[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 17, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5720-S5723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               ObamaCare

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, 2 weeks ago, while most Americans were busy 
getting ready for the Fourth of July holiday, the Obama administration 
made a stunning announcement about the President's signature 
legislative accomplishment, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act.
  The President admitted to the American people that because ObamaCare 
was so poorly crafted, he was delaying the enforcement of the employer 
mandate and would not assess fines and penalties to big companies that 
refused to provide insurance to their employees. The President 
explained that businesses could not handle ``the complexity of the 
requirements,'' and government bureaucrats would spend the next year 
simplifying the reporting rules so companies could comply.
  I expected that in the next paragraph he would acknowledge that 
American families also deserve relief because, as polls consistently 
reflect, they have very big problems with the requirements as well. 
They have concerns about the government-run health care scheme known as 
the exchanges.
  Henry Chao, the chief technical officer in charge of implementing the 
ObamaCare exchanges, has said:

       I'm pretty nervous. . . . Let's just make sure it's not a 
     third-world experience.

  American families also have very grave concerns about how much 
ObamaCare is going to add to our national debt. The Congressional 
Budget Office now estimates that the cost to taxpayers over the next 10 
years will be $1.8 trillion. Young Americans are particularly concerned 
about ObamaCare because it is becoming clear that they will see the 
highest increases in health care premiums.
  One study published in the magazine of the American Academy of 
Actuaries shows that middle- and low-income single adults between 21 
and 29 years of age will see their premiums rise by 46 percent even 
after they take the ObamaCare subsidy.
  A joint report by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce, 
Senate Finance, and Senate HELP Committees that looked at over 30 
different studies concluded that:

       Recent college graduates with entry-level jobs who are 
     struggling to pay off student loan debt could see their 
     premiums increase on average between 145 and 189 percent. 
     Some studies estimate young adults could experience premium 
     increases as high as 203 percent.

  In my State, the State of Utah, premiums for young people will jump 
anywhere from 56 to 90 percent. As I read this statement from the 
Treasury Department, I was shocked to find no mention of these people. 
Parents, families, students, employees, taxpayers, hard-working 
Americans in general were totally left out, along with their concerns 
about the complexity of the requirements imposed by ObamaCare.
  A senior adviser to the President took to the White House blog to 
spin the administration's announcement before long. She said:

       In our ongoing discussions with businesses, we have heard 
     that you need time to get this right.

  But why aren't American families part of these same ongoing 
discussions? Isn't the White House obligated to get this right for them 
too, before assessing fines and penalties and forcing them into a 
government-run third-world experience?
  We knew ObamaCare would be unaffordable, but now we know it is also 
going to be unfair. It is fundamentally unfair for the President to 
exempt businesses from the onerous burdens of his law while forcing 
American families and individuals into ObamaCare's unsound and unstable 
system. It is unfair to protect the bottom lines of big business while 
making hard-working Americans pay the price through higher premiums, 
stiff penalties, cutbacks in worker hours, and job losses.
  It is unfair to give businesses more time to figure out complex 
regulations but force everyone else to figure out equally complex 
mandates and requirements applicable to individuals. This 
administration has chosen to put its own political preferences and the 
interests of various government cronies ahead of those of the American 
people.
  Republicans in Congress must now stand up for the individuals and 
families who do not have the money, who do not have the lobbyists, who 
do not have the connections to get this administration's attention on 
this important issue. We should do so using one of the few 
constitutional powers that Congress still carefully guards: its power 
of the purse.
  As long as President Obama selectively enforces ObamaCare, no annual 
appropriations bill and no continuing resolution should fund further 
implementation of this law. In other words, if the President will not 
follow it, the American people should not fund it.
  Last week's admission by the administration means that after more 
than 3 years of preparation and trial and error, the best case scenario 
for ObamaCare will be rampant dysfunction, waste, and injustice to 
taxpayers and working families. Even the President himself is now 
admitting that ObamaCare will not work. It is unaffordable and unfair.
  If he will not follow it, we should not fund it. The only reasonable 
choice now is to protect the country from ObamaCare's looming disaster, 
start over, and finally begin work on real health care reform that 
works for everyone.

