No Hearing, No Vote Act of 2017

Madam President, we have a number of us gathered here this evening because we are so, so appalled--and that is the word--by the process that is going on with healthcare.

The idea that we could affect one-sixth of the Nation's economy--the life and death, literally, of millions of Americans; the whole structure of our healthcare system, affecting doctors, nurses, and rural hospital workers--and that we could do all of that in such darkness, behind such closed doors is the greatest miscarriage of legislative practice that I have seen since I have been here in the House and Senate.

We heard our colleagues, when the ACA came up, talk about an open process: Read the bill. My good friend the leader will say: Well, we are going to have an amendment process. No, we are not. Unless we change reconciliation, we will have a mere 10 hours of debate on our side and then amendments seriatim for something as important as this? To say that we are having regular order, to say that we are having an amendment process, in all due respect, is a joke.

Let me go over when we were in charge to show the complete contradiction. The Senate Finance Committee held more than 50 hearings--Democrats and Republicans.

How many hearings has the Senate Finance Committee had on this bill, this unknown bill? None. On the House bill--they are using the House bill, as I understand it, as a model. None.

A markup, 8 days--can we get any commitment from our friends on the Republican side that we will have 8 days of markup in the Finance Committee when their bill is ready? I doubt it. Some 130 amendments were considered. Two dozen Republican amendments were agreed to--all in the committee process.

Then, a bill went to the HELP Committee. There were 47 bipartisan hearings, roundtables, and walkthroughs. They considered nearly 300 amendments during the 13-day markup. That was one of the longest in history, as it should have been on such a major bill. There were 160 Republican amendments. Our ranking member on the HELP Committee couldn't be here because of plane delays, but she will augment that when she gets here.

The Senate Finance Committee posted its legislation online for 6 days before the markup. I ask rhetorically of my friend the majority leader: When his bill is ready, is it going to be posted for 6 days prior to debate or markup? Are the American people, our doctors, our nurses, our patients, and the cancer care groups going to get a chance to see it? I doubt it. That is not what it seems like.

The Senate spent 25 consecutive days in session on healthcare reform. Again, I would ask my friend the leader, rhetorically: How many days are we going to spend on it under reconciliation?

So, my friends, this is a travesty. Ask yourself, America: Why are our Republican colleagues rushing through a bill in the dark of night?

I will tell you why. They don't want you, Mr. and Mrs. American, to know about this bill. They don't want you to see that it cuts healthcare for millions. They don't want you to see that it will reduce opioid treatment. They don't want you to see that it will hurt people in nursing homes. They don't want you to see that millions will lose coverage and many more will get such minimal coverage that it will not help them unless, God forbid, they get the most serious of illnesses. That is what they don't want you to see.

They are not going to get away with it because we know one thing: Even if the Senators don't get to see the bill and even if the leader, who is a very good political person, gets 51 votes, the American people will then see the bill, and they will be aghast. They will wonder why they believed President Trump's promises that costs would go down and benefits would go up. They will wonder why they believed the promises that he would not cut Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security.

It is no conciliation to us, but our Republican friends--House, Senate, White House--will reap the whirlwind. It would be better for them--for them--to debate the bill in open process, even if they keep all their votes, because people will learn about the bill.

When you do a bill in the dark of night, things happen that no one knows about. There are unintended consequences that only a thorough vetting can reveal. When you do things in the dark of night, there are individual accommodations that are made that are going to look ugly when they become public. So the only consolation we will have on this side--small consolation that it is--is the political blunder that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making that will not serve them well.

I would make one more point. So why are they doing it this way? Why are they being so irrational, hurting people, doing it in the dark of night? One reason. We know who the paymaster is here, we know who the motivator is--the handful of wealthy Americans who will get a huge tax break, benefiting from taking the dollars of healthcare away from millions of average Americans. That is what really runs the other side of the aisle. I had hoped it wouldn't run Donald Trump. He didn't campaign like that, but it is running him too. That is the reason and the only reason.

We will fight hard to prevent this bill from occurring. We will use the procedural means we have, small as they might be. We will. It is a small consolation to us, again, that our Republican colleagues will pay such an awful price to help their wealthy donors.

Maybe it is not too late. Maybe the leader or maybe some of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say that as much as they might disagree with the ACA, to have a process in the dark of night is wrong.

We would welcome discussion. That is why we wrote the leader and asked him to have a closed session in the Old Senate Chamber with Democrats and Republicans--without the press, without anything else--to talk to each other. Maybe he will reconsider his rejection of that.

I have a few parliamentary inquiries.

First, is the Chair aware of the number of consecutive days in session and the number of hours the Senate considered H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Twenty-five days of consecutive session on a bill that was partisan in the sense that Republicans were angry with it, but we still had the courage of our convictions to have a debate on the floor.

