John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?

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. CORNYN. I will.

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.

Mr. CORNYN. I do object.

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?

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--

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I enjoyed listening to the comments of my friend, the Senator from Minnesota, and I would just say a couple of things. One is that if 10 or so Democrats would have the courage to work with us, we could pass a true bipartisan healthcare bill, but the message we received from Democratic Leader Schumer and others is that they don't want to get involved in the process. So it is a little hard to take seriously the statement that if we would just be willing to work with them, we could get this done, because we have asked, and they have refused. But it is not too late. If we could get a bipartisan group of Senators to actually improve the status quo, which is a disaster under ObamaCare, then I think we could make progress. But that is not what I hear. I hear Senators criticizing the House bill. I guess that is because they haven't read the Senate bill, and we have said all along that we want to improve on what the House did. I think the draft bill, which is just that--it is a draft; it is a work in progress--does represent in many instances an improvement over the House bill. I look forward to working with a coalition of the willing, whoever that might be. I hear some happy talk, but I don't see many people willing to cross over and actually work with us, roll up their sleeves, and do the hard work to actually pass a bipartisan bill. I just have to say, I hear the criticism about cutting Medicaid. Well, the fact is, under the draft bill that was filed today, the essential safety net for low-income Americans is preserved. We actually will end up spending more money next year than this year and more money the following year because what we do is add a consumer price index increase. As the Presiding Officer knows, being a practicing physician, this is a complex issue, but the fact is, it is absolutely critical to reforming Medicaid and making it work better. In addition to spending more money each year, which is not a cut in most of America--maybe it is in Washington, DC--as we all know, Medicaid is an open-ended entitlement, so if you qualify based on your income, then you get access to Medicaid. Medicaid continues to drive the budgets--not only the Federal Government but also the State government--and crowd out other priorities that are also important, such as law enforcement and education. What we have decided we must do is to put Medicaid on a sustainable path by spending more money each year on low-income Americans. We still have some more work to do. But the idea that just because--compared to an uncapped entitlement with no limits on spending--we end up spending a set amount, as we spent this year or will spend next year and add more each year based on the cost-of-living index, that somehow is a cut, is just ludicrous. That is certainly not my understanding of what a cut is; it is a reduction in the rate of growth. So if you call that a cut, that assumes we are going to spend all of that uncapped amount of money, and we can't sustain the program if we do that. This is one of the three major entitlement programs--Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. I think it is our obligation, our duty, as we are saving the millions of people who are being hurt by the status quo and ObamaCare, to act responsibly to make sure this safety net program is available for low-income people going forward. We all should agree on that--that it is important and that we ought to put it on a sustainable, responsible fiscal path. So this was kind of an interesting experience here this morning. We roll out the discussion draft of the ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill, we put it on the internet, we make sure everybody has access to it, and we ask for their input, their advice, and their suggestions, and we are starting to get suggestions. We welcome suggestions that people have to this initial discussion draft. But you have to start somewhere, and this is where we are going to start. Then we will have a process next week whereby any Senator who has an amendment to the bill has an absolute right to file that amendment and get a vote on it. I can't imagine a more transparent and open process than putting it on the internet, inviting people to comment and discuss, and then having an open amendment process following debate and then vote. That is what we are supposed to do--vote. So I think today represents a big step forward in saving those Americans who are being punished by health insurance choices that limit their right to choose a product at a price they can afford that suits their family's needs. We know what the promises were, and I guess I just have to repeat them again. President Obama said: If you like your policy, you can keep your policy. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. An average family of four will see a $2,500 decrease in their insurance premiums. What we have seen is a $3,000 increase in insurance premiums for the average family of four--not a decrease of $2,500, an increase of $3,000. And people who buy their health coverage on the insurance exchanges in the individual market have experienced a 105-percent increase in their premiums. Now, I don't know about you, but there are not many things that come out of my paycheck on which I can sustain over a period of just a few years an increase like that of 105 percent. Imagine if you had a 105-percent increase in your rent payments for your apartment or your mortgage payments for your house or your car payments or anything else. That is harmful and damaging to hard-working Americans, and it really is a breach of faith with them, when they were told when ObamaCare passed that they would actually save $2,500. This discussion draft that was released today and put on the internet and is available to anybody who wants access to it is a product of years of debate on this floor and discussions among not just Republicans but the entire Senate and our constituents as well. We made our