Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to speak out to ask for a normal process here for hearings, for debates. You and I, Mr. President, have talked about this issue. I know you have many good ideas to contribute, and I am hopeful that we can start over here with a bill that would consist of a number of changes to our health care system. That’s what I think we need to do instead of repeal this bill that came to us without hearings. It is just not the right way to do this.

I have already gotten reaction from my state. Just to use some quotes from an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that was just posted. We have our health plans saying that what matters here is Medicaid. They are calling this bill disappointing because of the continued insistence on significantly cutting Medicaid. The federally paid health insurance program for those who are the most vulnerable. They have said things like the big story has been what it is going to do to Medicaid. But in fact what our experts in our state are saying, our health plans, is that this is really more of the same of what we’ve seen in the House bill. It is over a different time period, and there’s an argument in the end, it involves even deeper cuts.

The Minnesota Hospital Association in the last hours said that the lack of the guaranteed benefits discourages preventive care and that this proposal “creates a lot of chaos.” One of the heads of one of our major hospitals, a major hospital said that “they are shortening up the money but not giving us the ability to manage the care.”

I have long advocated for changes to the Affordable Care Act, significant changes. I think that seniors should be given the ability to harness the marketing power and negotiate for lower prices under Medicare for prescription drugs. They are currently prohibited from doing that. I think that’s wrong. I said that when the Affordable Care Act passed.

I think there are many good things we could do to help with the exchanges and with small business rates, including doing some things federally on reinsurance. My state legislature, which is a Republican state legislature, joined with our Democratic governor, have worked out an agreement on reinsurance. We are currently awaiting word from the Administration on a waiver, but we think that’s a good idea. And there’s some things we can do to bring that out nationally. I don’t see that happening with this bill.

And in the end what matters to me is how this bill affects individual people in my state. Laura from North St. Paul who wrote to me about her concerns about the very similar House bill. Laura is recently retired, but she won’t be eligible for Medicare until next year, and she has a daughter with several chronic health conditions. She’s concerned that if these proposals get passed, she will end up paying far more for her health insurance and her daughter might lose her coverage altogether.

Or take Mike in Grand Marais, that’s in the corner of Minnesota—right up on the tip. He has been self-employed his whole life and is now approaching retirement. He is worried that just as he’s about to retire, he will not be able to afford health insurance because of the way this proposal, like the House bill worked, that would increase premiums from older Minnesotans.

Or the woman from Andover, Minnesota. She’s worried about this attempt to check off a box on a to-do list when in fact she’s squarely in the middle of that box. She asked me to put a face on the type of person that’s affected by rushing through this checklist, and that would be her 28-year-old son. She says Medicaid coverage has been a lifesaver for her son because it helps him strive for an independent, productive life.

I’ve heard from so many people from all the corners of my state—from the old to the young to the middle aged. I’ve heard from many people from the rural parts of my state about the House bill, which of course is very similar to the Senate bill that’s been proposed here. They were especially worried about the billions in cuts to Medicaid, which was the lead part of the concerns from the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. The Senate proposal, as I mentioned, would make even deeper cuts over the long term to Medicaid.

Medicaid covers more than 1.2 million Minnesotans, including more than one-fifth of the people in the rural part of our state. Twenty percent of our rural population. This funding is vital for our rural hospitals and health care providers’ ability in those parts of our state to stay open and serve their patients. Many, many people who work in rural hospitals and who are served by rural hospitals have deep concerns. Even after seeing the Senate proposal for just these few hours, it is clear that this legislation would have a massive, life-changing implication for families all over the country.

We know the President of the United States is not known for really mincing words. But we also know he used very direct language when he talked about that House bill. He called it mean. There’s been no denial that he said that. He didn’t need a poll or a focus group. He didn’t need to know every detail of the bill. But when you hear that millions and millions of people could lose their health insurance, the people—the wealthiest would get tax cuts and the people that need the help most would be forced to pay more, you can see why that would be a good word to describe a bill like this: mean. But what we don’t want to come out of the Senate is the “Son of Mean,” or “Mean II.”

Most of us agree that we must make changes to the Affordable Care Act, as I said at the beginning of my remarks here. I would love to see those changes to prescription drug prices, not only with the Medicare negotiation I just mentioned with getting rid of that prohibition which stops 41 million seniors from negotiating for the price of their drugs by passing my bill that I have led for years to allow for that negotiation, but I would love to see more competition in two other ways.

One is bringing in safe drugs from other countries like Canada. Senator McCain and I have a bill that would allow that to happen. The second is allowing for more generic competition and make it easier to have generic competition. Again, nothing that’s in the House or Senate bill.