The second Parliamentary inquiry: Is the Chair aware that a 25- consecutive-day period of session ranks second in terms of the longest period of consecutive session in the history of the U.S. Senate?

Again, when the shoe was on the other foot, we Democrats, knowing we would take brickbats, knowing there would be criticism, but for the good of the process and the good of the country, we were willing to have debate, hearings, and amendments. Unless there is a dramatic change or I am misreading where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going, they are not going there.

Unanimous Consent Requests--H.R. 1628

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, be in order until the bill has been the subject of a public hearing in the Committee on Finance.

Madam President, I heard what the leader had to say. I think anyone who has observed the reconciliation vote-arama process knows it is not a robust amendment process. There are ways to correct that. Certainly, we have our differences pretty much on partisan lines between repealing ACA and amending it and making it better, but what we ought to be doing is discussing it with one another.

So I would renew my request to the majority leader. What is the harm in us gathering in the Old Senate Chamber, 100 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, and maybe trying to come together? Is there any harm? I would renew my request that he join us in that because what the American people clamor for is some kind of bipartisan coming together. We have different views on how that should occur.

You say: Repeal. Join us in repeal.

We think that would hurt millions of people.

We say: Make it better.

You say that the ACA is irretrievable. I don't agree. But why can't we join together 100 strong in the Senate Chamber, no press, and just discuss our views with one another? Maybe something bipartisan and helpful could come out of this instead of this dark, hidden process. I would renew my request.

I would just renew my request for one other--the leader said no. I get it.

One more. Will we have time--more than 10 hours since this is a complicated bill--to review the bill? Will it be available to us and the public for more than 10 hours before we have to vote for it, since our Republican leader has said there will be plenty of time for a process where people can make amendments? We need time to prepare those amendments.

Will it be more than 10 hours? That is my question.

I rest my case.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the introduction of the bipartisan Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act, or CARERS Act. The bill would make our Federal laws dealing with medical marijuana fairer and help ensure that Americans have access to the care they need. I am proud to introduce this legislation, and I want to thank Senators Rand Paul and Kirsten Gillibrand for working with me on this bill. I also want to thank Senators Lisa Murkowski, Al Franken, and Mike Lee for joining the

CARERS Act as original cosponsors and Representatives Steve Cohen and Don Young for introducing a House companion bill.

Right now, regardless of whether you are in a State that has legalized medical marijuana, it is illegal under Federal law. This inconsistency puts growers, distributors, and patients at great risk of Federal prosecution even though they are in compliance with State law.

In 2013, the Department of Justice issued guidance to Federal prosecutors to refrain from prosecuting individuals that use, purchase, or sell marijuana in States where it is legal as long as a State regulatory framework exists that maintains certain standards, such as a ban on sales to minors. As a result of this guidance, more and more States have taken steps to legalize medical marijuana.

Sadly, despite this guidance, the inability of the Federal Government to be aligned with States regarding the legality of medical marijuana has resulted in confusion and uncertainty for State lawmakers and the public about what the law requires. This lack of clarity is only part of the problem. Individual users of medical marijuana in States with legalized medical marijuana continue to be targeted by the Drug Enforcement Agency.

And now, more than ever, I am especially concerned with Attorney General Jeff Sessions as our Nation's top law enforcement officer. His radical stance on marijuana is way out of the mainstream, and he has taken steps to reinvigorate the failed War on Drugs. Recently, he wrote a letter to Senate and House leadership asking them not to renew an appropriations rider that prevents the Justice Department from spending money on cases that involve individuals who are in compliance with State medical marijuana laws. He said, ``I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime.'' Contrary to Attorney General Sessions' views, this is not a problem we can jail ourselves out of.

Individuals who use medical marijuana in States where it is legal should not fear prosecution simply based on prosecutorial discretion. It is time for Congress to act.

Today, I reintroduced the CARERS Act. First, and most importantly, the bill would end the Federal prohibition of medical marijuana. Millions of Americans need to gain access to the medicine that works best for them. The Federal Government's current stance on medical marijuana has only created confusion and uncertainty. This bill would prohibit the Federal Government from prosecuting persons who are in compliance with State medical marijuana laws and let people gain access to the care they need.

The bill would also allow States to import cannabidiol, commonly called CBD for short. CBD is an oil substance made from a marijuana plant that contains virtually no THC--meaning you experience no high from the drug. CBD is the medicine so many children need--along with thousands of other individuals with Dravet syndrome--to control seizures. We must make this important drug more available so people can access the medication they need.

The bill would promote research. A large problem for our Nation is that not enough research exists on the impact of medical marijuana. We know there are legitimate medical uses of the drug, but we can learn much more. We need to allow experts to access the drug to conduct tests and clinical trials to fully understand the effects of the drug and how it can best be utilized. This will only benefit the doctors that prescribe it, the lawmakers that regulate it, and the people that need it.

