Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to express concern with section 709 of H.R. 2430, concerning over-the-counter, OTC, hearing aids. I have a daughter who has worn hearing aids since she was a toddler. I have firsthand experience with the kind of expertise needed by providers to ensure that those who require a hearing aid have their specific and unique medical needs met. I believe that everyone on all sides of this issue desire the same thing, and I appreciate Chairman Alexander working with me to get a study relating to this matter. I believe that we are all working, in sincerity, towards a goal of providing those who would benefit from hearing aids with access to safe and effective products that will help them live the kinds of lives which they choose and desire. That being said, I am concerned about a policy which will create a division between a healthcare provider and a patient who needs that provider's expertise. Thank you.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, the Congressional Budget Office released its estimate of H.R. 2430, the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, in July 2017. Information related to this House-passed bill can be found at the Congressional Budget Office's website with the following link: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/ 115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr2430.pdf ____________________

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee wishes to honor and recognize Marion Curry on her retirement from the Congressional Budget Office. Marion has worked in the budget analysis division of the Congressional Budget Office in various capacities for more than 38 years and has been a full-time employee at CBO since 1987. During that time, she served as the administrative assistant for the projections unit, and over the past several years, she expanded her responsibilities to also encompass the health systems and Medicare unit, as well as the low-income health programs and prescription drugs unit. During her long tenure at CBO, Marion has skillfully carried out a variety of tasks--carefully checking cost estimates as she produced drafts, ensuring that timesheets were done correctly, directing callers to the appropriate person, and in general assuring that administrative matters were taken care of without a hitch. Such duties have undergone many changes over the years--from using telephones as the primary method of contact, typing tables by hand, and sending paper copies of documents, to the current approach of using email as the primary method of contact, transferring spreadsheets to the editorial staff for producing tables, and sending PDFs of documents with supplemental data posted on the web. Through all of those changes, Marion readily adapted to new technology and procedures and carried out her responsibilities with good humor, professionalism, a giving spirit, and a dedication to serving the Congress and the public. Marion contributed to CBO's work in ways that went well beyond her administrative responsibilities. She routinely took the lead to make sure that key life events of staff--such as birthdays, weddings, and births--were celebrated, and she was often the first person others in the organization consulted when they needed assistance with planning and organizing events. In addition, her contributions to the charitable works of the agency were well-known and appreciated. Marion is extremely warm, generous, and giving--she was always there to provide support, encouragement, and someone to talk to. Her contribution to the working environment at CBO was beyond measure, and she will be greatly missed.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee wishes to honor and recognize Jeffrey Holland on his retirement after 26 years of distinguished service to the Congress with the Congressional Budget Office. Jeff is highly regarded by Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol for his deep knowledge of the budget process and his commitment to the nonpartisan role that CBO plays in the budget process. Jeff arrived at CBO in 1991 soon after graduation from Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz School of Public Policy with a master's degree in public policy and management. He joined the projections unit in the budget analysis division, which is responsible for preparing projections of Federal spending, deficit, debt, and other data related to the Federal budget, as well as providing ongoing support to Congress. In 1999, Jeff became chief of the projections unit, and for the past 18 years, he has successfully overseen the production of multiple reports on the Budget and Economic Outlook, annual analyses of the President's budget request, and also several reports on sequestration, the debt ceiling, national income, and product accounts, and the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Through all of these tasks, he has been the steady hand of the projections unit, generous with his time and knowledge, and highly responsive to questions and requests for data or information from the staff of the Budget Committee. His persistence, attention to detail, and reliably clear thinking have been vital to the smooth functioning of the budget analysis division. Senate staff and CBO colleagues have come to depend on him for his sage advice and deep understanding of the budget laws. In addition, Jeff has often lent his expertise to legislative branches of other countries as they seek to develop their own capacity for nonpartisan budget analysis. He is a sought-after explainer of the Federal budget process to students visiting our Nation's Capital. In short, Jeff's expertise, knowledge, and generosity of time and spirit will be sorely missed. We wish him well as he moves on after years of outstanding service to the Congress. We are grateful for that service, and we wish him the best in the years to come.