  I would like to shift topics and speak briefly in opposition to the 
confirmation of Fred Hochberg to continue as Chairman and President of 
the Export-Import Bank. By confirming Mr. Hochberg, we would perpetuate 
the existence of an organization whose sole purpose is to dispense 
corporate welfare and political privileges to well-connected special 
interests.
  The Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im as it is commonly known, is an 
example of everything that is wrong with Washington today. It is big 
government

[[Page S5721]]

serving the interests of big corporations at the expense of 
individuals, families, and small businesses throughout America.
  I am, of course, not alone in this view. I have good company. In 
2008, while campaigning for the office of President of the United 
States, then-Senator Barack Obama referred to Ex-Im as ``little more 
than a fund for corporate welfare.'' So it is. After all, in fiscal 
year 2012, $12.2 billion of Ex-Im's $14.7 billion in loan guarantees 
went to a single company--one company. Our free enterprise system may 
not be perfect, but it is fair. Crony capitalism which is promoted by 
the Export-Import Bank is neither.
  Abraham Lincoln once said that the leading object of government was 
to ``lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of 
laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair 
chance in the race of life.''
  Crony capitalism is the opposite of this noble vision. It lays on 
artificial waste, obstructs paths of laudable pursuit, and makes the 
race of life fettered and unfair. We may have honest disagreements 
about when and whether and to what extent and under what circumstances 
it is a good idea for the government to redistribute wealth from the 
rich and give it to the poor, but can't we all agree it is always a bad 
idea to redistribute wealth from the poor and the middle class and give 
it to large corporations?
  The saddest part is it is not even clear the bank actually helps U.S. 
firms to outperform their foreign competitors. Ex-Im's convoluted 
financing has been accused of pricing at least one U.S. airline out of 
being able to compete with foreign firms, and at least one court has 
agreed.
  Cronyism is a cancer. It undermines public trust in our economy and 
in our political system. Ordinary Americans who have the gnawing sense 
that the game seems rigged against them unfortunately have good reason 
to feel that way. It is not the free market that serves the middle men 
at the expense of the middle class. It is the crony cartels of big 
government, big business, and big special interests conspiring against 
the American dream, helping each other to American taxpayers' money. 
The Ex-Im Bank is part of this graft.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this nominee and 
the crony capitalist organization that he leads.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Fred 
Hochberg and his nomination to the second term as Chairman of the 
Export-Import Bank. I have heard now two speeches on the other side of 
the aisle from my colleagues who not only seem to take exception with 
Mr. Hochberg's nomination but the Export-Import Bank in and of itself.
  I think they are wrong. I think they are wrong because they do not 
understand Washington's need to focus on the fact that we have an 
export economy. We want U.S. products to be bought and sold in 
countries and markets all over the world. We are here today to talk 
about a critical vote to support 225,000 jobs that are part of our 
export economy. If we fail to confirm Fred Hochberg for a second term 
as Chairman of the Export-Import Bank, businesses across the United 
States will lose a key tool in job creation.
  This is because his term expires, runs out, on July 20.
  What would that mean? It would mean the Export-Import Bank, which 
needs at least three of its five board members to have a quorum, would 
not have a quorum and would not be able to issue any new loans. This 
means the transactions that U.S. companies depend on, the guarantees 
and the transactions to finance the sale of U.S. products and services 
overseas, would not be able to move forward.
  If we don't confirm Mr. Hochberg this week, the bank cannot approve 
loans and it would take away a job-creating tool that American 
innovators and businesses count on. This is why I am calling on my 
colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, to confirm Mr. Hochberg as the 
Export-Import Bank Chairman for a second term.
  His nomination is supported by the Chamber of Commerce and by the 
National Association of Manufacturers. He has proven to be a solid 
leader in his organization by listening, implementing, innovating, and 
administering a very critical job-creation tool.
  When I visited businesses across my State in 2012 to talk about the 
Export-Import Bank, I heard the American people wanted us to focus on 
job creation and supporting business. The Export-Import Bank helps 
American-made products to be shipped all around the world.
  I saw a company in my State, Yakima, WA, the Manhasset music stand 
company, use the Export-Import Bank to make sure sales go all around 
the globe, including China.
  I saw a grain silo manufacturer called SCAFCO in Spokane, which also 
would testify to the fact that they have been able to sell their grain 
to many countries around the globe because of the financing the Export-
Import Bank guarantees.
  Airline cockpit hardware made by the Esterline Corporation factory in 
Everett, WA, also testified to the same effect; that when you are 
looking around the globe to secure financing of U.S. products into more 
developing countries, it is hard to get the financing to work.
  The United States can be left at the starting line or the United 
States can use this vital tool that I call a tactic for small business 
to get access to make sure their products get a final sale.
  The Export-Import Bank supports 83,000 jobs in my State alone, which 
benefits from the finance mechanism. Over the last 5 years, it has 
supported many jobs throughout the United States. Overall, it 
supported, as I said, 225,000 jobs and more than 3,000 businesses in 
2012.
  In the small business area, 2,500 of those are small businesses. The 
notion that this is somehow crony capitalism--and maybe he is talking 
about the shenanigans that happened on Wall Street, but he is certainly 
not talking about the Export-Import Bank.
  I am advocating that we keep the very positive results of this bank, 
keep Mr. Hochberg, and make sure we continue to sell our products from 
Everett, WA, or Auburn, KY, all over the globe.
  Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside our 
borders. The question is: are we going to make sure that U.S. products 
get into the hands of the growing middle class around the globe? In 
2030, China's middle class will be 1 billion people, 1 billion middle-
class people in China, up from 150 million today. India's middle class 
will grow 80 percent, from 50 million to 475 million.
  We need our businesses, large and small, to have the tools to reach 
this new, growing tool of consumers. Not only does this help 
businesses, the Ex-Im Bank also helps taxpayers.
  I don't know where the idea that this is crony capitalism comes from, 
but this program is a very good deal for the U.S. Department of the 
Treasury. In fact, it returned nearly $1.6 billion to the U.S. Treasury 
since 2005. It actually is helping us return money to the Treasury and 
it helps our businesses continue to grow in export markets.
  As we speak, there are almost $4 billion in transactions awaiting 
approval for the bank; that is, if we don't approve the chairman, these 
deals might not go through. There are many American businesses counting 
on their transaction so they can compete in an international market.
  The international competitor is not going to wait until we approve 
Mr. Hochberg if we delay this. They are going to go ahead, cash in on 
the business deals, and our competitors will win.
  I think the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it best in a 2011 letter to 
congressional leaders: The Export-Import Bank enables U.S. companies, 
large and small, to turn export opportunities into real sales that help 
create real jobs in the United States of America.
  I was proud that Mr. Hochberg came to Seattle last year for the 
opening of a regional Ex-Im office, focusing on small businesses to 
make sure they can get the financing for end products to get to these 
markets. We should be moving more toward policies to help businesses, 
the small businesses, grow with confidence into these international 
markets.
  I ask my colleagues to do the right thing, follow through, and 
confirm this chairman.