Senator Grassley and I have a bill that would stop pay-for-delay. That’s where big pharmaceutical companies pay generics to keep their products off the market. The nonpartisan budget office has assessed that we would save billions of dollars for the government but also for taxpayers if this passed. I would love to have that bill come up for a vote, maybe in the form of an amendment, because I believe it would pass.

As I mentioned, we can make improvements to the exchanges with the idea of reinsurance, and there are many ways we could come together to make sensible changes to the Affordable Care Act. You can never have a bill that big without making some changes, and I think the time has come.

But instead, we see a bill that was drafted behind closed doors. Yes, Democratic senators were not a part of that. That’s the way it is. But I don’t think those doors should be closed for the American people.

You know, last week I attended the baseball game event with over 25,000 people. At the end when the Democratic team won, they took their trophy and they gave it to the Republican team, and they asked them to put it in Representative Scalise’s office.

We should take that spirit that we saw at that Congressional Baseball Game. We should take that spirit and we should bring it into this chamber, and we should start working on a bill together—not this bill. We should start working on a bill that makes some changes to the Affordable Care Act. We have ideas on both sides. And that’s what I think we should do. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to speak out to ask for a normal process here for hearings, for debates. You and I have talked about this issue. I know you have many good ideas. I am hopeful we can start over here with a bill that would consist of a number of changes to our existing health care system. That's what I think we need to do instead of this repeal bill that came to us without hearings and saying what matters here is Medicaid, and they are the leaders in our health care community. They are calling this bill disappointing because of the continued insistence on cutting Medicaid. It is for those who are most vulnerable. They have said things like the big story has been what is it going to do to Medicaid.

But in fact what our experts in our state are saying, our health plans, is that this is really more of the same from what we have seen in the House bill. It is over a different time period. In the end it involves deeper cuts. The Minnesota Hospital Association came out and have already in just the last few hours said that "the lack of guaranteed benefits discourages preventive care and that this proposal creates a lot of chaos." One of the heads of one of our major hospitals. 

I think seniors should be given the abilities to harness their bargaining power for prescription drugs. They are prohibited from doing that. Said that when the Affordable Care Act passed. I think we'll have many things we can do to help with small business rates including reinsurance. In the end, what matters to me is how this bill effects individual people in my state. 

Laura from North St. Paul wrote to me about her concerns abou the very similar House bill. She is retired, but she won't be eligible until next year. She has a daughter with several chronic health conditions. She is concerned it will end up paying far more for health insurance, and her daughter might lose it altogether. 

Mike from Grand Marais--it is right up at the tip of Minnesota--has been self-employed and is approaching retirement. He told me he will not be able to afford health insurance because of the way this proposal, like the House bill, worked that would increased premiums for older Minnesotans.

Or the woman from Andover. She wrote to me that she is worried about this approach to check off a box on a to-do list when she is squarely in the middle of that box. She said Medicaid coverage helps her son afford the treatment he needs to strive for a productive life. They were worried about the billions in cuts from the concern from Minnesota Council of Healh Plans.

The Senate proposal, as I mentioned, would make even deeper cuts over the long term to Medicaid. It includes more than one-fifth of the people in the rural part of our state--20 percent of our rural population. Many are deeply concerned. Even after seeing the Senate proposal for these few hours, it's clear this health care legislation would have a massive life changing implication for families all over the country.

Now, we know the President of the United States is not known for really mincing words, but he called it mean. There's been no denial that he said that. He didn't need to know every detail of the bill. When do you hear that millions and millions of people could lose their health insurance, that the people, the wealthiest would get tax cuts and people that need help most would be forced to pay more? You can see why it describes the word mean.

Most of us agree that we must make changes to the Affordable Care Act. I would love to see those changes to prescription drug prices. Not only with the medicare negotiation I just mentioned with getting rid of that prohibition, I would love to see bringing in drugs from Canada. And second, allowing and easier competiton. Then, nothing that's in the House or the Senate bill. We have a bill called pay-for-delay. It would save billions of dollars for the government and also for taxpayers. I would love to have that bill come up for a vote maybe in the form of an amendement. I believe it would pass. As I mentioned, we could make improvements with this idea of reinsurance and there are many ways to come together to make sensible changes to the Affordable Care Act. You can never have a bill that big without making some changes. I think the time has come. I don't think the doors should be cloed fo rth eAmerican people. 

Last week I attended the baseball game between the teams. It was an amazing event with over 25,000 people. In the end the Democratic team took their trophy and gave it to the Republican team and asked them to put it in Representative Scalise's office. We should take that spirit and bring it into this chamber and start working on a bill that makes major changes to the Affordable Care Act. We have ideas on both sides, and that's what I think we should do.

I yield the floor.