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on behalf of Peter John Camino, who is being inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Every year since 1992, Wyoming has recognized individuals who have made substantial contributions to agriculture in our State. As a third-generation rancher dedicating much of his life to Wyoming's agriculture industry, Peter John is well deserving of this honor. Peter John grew up on his ranch that his grandfather founded near Buffalo, WY. After attending college, he joined the military and served honorably for several years. Ultimately, the ranch lifestyle called him home and he returned to Wyoming to take over the family operation. Peter John has said the sheep business was thriving upon his return and fondly remembers the community support and good times. Fortunately for Wyoming, Peter John not only stuck with the agriculture industry during the good times, but took on leadership positions and persevered through the hard times as well. Peter John served as president of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association and played a crucial role in strengthening the organization. He has been described by coworkers and friends as a courageous leader who would always take time to listen to members of the organization. As president, he guided the sheep industry through some tough times and advocated for its cause at the local and Federal levels. Leadership, courage, and collaboration are only some of the admirable qualities Peter John possesses. He has also shown dedication and selflessness while volunteering in his community and passing on his knowledge of the agriculture industry to younger generations. In addition to volunteering with his church and Knights of Columbus, serving on the board for Johnson County Fire District, and advising the University of Wyoming's Sheep Program, he also serves as sheep superintendent for the Johnson County Fair and often invites schoolkids to his ranch to teach them about ranching, the sheep industry, and the value of wool. I want to extend my congratulations to Mr. Camino and thank him for his service and years of hard work. Peter John truly lives the ``Code of the West,'' and I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize his achievements as an inductee into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming is well served by his lasting and continuing contributions to our State.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 389.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have loaned time before to the other side of the aisle. If they would loan us some time so that the person propounding this amendment could have a moment to explain his amendment--they have agreed. So I yield time to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees; that at 5 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the Strange amendment No. 389; further, that following disposition of the Strange amendment, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3364, which was received from the House; that there be 20 minutes of debate, equally divided between the leaders or their designees; that following the use or yielding back of that time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of H.R. 3364; finally, that following disposition of H.R. 3364, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 1628.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need, up to the limit that we have. This week, we have been debating why it is so urgent for Congress to act on rescuing Americans from the collapsing ObamaCare healthcare law. We have heard from our colleagues across the aisle, questioning our motives and our actions. Congress literally has millions upon millions of reasons to replace and repeal this law. Hard-working American families are begging us to provide them with some relief. These are families who are forced to purchase high-deductible coverage insurance and are facing thousands of dollars of out-of-pocket costs before their coverage even begins. For them, the status quo--doing nothing--is not an option. For Senate Republicans, rescuing the American people from this law is our only option. But the defenders of this law don't seem to grasp--or are unwilling to admit--that ObamaCare is not affordable insurance and has been a crisis-inducing failure. This is why Republicans are working to fix the damage. Insurance markets are collapsing, premiums are soaring, and healthcare choices are disappearing. Americans expect the Congress and the President to address the problem. With ObamaCare getting worse by the day, the time to act is now. Just look at my home State of Wyoming, which is down to one insurer in the individual market, both on and off the exchange. This should be treated as the national scandal it is. Some on the other side of the aisle like to focus on how many people are insured under the law, but let's look at how many are not insured. Almost 28 million Americans remain without insurance under ObamaCare because they cannot afford insurance or no longer have access to it due to ObamaCare's collapsing markets in their State or county. But coverage numbers can be misleading because, even with insurance, many hard-working families still cannot afford the care due to surging deductibles. Insurance with sky-high deductibles is coverage in name