ideas public, and we sought feedback. The Senate Finance Committee alone, on which the distinguished Presiding Officer and I serve, has had no fewer than 36 hearings on ObamaCare since 2011, ranging from the high cost of ObamaCare to transparency in the Medicaid system. Just this year, there have been dozens of meetings throughout our conference. We would love to include Democrats, but they have chosen not to participate. Since May 4 alone, 18 of our conference lunches have been entirely dedicated to healthcare. There is a practical reason for that too--because without Democrats participating in the process, we have 52 Republicans in order to get 51 votes to pass a bill. That means everybody is essential to a successful outcome in repealing and replacing ObamaCare. So no one has been excluded. Everybody's ideas have been solicited. That doesn't even count individual meetings we have had with Senators and constituents. Even after receiving this discussion draft, some of my colleagues across the aisle continue to refuse to enter into debate because they say it is not a final bill. Well, that is the point. We didn't present this as a fait accompli; we presented this as a place to start. And they don't even want to start. All they want to do is criticize. But they don't want to criticize an actual bill; they want to criticize the House bill, because they haven't even read the 142-page Senate bill. This is called a discussion draft for a reason: We are opening up a conversation and a discussion with the American people. But we know Senate Democrats have chosen not to help to clean up the mess left by ObamaCare. I don't really understand how they can turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to their constituents. I am confident, with all of the people who are writing and calling me in Texas, that they have to have people in their States who are calling them and saying: My premiums are skyrocketing. My deductible is so high that I effectively don't have access to insurance. By the way, the insurance companies are pulling out of my State as fast as they can because they are hemorrhaging money. I don't know why they are not motivated to work with us, but apparently that is the decision they have made. Unfortunately, I think it goes back to this: When President Obama visited Capitol Hill the last time, in January of 2017, he had one message to Senate Democrats; that is, don't work with Republicans on healthcare. The President of the United States said don't work with Republicans on healthcare. This flew in the face of three consecutive elections since ObamaCare had passed where the voters had clearly demonstrated their dissatisfaction with how ObamaCare actually worked. That shouldn't have been a surprise to anybody. I remember being here on Christmas Eve 2009 when Democrats passed ObamaCare with only Democrat votes at 7:30 in the morning. No Republicans voted for the bill; only Democrats voted for the bill. Since that time, they have gone from 60 Democratic Senators down to 48. They went from the majority in the House to the minority in the House. They went from holding the White House to Republicans now holding the White House. To me, the message isn't all that confusing, nor is it subtle. It is clear to me that the American people have rejected the failed promises of ObamaCare and have, frankly, punished our Democratic colleagues for passing it in the way they did and as a result of the failure to keep the promises that were made when it was sold. I have heard these concerns from my constituents in Texas for the last 7 years. I have read their letters and their emails, sharing some of their stories here on the Senate floor. This law has been expensive--about $1 trillion in new taxes. People wonder why the economy hasn't grown during the Obama administration and since the great recession of 2008. One reason is because of the huge tax burden and because of the regulatory burdens it imposed on small businesses, which are the primary engine of job growth in the country, and ObamaCare has been part of the reason for that. To my mind, this discussion draft does five things. First, our legislation zeroes in on the unstable individual market. Under ObamaCare, insurance markets across the country have languished under high costs and taxes, and the result has been that 70 percent of counties nationwide have fewer than two insurers to choose from. Less competition means higher prices because companies don't have to compete for the sale of a policy. In my State, one-third of Texas counties have only one insurance option. That is not exactly a choice; that is a monopoly. Our legislation will help the collapsing insurance markets that have left millions of people with no options by creating a stabilization fund that will balance premium costs and address the lack of coverage that so many across the country have been experiencing. I don't care what our critics say, we are not pulling the rug out from anyone. We will continue Federal assistance for healthcare markets through 2021 to make the transition smooth, much unlike our experience with ObamaCare. Ultimately, if we want to encourage a market to lower costs while providing better quality care, we have to get the government out of the way. The only thing I hear from our Senate Democrats is that they want more government involvement in your healthcare. That seems to be their default position. Well, we know from the failed experiment of ObamaCare that it doesn't work, at least insofar as the promises that were made when it was sold. So why would they default to a position of more government as opposed to more freedom to let you choose instead of government choosing for you and to punish you with a penalty if you don't buy the product that government orders you to buy? Our second goal is making healthcare coverage more affordable. Under ObamaCare, taxes and mandates cost the American economy $1 trillion--I mentioned that a moment ago--which, as our constituents felt firsthand, was ultimately paid by patients through higher healthcare cost. Our friends across the aisle think we can raise taxes by $1 trillion and it won't have any impact on the consumer. Well, that is just ridiculous. We all know that those expenses get passed on to the consumer and that they get passed on in the form of