[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 7, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1616-S1625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Portman). The Senator from Utah, the
President pro tempore.
Commemorating Rare Disease Day
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage Senator
Klobuchar in a colloquy to commemorate Rare Disease Day in order to
discuss issues facing patients and the families of those who have been
diagnosed with these types of conditions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as cochairs of the Rare Disease Caucus,
Senator Klobuchar and I have worked hard to bring more hope to patients
and their families who are coping with rare diseases on a daily basis.
Today 1 in 20 individuals worldwide is living with one or more of the
more than 7,000 rare diseases, 95 percent of which do not have an
effective treatment. While the incentives provided by the Orphan Drug
Act, first championed by me in 1983, has led to the approval of nearly
600 orphan drugs, much more needs to be done.
Many patients living with rare diseases rely on the FDA to evaluate
and approve treatment options for their conditions. That is why it is
so important for the FDA to use its authority to accelerate the
evaluation and approval of drugs for treating rare diseases and for
Congress to ensure that proper incentives exist for research to
discover and make affordable treatments and cures available for this
community.
To address this issue, Congress passed the FDA Safety and Innovation
Act of 2012, which refined and strengthened the tools available to FDA
to accelerate the evaluation and approval of new drugs targeting unmet
medical needs for rare conditions. I have been paying close attention
to how this new authority translates into advances for patients
suffering from conditions such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, atypical
hemolytic uremic syndrome, Bertrand-N-glycanase deficiency, and other
rare diseases.
In light of these changes over the past few years, I ask my friend
from Minnesota whether the current approval process is achieving its
goals of safety and efficacy without hampering the development of new
therapies.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank Senator Hatch for beginning this colloquy. I
am so proud to be a cochair of the Rare Disease Caucus with him, and I
share my colleague's concerns. I think there must be improvements that
are made. I
[[Page S1617]]
continue to be inspired by the families across my State, your State,
and our country who work so hard to make it easier for kids to have
access to drugs to treat their illnesses. Unfortunately, we haven't yet
achieved all we can do for these families, and I have heard time and
again about the emotional roller coaster that many of them have
experienced when they interact with the Federal Government on new
approaches for these rare disease conditions. Too often they are
unaware when drugs are under review or confused about why experts or
patients are not even consulted. The individuals suffering from these
conditions and their families need greater clarity about the process
for evaluating and approving these drugs, and they ought to be included
and informed every step of the way.
It is critical that treatments that do exist for those with rare
conditions be accessible and affordable. We must continue to protect
the individuals from discrimination in insurance coverage and work to
bring down costs. We have to ensure that incentives designed to spur
the development and accessibility of treatments that the rare disease
community desperately needs are not abused.
I ask Senator Hatch, as one with longstanding leadership on the bill
that you passed that has helped so many people and saved lives, how can
we focus on sharing this message with our colleagues and our
constituents?
Mr. HATCH. I appreciate that question.
We must continue to urge the FDA to fully implement its relatively
new authority. Every one of us in this body represents constituents who
are battling rare diseases, and I urge the FDA to consider this
flexibility as applied in reviewing all candidates' therapies.
I will continue to work closely with my Senate colleagues to ensure
that the FDA uses the tools, authorities, and resources required to
provide patients and physicians with new treatment options. I have also
contacted the FDA frequently during the past year to encourage the
agency to listen to the voices of patients during the agency's
evaluation process.
When the Senate considers the nominee for FDA Commissioner, I will
continue to stress the importance of incorporating a balanced and
flexible approach when weighing risks, benefits, and outcomes,
especially when dealing with small patient populations with such
rapidly progressing prognoses.
Patients with limited or no treatment options are depending on FDA to
utilize the flexibility outlined in FDASIA. This law, which provides
full and fair review of new drug therapies in a timely manner, gives
hope to patients suffering from life threatening diseases and, of
course, their families as well.
I ask Senator Klobuchar, how can we move forward into the next user
fee agreement?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Well, that is going to be very important and really an
opportunity to make sure that this works for patients with rare
diseases and their families. We know that affordability and
accessibility remain paramount. We should also think about the burden
that these conditions play and the critical role of the voice of the
patient.