only. When it comes to Medicaid coverage, what most news stories will not tell you is that the newly insured gained coverage only through a flawed Medicaid Program that is providing inferior quality and threatening to bankrupt States across the Nation. The Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, famously said that Congress would have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. Well, Americans soon discovered that President Obama and congressional Democrats focused almost exclusively on coverage numbers boosted by government mandates handed down from Washington, instead of true healthcare reforms that might have actually provided better care, provided affordable care. Obama's alleged coverage numbers are only on paper. Coverage was their sacred cow, worshipped above all others, because for President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, coverage equaled healthcare. Large coverage numbers touted by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats have proved to have the healthcare utility of a pet rock. Do you remember the pet rock? Millions of people purchased a rock. It was very nicely packaged in a box. They would bring it home and open it up and find a rock. Pet or not, it served no purpose other than its name: a pet rock. This is essentially how ObamaCare has worked, except people were forced to purchase this marketing gimmick. Americans have purchased insurance through ObamaCare exchanges with the promise of accessible coverage. What they actually received, however, is coverage in name only. It serves no healthcare purpose, and it doesn't work--merely packaging a pet rock, if you will--and millions of Americans soon found out. The high cost of insurance plans they forced people to buy made it nearly impossible for them to pay for the coverage they signed up for, or if they could afford coverage, they realized the care they were paying for came with sky-high deductibles. Congressional Democrats and President Obama focused almost exclusively on the numbers of people now enrolled in ObamaCare and relentlessly highlighted this information, which showed this law was used mainly for public relations purposes at a large cost, as opposed to an actual policy accomplishment. Instead, the reality is that Americans who were able to get insurance were often plagued with inadequate coverage, joined with enormous out-of-pocket costs. Senators from across the country this week have been sharing stories about families in their States who have had to forgo medical care, not because they don't have insurance but because it was simply too expensive to go to the doctor under the ObamaCare health plan. For years, Republicans have pledged to repeal this disastrous law, and this week we are working to address the broken promises of ObamaCare to help ensure better care for each and every American. We are doing this by working to stabilize collapsing insurance markets that have left millions of Americans with no options, which will help improve the affordability of health insurance and therefore healthcare. Our goal is to preserve access to care for Americans with preexisting conditions and to safeguard Medicaid for those who need it most by giving States more flexibility, while ensuring that those who rely on this program won't have the rug pulled out from under them. Most importantly, Republicans hope to free the American people from onerous ObamaCare mandates that require them to purchase insurance they don't want or can't afford. The President and Republicans in Congress last fall promised to rescue the millions of American families suffering under ObamaCare, which is what this bill will do. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I am not asking that as a rhetorical question. Think about it for a little while, come up with constructive suggestions.

Mr. ENZI. No, I will not yield for a question. When I feel like there is something constructive that is going to be done around here--I remember that one of the Senators on the other side of the aisle said: If you just take Medicaid out, I will be for it. Well, Medicaid is not in this version so that ought to be some kind of a commitment on it. I keep referring to this book, which goes back to a lot of the history that we have experienced around here. Here is what has happened, and all of this is footnoted. I was reading at first the footnotes. I didn't check out all the footnotes, but I did look to see if they were footnoted. Under the bill that we are trying to make some changes to, there have been costs from new taxes. There are 21 taxes that have been included in ObamaCare, but the most enormous one is the increased taxes on healthcare companies that are then passed on to the public as higher costs for insurance and pharmaceuticals. I have heard that word ``pharmaceuticals'' thrown out a lot, and I agree there are things that need to be changed there. I do remember the pharmaceuticals joining in on the process of getting ObamaCare passed because they did this little thing with the pharmaceutical Part D, where there was this doughnut hole, and through the doughnut hole we were hoping that people would switch to generic, but the pharmaceutical companies said: No, no, no. If you will stick with the brand name, we will cover you through the doughnut hole. Do you know why? Because people, as they go through the doughnut hole, go beyond the doughnut hole, and beyond the doughnut hole the Federal Government picks up the cost of the name brands--the name brand pharmaceuticals. My insurance commissioner was by to visit with me, and he mentioned that I have twins in Wyoming, and they