higher healthcare costs. So when you tax prescriptions, for example, well, it is going to cost more. When you tax health insurance plans, which ObamaCare did, premiums are going to go up. And guess what. Taxing medical devices increases the cost of those devices and leads to job losses because they leave the United States, and they make those lifesaving medical products offshore in order to avoid the medical device taxes. These taxes and mandates have crippled our economy, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize that as well. That is why our healthcare plan will improve affordability by addressing ObamaCare's taxes, which have hurt American families directly by making their healthcare less affordable. This framework provides a long-term State innovation fund that encourages States to assist high-cost and low- income individuals, making healthcare more affordable. We are also encouraging tax credits to help defray the cost of purchasing insurance, adjusted for age, geographical location, and income, so that those who need financial assistance get the help they need. Health savings accounts will also be expanded under our draft, giving Americans the choice of buying a hospitalization plan which covers major medical costs--not if they choose not to buy a comprehensive health insurance policy but, rather, to save money in a health savings account to be used for healthcare if they need it, and if they don't need it, they can use it for their savings. We give them that option, which they don't currently have under ObamaCare. The third principle is something our Democratic colleagues can certainly agree with us on, I assume, unless their reflexive action is to disagree with us on everything regardless of the facts, which sometimes seems to be the case, and that is, we should protect those with preexisting conditions. No American should worry about their ability to be covered when they move from job to job. Our draft legislation also allows children to stay on their parents' policies through age 26. There are no changes to healthcare for veterans, for Medicare, or changes to Social Security. Our fourth point of action is safeguarding Medicaid, which I addressed a little earlier, by giving States more flexibility. As we know, Medicaid is paid for by both a State and a Federal share, but the Federal Government sets the conditions by which that money can be spent on healthcare in the State as part of a low-income safety net. Bureaucrats in Washington, DC, shouldn't decide how Medicaid is applied in Texas. I don't know what rationale exists there. Why should the Federal Government tell a State how to spend its own money under Medicaid? I believe States know how to handle this best because they are closest to the problem and they can design healthcare programs that meet the needs of those States. I dare say, the healthcare needs in Texas are much different from States like Vermont, Idaho, or other States--smaller States, certainly, with a more homogenous population. We have a very diverse State. We have a large number of noncitizens in my State. So why not send the money to the States and give them the flexibility to design programs to deal with the needs of their people? That is why our draft allows States to choose between a block grant and a per capita support for the Medicaid population starting in 2020. We have done our dead-level best to make sure our draft doesn't leave anyone out, to ensure that the most vulnerable have protection-- including children with medically complex disabilities. Perhaps most importantly is the fundamental goal of this legislation to free the American family from ObamaCare mandates that have hit them where it hurts the most. We are giving Americans back their freedom of choice when it comes to healthcare, which has so long been denied them under the command-and-control regime of ObamaCare. Our healthcare plan empowers families to make their own choices. It repeals the individual mandate which punishes you if you don't buy the government-approved policy and the employer mandate that has resulted from people going from full-time work to part-time work because employers have sought to avoid that penalty. Finally, no longer will folks be forced to buy plans they don't need at a price they can't afford. I believe this is the framework for better care. But we are going to continue to discuss this plan and talk to anybody who is willing to talk to us and work with us. If there is a way the bill can be strengthened, I am open to it. But the status quo isn't working, and our Democratic colleagues know it. This morning, I likened it as happening upon a terrible accident on the highway. We know people have been injured, and we have two choices: We can either stop and render aid--which is what we are trying to do for people hurt by the failures of ObamaCare--or you can drive right on by. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues have simply chosen to look the other way and drive on by. But before them is a real solution, one that has a chance to change the lives of millions of Americans for the better. So we hope they will reconsider and join us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the Senate knows--and I suspect a lot of people outside of the Chamber know--we will move forward on the healthcare reform effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare very soon. A bill will be released as early as tomorrow morning, representing a discussion draft. I think it is important to remind all of our colleagues of the urgency that we face. We already know that insurance premiums have gone up since 2013 alone for those in the individual market--those would be individuals with small businesses--by 105 percent. This is 2013. Can you imagine in 2013 paying a premium only to realize that over the next 4 years, it would quadruple in just a short period of time? Most Americans can't absorb that additional cost. We know that many people are struggling from the high cost and the lack of quality of care and the choices available to them. Again, on the cost issue, when ObamaCare was being sold to the American people, I still remember President Obama saying that the average family of four would see a decrease in their premiums of $2,500. I think the correct figure is based on experience. They