[[Page S5722]]

  Since its creation in 1934, the Export-Import Bank was approved by 
unanimous consent or voice vote 24 times. For 24 times no one called 
this crony capitalism. No, they were supporting it. The last time we 
authorized it, it had 78 votes. It ended up in the House of 
Representatives with 330 votes.
  I am pointing this out because all of the delay in Mr. Hochberg's 
confirmation hurts business in the end, when the majority of my 
colleagues do agree this is a vital tool to help boost products made in 
America.
  In the last reauthorization we did make improvements to strengthen 
the Ex-Im Bank. Quarterly reports are delivered on the default rates, 
which now can't go above 2 percent.
  The Government Accountability Office also is required to work with 
risk management structures to make sure loans and businesses are not 
too risky. Transactions above a certain dollar amount receive public 
comment, and they deliver a yearly report on those transactions.
  I know my colleagues have mentioned this issue about aviation, and I 
can guarantee, as the chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, I want U.S. 
airline industries to be competitive in international markets. 
Certainly, the world community on financing of airplane sales is 
working together to make sure those are closer to market-based rates 
and working on the same page so these financing schemes work together.
  The 2011 Aircraft Sector Understanding sets out the terms and 
conditions on how airlines can finance aircraft purchases using 
Government-backed financing. The Understanding requires a closer 
alignment with commercial market borrowing rates. This agreement covers 
all major trading partners except China.
  All of these improvements we continue to make in the Ex-Im Bank are 
important. As I said, Mr. Hochberg has been open to many discussions as 
to how we move ahead. Let us not deny the fact that in developing 
markets, a financial tool such as the Export-Import Bank, that actually 
delivers on helping job creation in the United States by getting the 
sales of many different products into these developing countries and 
growing middle class, is very good for the United States. The fact that 
it returns to the taxpayer is very positive.
  Let's not let this slip another moment. Let's get Mr. Hochberg back 
to the task at hand, which is approving these transactions so U.S. 
companies can continue to grow jobs here by accessing new markets 
overseas.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this last Monday night we had a 
remarkable occurrence in the Senate. Democrats and Republicans actually 
met together, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the Old Senate 
Chamber, a historic location where the Senate used to meet before we 
became so large and expanded to 100 Members. What was so good about 
that, from my perspective, was that we actually had some communication 
going on and we learned there were a lot of Senators who were actually 
frustrated by the way the Senate has been operating. It gave us all an 
opportunity, there in a confidential setting, to speak our mind and to 
share our frustrations.