As you stated, Senator Hatch, more than 7,000 rare diseases exist,
and the vast majority have no treatment. This is an extraordinary
burden borne every day by Americans in every single State across the
country. As we seek to continue making progress, including monitoring
implementation of the advances in the bipartisan 21st Century Cures
Act, we must ensure that rare disease treatments receive sufficient
attention.
We also must encourage Federal agencies to better incorporate the
patient's voice in their decisionmaking process. As I mentioned
earlier, all too often as we rightly focus on evidence-based medicine,
we can lose sight of the human experience of these and different
therapies. What may seem simple in a lab may be overwhelming or
difficult when applied to patients in real life situations--all the
more so when children are involved. The FDA and all agencies should
ensure that they have appropriate processes to seek and incorporate
this vital input. The user fee agreement will be an opportunity for us
to make this case.
I would like to thank Senator Hatch again for his time to discuss
these issues that are very important to both of us. We look forward to
engaging with our colleagues on these issues as we move forward to the
implementation of the Cures Act, as well as the work on the Orphan
Drugs Act, and as well as the user fee agreement.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my dear friend, the senior Senator from Minnesota,
for her time with me today. It is very meaningful to me and, I think,
to everybody who is concerned about this rare disease situation in our
country.
This is just the start of our conversation for this Congress. There
is so much left for us to do, and I am certain we will succeed as long
as we stay together and work in a bipartisan way. So I thank my dear
colleague for her words and support and the good leadership she
provides in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Republican Healthcare Bill
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to speak about the healthcare
bill that has been laid out in the House now--introduced in the House
of Representatives. I have great concern about the proposal as it
relates to the people of Michigan, whom I represent, as well as to the
people across the country. This proposal--or whatever passes--will be
judged based on whether or not people pay more for their coverage, if
they can find it, and whether they are going to be able to get the
healthcare they need.
Healthcare is very personal. Despite the politics here in Congress
and in the White House, healthcare is not political; it is very
personal. Can you go to a doctor? Can you take your child to a doctor?
Can your parents or grandparents get the nursing home care they need?
Are you going to be able to find insurance after you have had a heart
attack or cancer or if your child has juvenile diabetes and, therefore,
has a preexisting condition?
I am deeply concerned after the initial look I have had, and we will
continue to look at more and more of the details as they come out. This
proposal is going to create chaos in the healthcare system. Frankly, I
would say this is a mess. It is going to create a big mess as it
relates to the families whom I represent and whom we all represent in
our home States.
This was written in secret. We have all seen the stories of the
Senator from the other side of the aisle who was running around trying
to get a copy of what was going on. Everything was done in secret, and
now that it is out, we find out that there is no cost attached to it.
We do not know what the overall cost will be to taxpayers. We also do
not know how many people are going to be able to get healthcare, who is
going to be able to be covered.
What I have seen really falls in the category of creating a mess for
families--higher costs for middle-class families, higher costs for poor
families, but less coverage--such a deal. This is not the kind of deal
that the people of Michigan want to have for themselves and their
families.
To add insult to injury, it cuts taxes for the wealthiest Americans,
while it makes most Americans pay more. It makes seniors pay more, and
we have heard people calling it the ``age tax'' or the ``senior tax.''
The reality is, in a number of different ways, in how we rate, which is
based on age and other costs, seniors will pay more. It is my
understanding that, in the middle of this, there is actually a
sweetheart deal for the CEOs of big insurance companies that will give
them pay raises. This whole thing is stunning to me, which is being put
forward with a straight face.
On top of everything else, it removes the guarantee for preexisting
conditions. It is very unclear what will happen to someone who has had
a heart attack. I have a new, little, baby grandniece who has had two
heart surgeries already, and there is another one that she will have to
have in another year. While she is doing great--and my niece and nephew
deserve incredible admiration for taking care of little Leighton--she
is going to have a preexisting condition her whole life. She is going
to have a reconstructed heart that is going to cause her various
challenges. Without the current guarantees that we have that she gets
with her insurance, her folks are going to have a hard
[[Page S1618]]
time, and little Leighton is going to have a hard time her whole life.