have seen their premiums go up $3,000. I shared a story last week about a small business owner in Texas who had lost his healthcare. He lost his doctor, and yet he had to pay astronomically more for what ends up to be less coverage. I would say he is only one person who I have heard from. I have heard from many, many more under similar circumstances. Even those who receive their healthcare from their employer are feeling trapped by ObamaCare. I had a constituent, for example, from Needville, TX, and his story, yet again, is all too familiar. After his employer renewed their healthcare plan, premiums rose 50 percent, and his current doctors refused to accept his plan from the ObamaCare marketplace. While his healthcare costs rose, of course, his salary did not follow suit. He has been forced to dramatically cut back on his standard of living and is living from paycheck to paycheck. In his letter, he said he is worried about being able to provide for his family. Can you imagine what that must be like? And not thinking of himself, but what this means for his coworkers, as well, and his community. This is one of the endless stories that my constituents have sent me over the past few years, and I know Texas isn't alone, which causes me to wonder who our colleagues are listening to or not listening to in their States. I mentioned yesterday that I had one colleague, whose name I won't mention out of respect for his confidential communication--this is a Democratic Senator--who has a son who has seen his insurance premiums go up to $7,500. Sorry, that is the deductible. But his premium has gone up $5,000. He told me that his son's out-of-pocket costs for healthcare was $12,500 a year. That is another casualty of ObamaCare. Yet, when we are looking around to see how many Democrats are willing to join us to come to the rescue of people who are being hurt by the destruction of the healthcare markets, we see no one raising their hand or coming forward. For our Democratic friends to attack us for trying to fix the havoc that they wreaked in our healthcare system is really ridiculous. Our friends on the other side of the aisle had their chance. They passed ObamaCare by a party-line vote. In the interim, it demonstrated that this is an experiment in big government and massive spending that has simply failed. Our friends on the other side know that. They also realize that, regardless of who won the election in November, we would be moving towards a new, better healthcare alternative, but they are simply unwilling to participate and are sitting on their hands and waiting. Indeed, they are hoping that we will fail in our efforts to save many Americans--millions of Americans--from a healthcare system they were promised but one that was not delivered. Instead of working with us, they effectively are throwing what could only be called a temper tantrum. They are trying to shut down any productive activity in the Senate, including bipartisan committee work. I was in three committee hearings this morning, one involving the Intelligence Committee and our investigation into Russian active measures involving the 2016 election. I was in another important Finance Committee hearing where we talked about the importance of modernizing the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and then another one in the Judiciary Committee, where we talked about the influx of dangerous gangs into the United States, including MS-13, from Central American countries. Yet our Democratic colleagues are so bent out of shape over the healthcare debate that they are willing to shut down legitimate bipartisan concerns for each of those issues by not letting our committees operate as they should. Here is the rub. If they actually had a better plan, we would be more than happy to listen. We would be more than happy to work with them. But the only thing they have offered has been offered by the Senator from Vermont--one of their Presidential candidates--Mr. Sanders, who said that what he wants is nothing less than a complete Federal Government takeover of healthcare, the so-called single-payer system. That would wipe out all private insurance, and you would be looking to the government for all of your healthcare. We know that hasn't worked particularly well in places like Canada and England and elsewhere. We also know that it is completely unaffordable. The Urban Institute, which did a study of Senator Sanders' single-payer healthcare system, said that just in 2017 alone, it would add more than a half trillion dollars to Federal spending, and it would add trillions and trillions of dollars more over ensuing years. This isn't a solution. This is creating a bigger problem. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues have let the far left faction of their own conference hold them hostage to pushing for a single-payer system that would make ObamaCare look like a wild and resounding success. As I said, we need only look to our neighbors to the north, who under a single-payer system have their healthcare decisions decided for them by the government, while they see their taxes go up every single day. Canada is marketed as an affordable outcome, but only if your procedure is deemed necessary by the government. In other words, if the government doesn't think the procedure you need is necessary, good luck with that. Would you want somebody in the government making your medical decisions for you or your family without considering your individual medical history? I certainly wouldn't. Under a single-payer system, this could lead to many families having to buy supplemental health insurance on top of the taxes they have already paid or simply pay cash, rewarding high-income individuals with a better level of healthcare above that offered to the rank-and-file citizens under a government program. Single-payer systems are not a solution, certainly not in this country. Not only is choice and cost threatened under a single-payer system, but so is quality of care. Just last year in Canada, it took an average of 20 weeks for patients to receive medical care that was deemed necessary--the longest recorded wait time since wait times began to be tracked. One report estimated the Canadians are waiting for nearly 1 million healthcare procedures. Can you imagine having to wait up to 38 weeks