  But I think one of the things we have forgotten--maybe not forgotten, 
but need to be reminded of from time to time--is what makes the Senate 
unique, not just here in America and our form of government but 
throughout the world. Sometimes the Senate is referred to as the 
world's greatest deliberative body. As we all know, it has become less 
so in recent years. But we all remember the story of the constitutional 
convention in Philadelphia when they were at loggerheads in trying to 
figure out how to create the legislative branch. There were some who 
wanted a single unicameral legislative body, and there were discussions 
then about whether there actually needed to be a Senate in addition to 
the House of Representatives, which, of course, would literally be 
representative of the people based on their numbers as opposed to 
representing the respective States, which is the function of the 
Senate.
  Late in the convention there was a compromise proposed by the Senator 
from Connecticut, Roger Sherman, on behalf of the small States. Of 
course, the small States were worried the big States would gang up on 
them. Ironically, under this compromise, it is now the small States 
that gang up on the big States, but that is another story for another 
day.
  Under this Connecticut Compromise, the Senate came to be comprised of 
two Senators representing each State, no matter how big or how small 
the State. My State of 26 million people only gets two Senators. The 
Presiding Officer's State, a smaller State, also gets two Senators. 
That was part of the Connecticut Compromise back when the country was 
founded.
  The Constitution could not have been ratified without this 
compromise. It initially failed, but Benjamin Franklin later found a 
better time to reintroduce it and it passed. But here is the real 
function of the Senate, and it comes from a story told of a 
conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Of course, 
Washington had presided over the constitutional convention. Jefferson 
was in Paris. When he returned, he asked Washington why he allowed the 
Senate to be formed, because Jefferson had considered it unnecessary. 
One body based on proportional representation, Jefferson thought, 
should be enough. Washington then asked Jefferson if he cooled his tea 
by first pouring it in the saucer, which was the custom of the day. 
Sure, responded Jefferson. And Washington said: So it is that the 
Senate must cool tempers and prevent hasty legislation by making sure 
it is well thought out and fully debated.
  I mention that story and recite a little bit of history to remind us 
the Senate was created not just to be another House of Representatives 
but for another purpose altogether. That is the other reason why 
Senators are elected for 6-year terms from a whole State as opposed to 
just a congressional district where our colleagues across the Capitol 
run every 2 years from smaller areas. Of course, they are supposed to 
be much more closely tied to their constituents. We are supposedly 
given a little more flexibility to take the long view and not the 
short-term view in how we decide matters.
  That is the reason why so many of us were concerned at the threat of 
the majority leader to invoke the so-called nuclear option. I know for 
most Americans this is not something that is at the top of their list 
to be concerned with, but from an institutional and constitutional 
perspective it is absolutely critical the Senate remain true to the 
design of the Founders of our country as framed in our Constitution.
  As a rationale to invoking the so-called nuclear option and turning 
the Senate into a purely majority-vote institution, there were claims 
this side of the aisle had been obstructing too many of President 
Obama's nominations. But the facts tell a far different story. Thus 
far, the President has nominated more than 1,560 people for various 
positions, and only 4--only 4--of them have been rejected by the 
Senate.
  Since 2009, this Chamber has confirmed 199 of President Obama's 
article III judicial nominees and rejected 2 of them, and 80 of those 
nominees were confirmed by voice vote, which is essentially a unanimous 
vote. Another 64 were confirmed by unanimous rollcall votes. Does that 
sound like a crisis? Does that sound like obstructionism? I think not.
  I would like to suggest it is another problem that has caused the 
Senate to become, in a way, a nondeliberative body and quite 
dysfunctional. For example, during Senator Reid's tenure as majority 
leader, an unprecedented number of bills have come to the floor 
directly from the majority leader's office. Any of us who remember our 
high school civics lessons know that, ordinarily, committees of the 
Congress are supposed to write legislation. Then once the committees 
vote that legislation out, it comes to the Senate floor. Obviously, the 
purpose for that is to give everyone in the committees an opportunity 
to vent their concerns, to offer amendments, to debate them, and then 
to mark up a bill before it comes to the Senate floor so we do a better 
job and deal with all of the unintended

