National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 -- Motion to Proceed -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me so commend my friend and colleague from Connecticut for his intelligent, articulate, and, most of all, passionate words. I hope that everyone on the other side of the aisle hears this.

This is not a game. I know that it is not the Presiding Officer's State, but the States that are taking the money are the ones that did not want to give good coverage--enough coverage--to people. The States like Connecticut and like New York that wanted to help people and had to put in half the money themselves are now being penalized by the States that did not. Most Americans are against that. The vast majority of Americans are against it. When Americans hear what this bill is about, almost none of them like it. None of them like it. That is why we are hiding this bill. That is why we are not debating this bill.

That is why we are trying to rush it through without a score.

Yet, just over an hour ago, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary analysis of the latest version of TrumpCare, the Graham-Cassidy bill. The CBO is nonpartisan. The head of it was appointed by the Republican leadership. This is not one of those liberal think tanks that the other side dismisses as we dismiss the conservative ones. This is down the middle.

While the CBO has not filled in all of the details, the outline is devastating enough: The new TrumpCare bill would gut Medicaid, cause millions to lose coverage, create chaos in the marketplace, and not protect Americans who have preexisting conditions.

Members should not need any more details to know how bad a piece of legislation this is--though, certainly, we need to await more details.

The other side does not want to. Even in plain language, without the numbers, the CBO makes clear that Graham-Cassidy would be the largest step backward for American healthcare in our Nation's history.
Let's go over a few things that the CBO report listed. These are down-the-middle, green-eyeshade findings that are not political.

First, Graham-Cassidy would gut Medicaid: ``All told, Federal spending on Medicaid would be reduced by about $1 trillion . . . and the program would cover millions fewer enrollees.''

That means they do not know how many millions. My guess is it will be about the same as the previous bills or even worse. That means there will be a drastic cut to healthcare funding that goes to help older Americans in nursing homes, those in opioid abuse treatment programs, and low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid as their source of coverage. All of those would be slashed.

If you are a middle-class family on Long Island, in Anchorage, or if you have someone in a nursing home--a parent--you will be faced with an awful choice with too many likelihoods. Pay thousands of dollars a month out of your own pocket or ask Mom or Dad to come live with you when you don't have a spare room in your house, and you are trying to raise your kids. It is not very pretty.

The CBO writes that Graham-Cassidy would cause millions to lose healthcare coverage, with the most abrupt loss of coverage occurring as soon as 2020 due to ``substantially lower'' enrollment in Medicaid, nongroup coverage, and insurance of all types because there would be no incentive to sign up.

The CBO also wrote that Graham-Cassidy would destabilize the individual market, creating a death spiral.

[Under Graham-Cassidy], average health care costs among people retaining coverage would be higher, and insurers would have to raise premiums in the nongroup market to cover those higher costs. Anticipating such an unsustainable spiral, some insurers would not participate in the nongroup market. . . .
In many States, the transitions starting in 2020 would be difficult, and some areas would probably have no insurers offering policies in the nongroup market.

That is a quote from the CBO. It is not by Chuck Schumer, not by Chris Murphy but from the CBO--destabilizing markets and huge numbers of people not getting insurance.

Here is another thing that the CBO wrote. Graham-Cassidy also fails spectacularly to protect Americans with preexisting conditions because it allows States to opt out of very popular consumer protections in our current law. According to the CBO: ``Coverage for people with preexisting conditions would be much more expensive in some of those States than under current law.''

I have heard my colleague from Louisiana say that this will not change the law with regard to preexisting conditions. Then why did they have to add this clause and give States the option? If they want to keep preexisting conditions, they should keep existing law.

The CBO even predicted that the ``flexibility'' of Graham-Cassidy would likely drive some States to pursue an age tax, charging older Americans five times as much or more for their healthcare than younger Americans.
If you are 50 to 64 and you have worked hard your whole life, your healthcare costs go up. There is a little bit of protection in present law. Much of that protection is removed by the Graham-Cassidy bill. If you are a senior citizen or close to it, you are going to pay more in too many places. That is why the AARP--again, not a very political organization--has come out so strongly against this bill, as, by the way, has the AMA and the American Cancer Society. Chris Murphy listed many of the groups.

All in all, even without specific numbers for estimates, the CBO report confirms much of what we already knew about Graham-Cassidy. It is a wholesale dismantling of our healthcare system, which would create chaos in many places, cause millions to lose coverage, drive up costs, and put healthcare out of reach for the folks who need it the most.

To boot, today, Standard & Poor's--another hardly partisan organization--estimated that Graham-Cassidy would carry a staggering economic cost.

[[Page S6095]]

Standard & Poor's estimates that Graham-Cassidy would result in 580,000 lost jobs and $240 billion in lost economic activity by 2027.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are starting tax reform.

They want to cut taxes on the wealthiest people, such as big corporations, because it will create jobs. Maybe yes but maybe no--many of us think no. But right here, if we are interested in creating jobs, don't pass Graham-Cassidy because we will lose 580,000 jobs, according to Standard & Poor's.

A number of Republican Senators have expressed their opposition to this bill--most recently, Senator Collins. To Senator Collins and to the rest of my Republican colleagues, I want to say that once repeal is off the table, we want to work with you to improve the existing system.

Once this bill goes down, we are ready to work with you to find a compromise that stabilizes markets and that lowers premiums.

We are ready. We have proven some of that already. Senator Alexander and Senator Murray--one a Republican and one a Democrat, the chair and the ranking member of the HELP Committee--were making great progress toward a bipartisan agreement. They held hearings, heard expert testimony, and solicited input from colleagues on both sides of the aisle--something not done with this Graham-Cassidy bill. They were crafting a fair package, where each side got a little and each side gave a little. Once this bill goes down, those negotiations should pick up right where they left off. That is what we on this side of the aisle believe, for sure, and I think many on the other side as well.

There is no time to waste. Insurers are about to set rates for the next year. Whether we can come together or not could be the difference between a stable market and premiums that are several hundreds of dollars more expensive.

We should pick up where Senators Wyden and Hatch--again, one Democrat and one Republican--left off, to come to an agreement to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, for community health centers, and for several other programs that need to be extended this week.

CBO, even with the bare structure of what this bill is all about, issued a devastating report. It is very, very hard to look that report in the eye and say: This bill improves healthcare for Americans--very hard. I hope for the good of our healthcare system, for the good of our country, and for the good of this institution that my Republican friends abandon Graham-Cassidy and its one-sidedness and choose instead to come back to the table with Democrats to do the hard work of forging a bipartisan consensus on healthcare. That is what America wants. That is what America needs.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source