for some medical procedure, the whole time worrying about your health or the health of your loved one? Single-payer is a costly, inefficient, and unfeasible option, and, perhaps because of that, we are not hearing many people on the floor stating what I believe to be the case, which is that it is the only choice being offered by our friends across the aisle. They are not willing to come here and debate the merits of what we are proposing, which is a market-driven, individual-choice system, which is designed to keep premiums down in a way that makes it more affordable. They are not willing to debate that and a government takeover known as a single- payer option with all of its assorted problems. The reforms we are seeking are patient-centered and market-driven. These are the sorts of things that many of our colleagues across the aisle said they would like to see as well, but they have somehow fallen in line with part of their political base, which makes it impossible for them to have an open, rational discussion about the merits of each proposal. We are left with no option but to finalize our discussion draft and introduce that tomorrow so that the world can see it and so it can be put on the internet, so we can have a fulsome debate and we can have unlimited amendments in the so-called vote-arama process, which I know is very popular around here. We will vote dozens of times or more on proposed amendments to the bill. That is the kind of transparency and openness that I think are important when you are dealing with something as important as healthcare. Here are the goals of what we are going to propose tomorrow in this discussion draft. First, we need to stabilize the markets that have left millions in the country with no choices when it comes to insurance providers. Under ObamaCare, insurance markets have collapsed. In Texas, one-third of Texas counties have only one option for health insurance, which is no choice whatsoever. Of course, in addition to threatening competition, it also lowers quality while doing nothing about rising costs. Second, we have to address the ballooning price of ObamaCare premium increases. I mentioned, just in the ObamaCare exchanges since 2013, they have gone up 105 percent. If we do nothing about it, they are going to go up by double digits again next year, so doing nothing is not an option. Again, without competition, there is no room for these prices to go anywhere but up, and we have to come to the rescue of the millions of Americans who are simply being priced out of the health insurance market. Third, something our Democratic colleagues have repeatedly called for is that we have to protect people with preexisting conditions. If we want our healthcare system to work, we must be able to provide coverage, particularly for preexisting conditions, for all Americans. We will do that in the discussion draft proposed tomorrow. Lastly, I believe we need to give the States greater flexibility when providing for the low-income safety net known as Medicaid, in a way that is more cost-efficient and effective. For example, in my State, we have asked for a waiver in order to provide managed care for people on Medicaid. More than 90 percent are on managed care, which means if you have a chronic illness--if you have a particularly complicated medical problem--you have a medical home and somebody keeping track of your treatment, making sure you get the treatment you need and are entitled to. Now we have the opportunity to make Medicaid a sustainable program. We know that it is not, as currently written. What we are proposing is to spend more money each year on Medicaid but to do so at a cost-of- living index that will be affordable and sustainable by the American taxpayer. We have the opportunity to address the quality issues and redtape issues and provide this important entitlement to make sure that it remains on a stable path. The American people have made clear, time and again, that the status quo of ObamaCare is not working. All you have to do is look around. There were 60 Democratic Senators in 2010 who voted for ObamaCare. They were in the majority--a big majority. How many are there today? Well, there are not 60 anymore. They have gone from the majority to the minority, I believe, in large part because of the unfulfilled promises of ObamaCare. I encourage our colleagues across the aisle--indeed, I encourage all of us to listen to the stories from our constituents. There are too many families asking us to step up and come to their aid. We need to do more than just give floor speeches or loft impossible single-payer options, which simply won't work. We need to actually deliver on the promises we made to deliver healthcare reform and to do so to the best of our ability. I am under no illusion that this will be perfect. Indeed, when you are operating under the constraints of the budget rules, with Democrats taking a walk and sitting on their hands, it is impossible for us to come up with the best possible product we could under the circumstances. But I dare say, it will be better than the status quo, which is a meltdown in the insurance markets, and we will take large steps forward in not only stabilizing the markets but bringing premiums down, while assuring coverage for preexisting conditions and putting Medicaid on a sustainable path forward. We invite our Democrat colleagues to join us, if they will. But under present circumstances, it doesn't look as though they plan to do so.