[[Page S5723]]

consequences and the like. But during the tenure of the current 
majority leader an unprecedented number of bills have simply sprung to 
life out of the majority leader's office.
  Many of my colleagues, including Members of Senator Reid's own party, 
have been left wondering why it is the committees actually even exist 
in a world where bills simply come to the Senate floor under rule XIV 
without the sort of deliberation and consideration they should get in 
committees before arriving here. When legislation arrives on the floor, 
Senators are routinely denied an opportunity to offer the amendments 
they see fit and to have debate and votes on those amendments.
  To give some perspective--and I know some people will say the 
American people are not interested in the process, they are interested 
more in the policy, but this demonstrates why the process is so 
important to getting the right policies embraced--during the 109th 
Congress, when this side of the aisle, Republicans, controlled this 
Chamber, Senate Democrats offered more than 1,000 separate amendments--
1,043 separate amendments--to legislation. During the 112th Congress, 
when our Democratic colleagues were in charge, Republicans were only 
allowed to offer 400 amendments--1,043 to 400, a big difference.
  During the 109th Congress, when Republicans controlled this Chamber, 
there were 428 recorded votes on Senate amendments--428. In the 112th 
Congress, there were 224--a little more than half of the number.
  Since becoming majority leader, Senator Reid has blocked amendments 
on bills on the floor no fewer than 70 times. In the language of Senate 
procedure, we call that filling the amendment tree, but what it means 
is the minority is effectively shut out of the ability to shape 
legislation by offering amendments on the Senate floor. And that is no 
small thing. Again, I represent 26 million people in the State of 
Texas. Being a Member of the minority, when Senator Reid blocks any 
amendment I wish to offer to a bill, he has effectively shut out of the 
process 26 million Texans. And it is not just my State, it is every 
State represented by the minority.

  As a comparison, the previous Senate majority leader, Senator Bill 
Frist of Tennessee, a Republican, filled the amendment tree only 12 
times in 4 years. So 70 times under Senator Reid, 12 times for Senator 
Frist. And before him, Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat, filled 
the tree only once in 1\1/2\ years--once in 1\1/2\ years. When Trent 
Lott was the majority leader, a Republican, he did it 10 times in 5 
years. George Mitchell, a Democratic majority leader, did it three 
times in 6 years. Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd, who was an 
institution unto himself here in the Senate, did it three times in 2 
years. And finally, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the majority leader, a 
Republican, did it seven times in 3\1/2\ years.
  My point is not to bore people with statistics but to point out the 
Senate has changed dramatically under the tenure of the current 
majority leader in a way where Members of the Senate are blocked from 
offering amendments to legislation in the interest of their 
constituents. As majority leader, Senator Reid has denied those rights 
to the minority and the rights of the people we represent. When he 
refuses to let us offer amendments and debate those amendments, he 
refuses to let us have real debate and he is effectively gagging 
millions of our constituents.
  One more time I would like to remind Senator Reid of what he promised 
6 years ago. He said: As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate 
with respect for the rules and for the minority the rules protect. The 
Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. 
Majorities can always protect themselves but minorities cannot. That is 
what the Senate is all about.
  I would also like to remind our colleagues what President Obama said 
in April of 2005, when he was in the Senate. He said: If the majority 
chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and 
put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and 
the gridlock will only get worse.
  My point is to say the Senate has been transformed in recent years 
into an image of an institution the Founders of our country would 
hardly recognize, nor would previously serving Senators who operated in 
an environment where every Senator had an opportunity to offer 
amendments to legislation and to get a vote on those amendments; where 
the minority's rights were protected by denying the majority the right 
to simply shut out the minority, denying them an opportunity to offer 
or debate important pieces of legislation.
  That is what has happened under the current majority leader, and that 
is why I believe those meetings, such as the one we had in the Old 
Senate Chamber this past Monday night, are so important. But we do have 
to rely on the facts. Facts can be stubborn, but I think our debate 
ought to be based on the facts and on a rational discussion of what the 
Framers intended when they created the Senate and its unique role--
unique not just here in America but to all legislative bodies in the 
world.