Finally, the bill would allow VA doctors to recommend medical marijuana to veterans in States that have legalized medical marijuana. Many men and women in uniform who have bravely served our Nation come home with invisible wounds of war, and they deserve the best care available. This means allowing them access to the medicine they need to heal or control their condition. Those who have served our Nation deserve to be served by us, and that means receiving the best care available.

The CARERS Act was the first medical marijuana bill introduced in the Senate. Unfortunately, we did not pass it in the last Congress, but I am hopeful that in the 115th Congress we can get this bill across the finish line and send it to the President's desk for signature. I, again, want to thank my colleagues who worked with me on this bill, and I urge its speedy passage.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I remember full well 7 years ago. Senator Reid was the majority leader, and we were called into session the Monday after Thanksgiving, and we stayed here 7 days a week until Christmas Eve. So why did we stay in session 7 days a week, from the Monday after Thanksgiving until Christmas Eve? Our Democratic friends didn't want anybody to go home. They didn't want anybody to go home and have to explain what they were in the process of writing in the majority leader's office.

I think it is pretty safe to say that this subject has been very partisan from the beginning. Not a single Republican voted for the bill, and our friends on the other side have made it perfectly clear that no Democrats will be voting to replace it.

So through that process, when our colleagues on the other side had 60 votes at the time, ObamaCare was imposed on our country. Over the last 7 years, we have all witnessed and debated its many failures. Over the last 7 years, Republicans have offered ideas on a better way forward. Over the last 7 years, Democrats have worked to prevent Congress from acting. Basically, it is the same dynamic that we see today: ObamaCare continues to collapse, Republicans are working to implement better ideas, and Democrats are trying to prevent Congress from acting. I regret that Democrats announced their intention early on that they didn't want to be a part of a serious bipartisan process to move past the failures of this law. Congress still has a responsibility to act, and the reconciliation process will allow us to do so.

Later, after that period in late 2009, our Democratic friends used reconciliation to force ObamaCare on Americans. It is a process that can be used in 2017, the same way they used it in 2010, to move beyond its failures.

I would remind colleagues of what happens when legislation comes to the floor under reconciliation. The minority leader is somehow arguing that reconciliation is not an open process. It is an open process. There is an unlimited number of amendments.

First, the bill text is received. Then a CBO score is issued. Members will have time to review both. After that, there is an open amendment process and a robust debate. It is the one type of amendment we have on the floor of the Senate on which no one can prevent amendments. Ultimately, at the end of the process, the Senate votes. That is how reconciliation works.

We have been debating ObamaCare's failures and what to do about them for so many years now. Members are very, very familiar with this issue. We have heard so many anguished stories from constituents who have been hurt by ObamaCare. Thankfully, at the end of the process, the Senate will have a chance to turn the page on this failed law.

I object.

Madam President, I would just say to my friend, we can

have a meeting of all 100 Senators here on the Senate floor with an unlimited amendment process. There will be no failure of opportunity for anybody to offer an amendment, to get a vote on it, to try to change the law. That is the way reconciliation works.

I think we will have ample opportunity to read and amend the bill.

Mr. President, last year, nearly 2,000 people in Massachusetts died from opioid overdoses. If the same number had died in America, it would have been 100,000 people. Thank God that because of the Affordable Care Act, many of those people received treatment who otherwise would have passed away last year. The number would have been a much larger number across our State and across the country. Because of the Affordable Care Act, the number was low, but that number was still much too high.

I want to be able to tell the people in Massachusetts what the impact of the Republican healthcare bill will be on their families in terms of getting access to the opioid addiction treatment they will need so that the number does not continue to go up but to go down. I want to be able to tell them what that coverage will be before I vote upon it, but the majority will just not let that happen. They are keeping the bill hidden. They do not plan to make it public until the very last minute, with our having less than a day to view it before we vote upon it. That will be catastrophic for those families who need opioid addiction treatment--absolutely catastrophic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, be in order until the bill has been the subject of executive session meetings in the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, during which amendments from the majority and minority received votes and the bill has been reported favorably from the committees.

Madam President, one of the things that I would most like to work on is the cost of prescription drugs. I think we should be making sensible changes to the Affordable Care Act, but the bill that came over from the House does not really do that at all. Whether it is bringing the cost of drugs down for seniors by having negotiations under Medicare Part D or whether it is allowing for less expensive drugs to come in--probably generic drugs or from other countries--the bill just does not do that. Now, supposedly, a bill is being considered here, but it is being done in secret. So I cannot have my say.

For any bill in the Senate, committees meet and debate and vote on amendments that are offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle. We need to hear ideas from Members of both parties as to how to fix this bill--in the HELP Committee, for starters. I ask that we agree today that the bill will not come to the floor until the HELP Committee has had an open meeting and has considered amendments from both parties.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, be in order until the bill has been the subject of executive session meetings in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, during which amendments from the majority and minority will have received votes and the bill will have been reported favorably from the committee.