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I could take 30 seconds more--because my colleague from Louisiana is here--I, frankly, think the objection to nine committees meeting in the Senate is indefensible. I mentioned the three committee hearings we had this morning, but they are just an indicator of important issues, such as the investigation by the Intelligence Committee of Russian involvement in our election; the Judiciary Committee looking into the role of MS-13, one of the most dangerous and violent street gangs in America, with about 10,000 gang members present in the United States. We are looking at things like trade and the importance of modernizing NAFTA and the 5 million jobs that binational trade supports with Mexico or the 8 million jobs with Canada. For our Democratic colleagues to object to our being able to meet in committees because of their pique over healthcare--which they have voluntarily taken themselves out of--is just beyond indefensible. I hope the American people realize exactly what they are doing. This is the temper tantrum I talked about a moment ago. This is not about having an open and honest debate and trying to solve a problem that, frankly, is not just our problem; it is a problem for all Americans. We ought to do better than that. We ought to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that. But this is the kind of temper tantrum, unfortunately, you get when a political party is not willing to participate in the debate and where they have no ideas that are actually workable, other than a single-payer system that will bankrupt the country and will fail to deliver quality healthcare to all our citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we continue to make progress on legislation to clean up the mess left by the meltdown of ObamaCare, at least insofar as it affects the lives of millions of people who buy their insurance on the individual markets. These are individuals and small businesses that don't have the benefit of large employer healthcare plans, and they have been devastated by ObamaCare. This is a rescue mission. ObamaCare is collapsing for millions of people, and we have to act in the interest of countless families and small businesses that are suffering tremendous harm. I have told the stories myself; others have likewise told the stories. We have seen those reported in the media. For many people, healthcare costs, their insurance premiums are skyrocketing. We also know that because of the distortion in the insurance markets, many insurance companies are simply pulling out of counties and States around the country, so people have no choices when it comes to purchasing their healthcare on the exchanges. Of course, many people continue to lose access to their doctors. We need to contrast this with what was promised when ObamaCare was passed. I know it sounds repetitive, but I am afraid that if we lose sight of what the promises were with ObamaCare, we can't actually calculate the tremendous harm and the deception that was involved in actually delivering on that promise. President Obama said that if you liked your policy, you could keep it--not true. He said if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor--also not true. He also said that a family of four could see an average decrease in premiums of $2,500 a year--also not true. What is the response of our Democratic friends? We saw last night that they took to the Senate floor, and they gave impassioned speeches. First of all, they criticized the Republicans for coming forward to try to rescue the people who were being hurt by the failures of ObamaCare. They criticized us for that. Then they said that it was a secret bill after they had rejected every entreaty--every request--for them to work with us on a bipartisan basis to rescue the people who are being hurt by the failures of ObamaCare. They rejected that. What did they do? They came to the Senate floor. They said that they hate the bill that they have not seen yet. Then they said: Oh, it is secret. So I guess it should be one or the other. Either they hate it because they know what is in it or it is secret. It cannot be both. The fact is that we are working hard to meet our own internal deadline because we want to make sure that the people who will be hurt in 2018, when the insurance companies raise their premiums by digits-- and they are in the process of getting those approved. It will occur in the July-August timeframe when insurance companies will have to calculate what the premium is that they will have to charge. Then they will have to go to the State regulators and get approval for that premium increase. What we are being told is that the 105-percent increase in premiums on the exchanges since 2013--that is right, a 105- percent increase--is going to go up 20 percent or more next year unless we come to the rescue of those who are being harmed by ObamaCare. We would say to our Democratic colleagues: Please do not wear yourselves out by doing something that is going to accomplish nothing. Channel all of that energy and that passion into trying to do something that will actually help the people who are being hurt today by the failures of ObamaCare. They went even further. They said, well, they may decide just to obstruct the Senate's business on other matters that are not healthcare related until they can see the bill, which they will get to see soon. As soon as we see the final product, we will get it scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Then we will have, literally, a vote- arama, where there will be an opportunity to debate in a fulsome and comprehensive sort of way and an opportunity to offer dozens--if not hundreds--of amendments to the bill, and we will vote. We will vote, as that is what we do. There is nothing happening in secret here. In the fullness of time, we will all see the product we have been working on. As a result of their refusal to work with us, we have been working on it the best we can to try to accomplish something better than the failed status quo of ObamaCare. We are told that they may obstruct the Senate's other business, including committee work. That is unrelated to the healthcare debate but, I guess, is just their lashing out in trying to find some way that they can make life a little more difficult here in the Senate with regard to our accomplishing other important work as well. I happen to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. One of the things that we are doing is a comprehensive investigation of Russia's active measures undertaken during the last election. We have a committee meeting this afternoon. Are Democrats really going to obstruct the Senate Intelligence Committee's work in conducting and completing its investigation into Russian activities in the 2016 election? Are they really going to do that? It strikes me as nuts. On Thursday, for example, we also have a Judiciary Committee meeting that is scheduled to consider a critically important bill that I introduced with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, to help fight human trafficking. Are Democrats going to obstruct our ability to