bill--it is 
deeply misguided to deny the public access, to deny a hearing on this 
bill, legislation that we know is going to hurt tens of millions of 
Americans.
  There really is a better way forward for both the Senate and for our 
country. If we put ideology and partisanship aside, if we work 
together, we can strengthen the parts of the Affordable Care Act that 
aren't working. We can continue Medicaid expansion so it can help 
people with substance use disorders, so it can help kids with 
disabilities, so it can help elderly people in nursing homes. We can 
fix what is not working, and we can improve on this law and make it 
better, but we can't do that if we continue to be divided up on our 
partisan sides, if we are not willing to talk about the issue, not 
willing to work together.
  The American people want us to work together here in Washington to 
address their concerns. Well, it is time to respect their wishes. Let's 
strengthen the Affordable Care Act so that it works even better for all 
Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


             Requests for Authority for Committees to Meet

  Mr. BARRASSO. 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; therefore, they will not be 
permitted to meet, but I ask unanimous consent that a 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 Energy and Natural Resources
       Committee on the Judiciary
       Committee on Intelligence
       Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast 
     Guard


                    Nomination of Kristine Svinicki

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in 
support of President Trump's nomination of Kristine Svinicki to 
continue serving as a nuclear safety regulator.
  Ms. Svinicki has served as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for more than 9 years. In January, President Trump 
designated Ms. Svinicki as the Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. She is well qualified. In her time in office, she has 
proven to be knowledgeable, dedicated, and an outstanding public 
servant.
  She also has been very responsive to Congress. Since becoming a 
Commissioner, she has testified 18 times before the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee. Before becoming a member of the NRC, she 
served as staff in the U.S. Senate, as a nuclear engineer at the 
Department of Energy, and as an energy engineer for the Wisconsin 
Public Service Commission.
  She has already been confirmed twice to serve on the NRC. In both 
2008 and 2012, her nomination was approved by the Environment and 
Public Works Committee and by the full Senate, each time by voice vote. 
Earlier this month, the Environment and Public Works Committee approved 
her nomination for a third time, again by voice vote.
  Her nomination has garnered support from groups like Third Way, which 
is a think tank once labeled as ``radical centrists'' by the New York 
Times. Josh Freed, who is the vice president of the Clean Energy 
Program at Third Way, said this: ``Svinicki's work at the NRC has 
resulted in improved readiness to regulate small modular and advanced 
reactors that could provide

[[Page 9674]]

enormous benefits for climate, American leadership, and domestic job 
creation.'' He went on to say that Chairman Svinicki's continued 
leadership at the NRC is needed now more than ever.
  The Senate must act quickly to confirm Ms. Svinicki. Unless she is 
confirmed by June 30, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will no longer 
have a quorum of its members. We can't let that happen. The NRC has an 
important mission of regulating America's nuclear industry. The 
Commission serves to protect public health and the environment. The 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs a quorum of its members in office 
to meet its mission.
  We need to confirm Kristine Svinicki, and I urge all Senators to vote 
yes on her nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired and the 
question occurs on the Billingslea nomination.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the 
Billingslea nomination?
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Ex.]

                                YEAS--65

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--35

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________