have a rare disease. There is a prescription for it, and the prescription is costing $30,000 a year each. Well, that is quite a bit of money, and the insurance company is picking that up. Then the name brand pharmaceutical company bought out the generic one. This was generics they were getting. So now they have to have name brand because the generic isn't on the market now. The cost? It is $1.6 million for each kid, each year. That is why the companies, why the insurance companies are dropping out of the market. I mean, Wyoming is the least populated State in the Nation, and an insurance company that is limited to Wyoming is going to have to bear that $3.2 million worth of cost. So they are going to be saying: We are the only ones covering Wyoming; maybe we shouldn't provide insurance in Wyoming either. We lost the other two companies already, and we are down to just one, but we have one, and they cover all of the counties, unlike--it kind of surprised me that the rules allow companies to just do some counties in some States. Also, under ObamaCare, the insurance plans have to cover more. This includes plans for the patient who may not want a particular coverage but has to have this. [It comes under the] essential health benefits, which are required through HHS. This led to 5 million Americans losing their insurance in the individual market. Reduction of lower cost plans. High deductible [health savings accounts] are very important in reducing costs for individuals, families, and businesses. A RAND study in 2011 found that an HSA/high deductible plan (with a deductible of at least $1,000) would reduce healthcare spending an average of 14%. That savings incurred not only for patients but also for employers and for total healthcare expenditures. These more effective plans have been reduced under ObamaCare. Most of the young people on my staff were getting HSAs, and the reason they did is because they did a little bit of a calculation. They did a little bit of financial literacy. They looked to see what the plan was for the full coverage, and then they looked to see what an HSA would cost, and they said: Well, gee, if I take the difference in the cost between the regular insurance and the HSAs and I put that in one of these savings accounts that can grow tax-free, in a maximum of 3 years, I will cover any deductible that I might have. So they considered that to be good insurance and they got to make a lot of their decisions. But I don't think we want individuals making their decisions; that appears to be how ObamaCare is constructed. Then there is an increase in mandates, which is item No. 4. Mandates existed before ObamaCare but have dramatically increased with ObamaCare. It added mandates ``guaranteed issue and community ratings.'' Both have been previously tried in the states. Such mandates distort the marketplace and drive up the cost of care. Policies within states that had more mandates could actually have doubled the cost of [their] premiums. 5. Increased costs by constricting hospitals and physician systems. There has been consolidation with increased hospital mergers by 50% compared with 2009. There has also been movement of doctor's practices to connect with hospital systems and both the contractures within the hospital system and then physician's systems increased costs to the patients. For example, group practice charges increased costs 18% to 20% and specialty care charges increased costs even more, 34% after connecting the care with hospital systems. These changes in care i.e. changing from private practice systems into hospital-based systems have significantly driven up the cost of care for the patients. 6. Medical legal liability reform has not been a part of ObamaCare but is a significant driver of healthcare costs. That is not considered in it, and it is considered to be about a 10 to 25 percent increase in total costs.

Mr. ENZI. I think this is under my time.

Mr. ENZI. I will not yield. I would appreciate the same courtesy from that side that I gave to you when you were doing your expositions about healthcare, which included the things that I have mentioned that aren't even in the bill. Our side has some time, and I would like to use some of that time. As I have been through this process for a long time now--I have been on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for the whole time that I have been here, which is 20 years. Of course, it wasn't Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions when I first got here, but we thought that that was a clever acronym: We are from the Federal Government, and we are here to help you. There are a lot of people back home who don't think we really help out much. But, at any rate, the small business health plans, after three of us who were in the Gang of 6 got thrown under the train or under the bus or whatever it was, small business health plans were changed to co-ops, and they were given a significant amount of money to work with, and they haven't fared very well. I will find the information about the co-ops here. Again, this isn't stuff that I wrote; this is stuff somebody else wrote and footnoted and sent to all of us. Again, the name of the book is ``Demystifying ObamaCare: How to Achieve Healthcare Reform.'' It gives some good suggestions. He does point out that ``ObamaCare is not a system of healthcare, nor is it healthcare reform. It is a system of healthcare control.'' People are told what they are going to do. ObamaCare was supposed to significantly reduce healthcare costs, but instead it has dramatically increased costs for even those who are not directly within the ObamaCare