conduct our business and block our consideration of bills involving human trafficking and providing relief for the victims? This bill reauthorizes key programs that support survivors, and it provides additional resources to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials who are on the frontlines of fighting this heinous crime. Will the Democratic leader from New York jeopardize the committee's ability to actually consider and pass this law? Does he plan to block a Member of his own political party from advancing her bill to fight human trafficking as well? This strikes me as wrong for a number of reasons, and I think it would actually be appalling if our Democratic colleagues, out of their frustration--frankly, borne out of their failure to do their job and work with us to find a solution to the meltdown of ObamaCare--lashed out in a way that affected victims of human trafficking and affected the Senate's ability to conduct its investigation into the Russian activities involved in our election. Now is not the time to grandstand and make damaging, symbolic gestures like this because, while our Democratic colleagues talked a lot last night, we did not hear anything from them about the current realities of ObamaCare and how it has failed the American people. They seem to be whistling by the graveyard. We did not hear anything about rising costs or the lack of choices. I talked to one of my Democratic colleagues this morning. He told me that his own son was looking at $7,500 premiums a year and at a $5,000 deductible. This friend, a Democrat--and I will not reveal his name because I do not think it would be appropriate to do so--told me that his own son had to spend $12,500 out of pocket before his insurance actually kicked in. That is a disaster, not just for his son but for millions of people who are negatively affected by ObamaCare. Yet our friends across the aisle want to flail about and threaten to block trafficking legislation or an investigation into the Russian involvement in the election. The only thing they have not done is offer a constructive alternative. That is the only thing they have not done. They have tried about everything else. You know why, of course. It is that we know what the alternative is. Basically, they did ObamaCare all by themselves. I remember. I was here on the Senate floor, in 2010, on Christmas Eve. I think it was at about 7:30 in the morning when we had the vote out of the Senate that passed ObamaCare. It was a pure party-line vote. So the Democrats have had it all to themselves--the ability to design a healthcare system that they thought America should have. It has failed time and again. Do you know what their current proposal is right now? It is a single- payer option that puts our country even more in debt and that we know does not work. The reason we know it does not work is that it will, no doubt, emulate things like the British National Health Service, which has resulted in two-tiered healthcare--healthcare for people who cannot otherwise afford to pay out of their pockets to get better healthcare, with all of the problems of government-run healthcare added to it, but far-left elements of the Democratic Party want a plan that goes even further than ObamaCare. That, I believe, could ultimately be their goal--one that would increase government spending on healthcare by $518.9 billion just this year, ballooning to $6.6 trillion between 2017 and 2026, according to the Urban Institute. Take a look at the State of California, where a similar proposal--a single-payer system--was pushed at the State level there to enact a single-payer system that would add $400 billion each year to the California State budget. I think that is roughly double the amount of the whole budget for the State of California--$400 billion each year. It strikes me that at least one conclusion you might draw from this is that our Democratic friends' solution, rather than trying to work with us in a bipartisan way to save people who are being hurt from the failures of ObamaCare, is to say: Let's throw more money at it. That is not going to work. What it will do is add to our national debt without solving the healthcare problem, and it will further burden future generations who will have to pay that money back at some point. We already have about $20 trillion in national debt. These young people up here who are serving as pages are going to have to deal with that, I guess, unless we have the courage to do it ourselves. It strikes me as profoundly immoral for us to spend the money today and say: Well, our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay it back later. That is immoral. If we thought ObamaCare crushed any semblance of competition in the healthcare marketplace, the single-payer plan from our friend Senator Bernie Sanders, from Vermont, who is the chief spokesman for the Democrats in the Senate on what an alternative might look like, removes competition completely because it is a government takeover. It takes away even more authority from State and local governments, and it takes away choices from individuals. Forget ``if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.'' Forget all of that because it is the opposite of what American families have repeatedly asked for. This is what the extreme factions in the Democratic Party want. They want to expand government. They want an even larger takeover of healthcare, and they want to simply throw more money at it--as if we are not spending enough money already. Throwing more money at the problem certainly will not fix it. I suggest that it will only make things worse. We need to be realistic about what it will take to rework our healthcare system and put patients first. I am under no illusion as to what Republicans are going to be able to come up with on our own, given the constraints of the fact that the Democrats will not work with us at all and appear not to be in the business of lifting a finger to help the millions of people who are being hurt. I am not under any illusion that what we are going to be able to come up with--and it is an interim step--is going to be perfect, as no legislation ever is, but I think we are obligated to do our best. The fact that our Democratic friends will not help at all makes it a lot harder, but I do not think we can say: It is too hard. We cannot do it. We give up. We are committed on this side of the aisle and invite our colleagues on that side of the aisle to work with us to fix the problems that are caused by ObamaCare and to implement real healthcare reforms that will work. First of all, we need to stabilize the market--I mentioned this earlier--and rescue millions of folks who are losing all of their access to coverage because insurance companies are simply quitting because they are bleeding money. They cannot charge a high enough premium that somebody will actually pay, so they leave the market. In Texas, alone, there are dozens of counties that have only one insurance marketplace option. If we do nothing, I fear there will be no choices. When there is only one choice, the economic backlash is pretty simple. There is no competition to drive down costs and improve the quality of coverage. I think this is, really, in some ways, a test of our convictions. If you really do believe that competition in the marketplace improves quality and cost for the consumer, as I do, then going to a single- payer system or even trying to repair ObamaCare is the opposite of what we should do. We need to return the market to a competitive one so that families can have the ability to make choices about their healthcare, what suits their needs, not what government is going to force you to buy, and if you do not buy the government-approved plan, it is going to punish you by fining you. That is what the status quo is like under ObamaCare. ObamaCare is so bad that, currently, we have almost 30 million people who are still uninsured. About 6.5 million of them simply pay the penalty--I think it is $695 a year now--instead of buying the government-approved healthcare plan. They figure that paying the penalty is better than buying the insurance for them. Then there are others--millions more--who simply opt out because of hardship. If the goal of ObamaCare were universal coverage, it has failed that goal as well. So we need to stabilize the market. Secondly, we need to address ObamaCare's skyrocketing premium increases. We all know that if ObamaCare stays in place, premiums will stand only to rise for consumers. That is something I think our friends across the aisle are missing as well. Doing nothing is not an option because people are going to be even more priced out of the marketplace, assuming they can find an insurance company to sell them healthcare. In Texas, a Houston-area insurer has asked for a 16-percent annual rate hike for its 2018 ObamaCare coverage--a 16-percent increase over this year they want for next year. That is what doing nothing will do. It warns it might even need a greater increase just to cover its costs. Private businesses can't actually operate in the red like the Federal Government does. Private businesses can't just print more money or run up $20 trillion in debt. So when they can't make money, they simply have to raise premiums or they have to quit the market. The third thing we need to do is this. Remember, the first thing I said is stabilize the market. The second is attack premiums to bring them down, and the third thing we need to do is make sure we continue to protect American citizens from preexisting conditions. This is something I think everybody believes that needs to happen, without regard to political or ideological affiliation. No one should be denied basic healthcare because they have a preexisting condition, and we want to preserve those protections. That is the third goal. The fourth goal is to make Medicaid, which is the medical safety net for millions of people, sustainable into the future. Right now we know it is not sustainable, like our other entitlement programs. The way we want to do that is by giving States more flexibility. We want to make sure that those who rely on the program don't have the rug pulled out from under them, and we want to make sure that it continues to grow year after year, but at a sustainable rate. Right now, there is no cap, no rate of increase provided. So it is an unlimited entitlement. One of the suggestions from the House bill is to grow it each year at the rate of the consumer price index for medical costs; that is, medical inflation plus 1 percent. In other words, more money would be spent next year than this year. Even more money than next year will be spent the following year and so on, but it will be done at a sustainable rate. Finally, we want to free the American people from the onerous ObamaCare mandates that require them to purchase insurance they don't want and can't afford. It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that if you take the penalty away and don't force the American people to buy insurance they don't want, many of them--the younger, healthy ones, in particular--will decide not to buy it. That is called freedom of choice. That is not what ObamaCare did. ObamaCare forced people to buy something they didn't want and penalized them if they didn't. So many people will choose not to purchase it and decide to handle their healthcare in other ways--perhaps, at the emergency room, where under Federal law everybody who comes in as a medical emergency is entitled to be treated. It is not what I would tell my daughters. It is not what I would recommend for anybody, but if somebody wants to make that choice, it is certainly their right. So I would just conclude by observing that it is shameful that Members on the other side of the aisle sit on their hands and do nothing to fix a law that continues to hurt American families. We know that regardless of who won the last election--whether it was Hillary Clinton or whether it was Donald Trump--we would have to take steps to address this failed law. So I would implore our Democratic friends to listen to their own stories, which some have recounted to me in confidence. So I won't repeat their names here, but they know this is a problem. They have heard from their constituents just like we have. So we would implore them to work with us to try to help us help our constituents. That is what I thought we were here for. Americans are ready for healthcare reform that actually works, and it is our responsibility to do our very best to provide that to them, and that is what we intend to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.