When we look a little bit more into the details of all of this, we
see, in fact, that this bill provides tax increases for millions of
families. It repeals the tax credits in 2020 that help working families
afford insurance. By the way, even though things do not happen
immediately, in their knowing it is coming, the insurance companies are
certainly going to find themselves making different kinds of decisions,
and, certainly, families will make different kinds of decisions. I
would expect the insurance system to be destabilized immediately. We
are already seeing problems with insurance companies pulling out just
based on the debate about repealing healthcare.
When we look at the tax credits--or help--for buying healthcare, it
goes from helping those from low-, moderate-, and middle-income
families being able to afford insurance to changing the whole thing. It
is based on your age and your income. So the higher the age and the
higher the income, the more taxpayer dollars you get, which makes no
sense. A 55-year-old with a higher income will get more taxpayer
funding than will a 30-year-old who is working a minimum wage job and
has the toughest time in trying to find insurance that he can afford.
This is not the set of values or perspectives that make sense for
people in Michigan, as well as for people across the country.
While that 30-year-old who is working a minimum wage job is going to
be paying more and hoping that he does not have a preexisting condition
because he may not be able to find insurance at all, we see that there
is a $300 billion--with a ``b''--tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.
Picture this: Somebody in a minimum wage job who could very well see
his health insurance go completely away will have that happen, while
someone who makes more than $3.7 million a year will save over $200,000
a year. So $200,000 a year is what he will get back now in the form of
a tax cut, which is more than what most people make. Certainly, the
majority of people in Michigan make less. They work very, very hard,
but they make less than $200,000.
Just to underscore, this is the first bill out of the gate here in
which we are talking about any kind of tax cuts. We are already seeing
Republicans cutting taxes for the wealthy while raising taxes on the
middle class and raising their healthcare costs if they can find
healthcare. These tax cuts are just the start. Wait until we get to tax
reform, when we are going to see this whole debate happen again. My
guess is that middle-income people are going to end up paying the
bill--paying more--and the wealthy people are going to get another
round of tax cuts.
To add insult to injury again, there are the sweetheart deals so that
the CEOs of the biggest insurance companies can get pay raises--can get
more money--while people will pay more if they work or are poor or
middle class. There are tax cuts for prescription drug companies of $30
billion, but the bill does nothing to lower the cost of prescription
drugs. This, certainly, is not healthcare for the majority of
Americans. This, certainly, is not healthcare for those who need to
have access to affordable healthcare.
Then it is back to our seniors, who will pay more because of the
changes in how healthcare costs will be rated. We will, essentially,
see older people having twice the tax credit but five times more the
cost. I am not sure exactly how it is being proposed for preexisting
conditions. We are still working through that. I do know that the bill
has a penalty. If you have health insurance and, for some reason, there
is a crisis in your family and, for some reason, you cannot continue it
and you drop that insurance and then you reenroll again, there is a 30-
percent late enrollment surcharge. You will be paying 30 percent more
for your health insurance if you have a preexisting condition.
There are just two other items that are very important. I know that
the distinguished Presiding Officer shares the concern about this as
well, which is the fact that we have been able to create more access to
healthcare by expanding Medicaid, which is critically important.
One of the great success stories in Michigan today is that 97 percent
of our children in Michigan can now see a doctor--97 percent. We do not
want to go backward. Every child should have the ability to see a
doctor--every mom, every dad, every grandpa, every grandma. Right now,
in Michigan, 97 percent of children can see a doctor because of the
work that we did on the Affordable Care Act, including in the expansion
of Medicaid. This goes away. It takes a couple of years, but that goes
away.
Instead, what is proposed, essentially, is a voucher, but it has been
called a lot of names. There used to be folks talking about a block
grant to the States. Now they call it ``per capita.'' Yet it is really
simple. Just like there have been proposals by Republicans for years to
have a voucher for Medicare, now this is, essentially, a voucher for
Medicaid of X number of dollars. If you need more for your nursing home
care, then you are on your own. There are X number of dollars for your
child, for a family. If you have something happen and you get sick and
you need surgery or if you have cancer and it goes above that voucher,
you are on your own.
It completely changes Medicaid from an insurance system to a system
of, essentially, a voucher. Millions and millions and millions of
children, of families, of seniors--the majority of seniors in nursing
homes get their coverage through Medicaid--and our moms, dads,
grandpas, and grandmas, who right now get quality nursing home care
because of Medicaid, will be severely impacted by this voucher that
caps how much care they will be able to receive.