program. ObamaCare was supposed to increase access to care, but instead it actually reduced access to the availability to care. ObamaCare reduces the effectiveness of the safety net program, which is so very important economically for Americans. Under an amendment that I would like to see is one that would have covered the people who make a living of under $11,000--because with $11,000, you can't get insurance. They don't get subsidies; they are just left out in the cold. It is one of the corrections that should have been made and wasn't made. ObamaCare does reduce the effectiveness of the safety net program, which is important to economically poor Americans. There are a lot of people out there in the States, several thousand in my State, who can't get insurance under that. The quality of healthcare in America was derided when ObamaCare was passed, but ObamaCare instead reduces the quality of U.S. healthcare by reducing innovation, and it removes a person's ability to make his own decisions about his healthcare and that of his family, and it does so by removing the freedom to make those decisions by putting so many qualifications on it. Again, I repeat that we haven't done anything to take people off of their policy if they are under their parents' policy if they are under the age of 26. We haven't done anything to deny patients who have preexisting conditions. I have heard that for 3 days. We haven't eliminated the lifetime caps on insurance. I have heard that for weeks. So there are things that need to be done. They could be done. We have tried to do it in this bill, again, without constructive suggestions from the other side. For any recognition that there was any problem that ought to be solved, we have gone ahead. It is not my choice for the mechanism that would be used; it is the mechanism that was chosen by leadership and it falls to them. One of the things that makes this difficult is it is a budget reconciliation, so there are things that have to be written in a budget form in order to comply. That limits some of the things that I would have liked to have done that I think would have made quite a difference. And I think there would have been some things the other side might have joined on and been excited about too. But, again, we are limited by the mechanism that we have here, and there is no indication that----

Mr. ENZI. I will not. You got your hour; it is my hour.

Mr. ENZI. When I was chairman or when Senator Kennedy was chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we switched from doing hearings to doing roundtables. That was an interesting experience too. Instead of having all of the witnesses except one picked by the majority and the other one picked by the minority and then everybody coming up to beat up on the person who was in the opposite field, we went to roundtables. What you do with a roundtable is you pick 2 or 6 or 8 or 10 people who are actually knowledgeable in that field, who have actually done something, who have had their hands on what we were talking about. I remember the first one. One of the questions at the end was by Senator Kennedy, and he asked the witnesses that he and I had selected. This wasn't me selecting; this was a joint effort selecting them. He said: What do you think about single-payer insurance? As they went around, there was only one out of 10 people who said: Well, it might be a good idea, but we probably ought to take a look at it. The rest of them said: It won't work in America. We are already used to something different. When the hearing was over, Senator Kennedy said to me: You know, I think these roundtables are a good idea. I think it is a good thing to kind of hear about what the people are actually experiencing out there before we write the bill. Well, we did a lot of healthcare roundtables. One of the witnesses was from Safeway. Safeway had been able to hold their costs level and started to bring them down. Of course, we were interested in anybody who could hold healthcare costs level or bring them down. The way they had done that was to find out what the costs of different procedures were in the area where they had stores. After they knew what the cost of the procedure was, they could take the median price for whatever it was, and if the people in their store would take the median price, it didn't cost them anything. If they went above the median price, they had to pay the difference. If they went below the median price, they got the difference. So they were actually paying attention, using some financial literacy in any of the treatments they needed to get, and they appreciated that their company had done this research for them in advance so they could have some kind of an idea of what the market held. He estimated that if they were able to increase the flexibility they had with this, they could bring down their costs by about 5 to 7 percent a year. I worked on a 10-step plan--in conjunction with Senator Kennedy on a lot of it--and talked about it across the country and particularly across Wyoming. It would have been 10 steps to get healthcare for everyone without mandates but with incentives. Mr. VAN HOLLEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. The Senator will not yield.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 502, the Heller amendment.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I heard somebody say that nobody was listening. Well, I was listening. I have read a little bit from this book before on the floor about healthcare. It is called ``Demystifying ObamaCare'' by David G. Brown, who is a doctor. He does a marvelous job of going through the history of how we got to where we are. He says, maybe we need to answer the question: ``What does ObamaCare do? What does ObamaCare purport to do? What does ObamaCare not do?'' He says that those answers are relatively simple. ObamaCare is not a system of healthcare, nor is it a healthcare reform. It is a system of healthcare control. ObamaCare was supposed to significantly reduce healthcare costs, but instead it has dramatically increased costs for even those who are not directly within the ObamaCare program. ObamaCare was supposed to increase access to care, but instead it can actually reduce access (availability) of care. ObamaCare reduces the effectiveness of the safety net program, which is so very important to economically poor Americans. The quality of healthcare in America was derided when ObamaCare was passed, but ObamaCare instead reduces the quality of U.S. healthcare by reducing innovation. And then he says: ObamaCare removes a person's ability to make his own decisions about his healthcare and that of his family. It does so by removing the freedom to make those decisions. He continues that what we are trying to do is correct those problems and get back to a system of healthcare where the patient and the doctor get to make some of the decisions, where we encourage more people to be in the system, where we expand the use of HSAs, refundable tax credits, where we also allow people to buy insurance across State lines. We could put money back into State high-level risk pools. In fact, I really like the invisible risk pools that allow people to continue to pay what they were paying before, but to get the unique care. We could ``pass Medicaid to the States in terms of `block grants' or `per capita allotments,' '' and we could ``partially privatize Medicare starting in 2024 with the premium support system.'' That is not in the bill; I am reading suggestions that he gives, including ``cap the amount for tax exclusions in higher cost employer- based plans.'' Now, you need to know that in the proposals that we have been putting out, in spite of what I have been hearing on this side, kids under 26 still get to be on their parents' insurance. We are not taking that off. I keep hearing we are eliminating the preexisting conditions. We are not. There hasn't been a proposal to eliminate the preexisting conditions. So quit saying that. That is just fearmongering. As to eliminating the lifetime caps on insurance, I haven't heard a proposal for that. Also, allowing people to continue to be insured even if they change jobs--that is what this guy wrote in the book, and I would like for everybody to read it. He said there are five factors that drive up healthcare costs. One is taxes, another is mandates. Another is regulations. Another is lack of competition and flexibility within the marketplace. As to the fifth one, I don't know of anybody addressing yet, but it is the medical liability system that encourages defensive medicine and drives the costs up. Seniors need to be protected. There needs to be an effective and viable safety net system. Nobody is trying to work against that, regardless of what you are hearing here. I understand my time has expired. I have a lot more of the book I would like to share, but I am not sure it is productive, anyway. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for 2\1/2\ days I have been listening to the same rhetoric. It sounds like deja vu. For 2\1/2\ days I have been listening to this. I have been giving extra time to the other side to speak. I have been hoping out of that I would get one constructive suggestion for what could be done with healthcare. It has all been criticism. It has been criticism against all cuts. Even tonight, after the bill was read here on the floor, I heard that we were changing Social Security. We are not changing Social Security. We can't change Social Security under the budget. I heard we were changing Medicare. We are not changing Medicare. I am not going to allow other time for that side. I will suggest that side of the aisle go and read the bill. I think it would be a worthwhile exercise. There isn't even Medicaid in there. You have threatened about what was going to be done about Medicaid. You talked about what was going to be done with Medicaid, but it is not based on fact. So take a look at the bill. Another way that this is deja vu is I remember being here on Christmas Eve when technical corrections were accepted from the other side, but you went ahead and passed the bill. We mentioned things that needed to be changed in the meantime, and we were told: No, no, that doesn't have to be done. It just needs more time. Well, we had more time, and there does need to be corrections. You keep talking about how the Republicans have ruined the insurance market. No, last October, the high rates came out for States across this country that pointed out that healthcare was going down the tubes. So something needed to be done. Something needed to be done, but without getting constructive suggestions from the other side--just criticism, saying ObamaCare is perfect, until this debate started, and then I started hearing: It is not perfect. It is not perfect. Well, where are the suggestions for making it as near perfect as possible? We put up a lot of---- Ms. HEITKAMP addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. I think the answer that I gave was perhaps your time might be better spent taking a look at the bill because the conversations I have heard here didn't necessarily speak to the bill.

Mr. ENZI. They speak to the process, and I think we have already covered that in 3 days. Mrs. McCASKILL addressed the Chair.