Finally, for over half of the population--for those of us who are
women--we will see a return, essentially, to a woman being a
preexisting condition. Essential services for women--maternity care,
which I was at the front of the line in fighting for, and prenatal
care--are not available in the majority of private plans a woman tries
to buy without her paying more. You can get maternity care, but it is
not viewed as basic. It may be basic to you, as a woman, but insurance
companies say: Sure, we will cover maternity care, but you have to pay
more. Forever, women have been paying more for their basic healthcare.
Under the Affordable Care Act, that changed when we said: Do you know
what? As a woman, you should not have to pay more for the basic care
you need.
Now all of that goes away under the House proposal. Just to make sure
that we see women's healthcare taken away, Planned Parenthood is
defunded. Yet 97 percent of what they do is basic care--mammograms,
getting to see your doctor, OB/GYN, prenatal care, and all of the
things you need for annual visits and so on. That is completely
defunded.
I congratulate everyone who has been involved in the effort to make
sure that birth control is affordable for women, and under the
Affordable Care Act, we have done that. This is an economic issue; this
is not a frill for women or for men or for families or for those who
have worked hard to make sure we can lower unintended pregnancies in
this country.
The good news is that we are at a 30-year low in unintended
pregnancies, a historic low in teen pregnancies, and at the lowest rate
of abortions since 1973--1973. Why is that? That is because women have
been able to get the healthcare they need. They have been able to get
affordable birth control to be able to manage their healthcare, as well
as seeing the economy improve. But we are seeing more and more where
more information is being made available, costs for basic preventive
care is down, and women having access to what they need in healthcare
allows them to be in a situation where we are seeing these historic
lows on unintended pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions.
I know in Michigan we have a number of counties across Michigan,
particularly in rural communities, where the Planned Parenthood clinic
is the only provider of basic healthcare. It is the only provider for
family planning and for cancer screenings and basic healthcare for
women and for many men. It may be the only provider in the community.
More than half of Planned Parenthood health centers are in rural and
underserved communities. About one-third of all of the women living in
those communities where Planned Parenthood is available find that this
is the only healthcare provider available to them.
[[Page S1619]]
So support for women, preventive healthcare, and Planned Parenthood
funding are cut completely in this bill. Access to maternity care,
prenatal care, and other basic essential services is eliminated. If you
want that, you can pay more as a woman.
On top of that, we are seeing essential services like mental health
and substance abuse services and other basic comprehensive services
that we said for the last several years should be available--healthcare
above the neck as well as healthcare below the neck should be viewed as
essential services for people across America. All of that goes away
with this proposal.
So, in my judgment, this is a mess. It is going to create a mess,
with more costs, less service, shifting taxpayer dollars to the
wealthy, while asking the middle-class and low-income families to pay
more. This is simply not a good deal.
I would welcome the opportunity to work with colleagues on something
that makes sense. Let's put aside this whole effort of repeal. Let's
focus on how we can bring costs down, including prescription drugs, and
continue to move forward, but let's not go back. When 97 percent of the
children in my State can see a doctor today, that is worth keeping.
That represents the best of our values. We can't go backward. The
proposal we are seeing in the House would take us back to a place that
would hurt the majority of Americans, and I strongly oppose it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, irrespective of how the Presidential
election came out last November, we would be having a conversation
about how to fix ObamaCare. There are many reasons for that, but most
importantly is that it has just skyrocketed costs for people in this
country. Premiums have gone through the roof, deductibles have
increased, copays have increased, and out-of-pocket costs have become
so extensive for people that even if they have coverage, they can't use
their plans in many cases. So when our colleagues across the aisle talk
about the recently rolled out proposal coming from the House--which
they will be discussing and we eventually will be discussing--to try to
drive down the costs for people in this country, that is what this
debate is really all about.
You can say what you want, but the fact is that this year, 2017,
premium increases are 25 percent in the exchanges--25 percent. In six
States, the premium increases were 50 percent in the exchanges. I don't
know how anybody--any family in this country--can keep up with those
kinds of skyrocketing premiums. If you are buying your insurance on the
individual market, the roof is blown off.
I talk to people in my State of South Dakota all the time who share
with me the excessive amount that it now costs for them to cover
themselves and their families. I talked to a lady in Sioux Falls
recently, and she told me they are now paying $22,000 a year for health
insurance. That is not working. That is why what we had was an abysmal
failure.
In terms of choices, the whole idea was that people were going to
have options out there. In a third of the counties in America today--
one-third of the counties in America today--people have one option, one
insurer. It is pretty hard to get a competitive rate when you only have
one option. There is a virtual monopoly in a third of the counties in
America today.
So we have markets collapsing, insurers pulling out, and we saw that
last fall Blue Cross Blue Shield pulled out of the individual market in
South Dakota and left 8,000 people wondering how they are going to
continue to cover themselves with health insurance. The markets are
collapsing, choices are dwindling, and costs are skyrocketing.
The Senator from Michigan was just on the floor talking about how
terrible things are going to be under the proposal that is being
considered and discussed in the House of Representatives, but the fact
is, things are terrible today, and that is why we are having this
conversation. Eight in ten Americans think ObamaCare either ought to be
repealed entirely or dramatically changed, significantly changed. By
any estimation, by any objective measurement or metric, it has been a
failure, and that is why we are having this conversation, and that
conversation would have occurred irrespective of what happened in the
Presidential election last fall.
So let's be clear about why we are here and why we are having this
conversation and why we are coming up with a better solution for the
American people that will drive down their costs, give them more
choices, create more competition in the marketplace, and give them a
higher and better quality of care because it restores the doctor-
patient relationship, which is so important, not having the government
intervening and being in the middle of all of that.
The Economy and Regulatory Reform
Mr. President, we have a recovery that technically began almost 8
years ago, but for too many Americans, it still feels as if we are in a
recession. Americans basically have not had a pay raise in 8 years.
Since the recovery began in 2009, wage growth has averaged a paltry
0.25 percent a year--one quarter of 1 percent increase in pay per year
since 2009. Well, imagine if you are a family and you are looking at
everything that is going up in your lives, whether it is healthcare,
which I just talked about, or the cost of education or the cost of
energy or the cost of food, all of these things that continue to go up,
and you are getting a 0.25-percent--one quarter of 1 percent--pay raise
on an annual basis. It is pretty hard not to feel like you are starting
to sink and your head is going to be below water before long.
Good jobs and opportunities for workers have been too few and too far
between. Millions of Americans are working part time because they can't
find full-time employment. Even as some economic markers have improved,
our economy has stayed firmly stuck in the doldrums. Economic growth
for 2016 averaged a dismal 1.6 percent, and there are few signs that
things are improving.
By the way, the historical average going back to World War II is
about 3.2 percent average growth in the economy. So last year we were
at one-half of what the average had been going back all the way to
World War II.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is projecting average
growth for the next 10 years at just 2 percent--in other words, long-
term economic stagnation.
The good news, though, is that we don't have to resign ourselves to
the status quo. We can get our economy going again. Republicans are
committed to doing just that. To get our economy going again, we need
to identify the reasons for the long-term stagnation we are
experiencing.
A recent report from the Economic Innovation Group identified one
important problem: a lack of what the organization calls ``economic
dynamism.'' Economic dynamism, as the Economic Innovation Group defines
it, refers to the rate at which new businesses are born and die.
In a dynamic economy, the rate of new business creation is high and
significantly outstrips the rate of business deaths. But that hasn't
been the case in the United State lately. New business creation has
significantly dropped over the past several years. Between 2009 and
2011, business death outstripped business birth.
While the numbers have since improved slightly, the recovery has been
poor and far, as I mentioned before, from historical norms. The
Economic Innovation Group notes that in 2012--the economy's best year
for business creation since the recession--it fell far short of its
worst year prior to 2008. This is deeply concerning because new
businesses have historically been responsible for a substantial part of
the job creation in this country, not to mention a key source of
innovation. When new businesses aren't being created at a strong rate,
workers face a whole host of problems.
``A less dynamic economy,'' the Economic Innovation Group notes, ``is
one likely to feature fewer jobs, lower labor force participation,
slack wage growth, and rising inequality--exactly what we see today.''
Well, American workers clearly need relief, and restoring economic
dynamism is a key to providing it. We need to pave the way for new
businesses and the jobs they create, and we need to ensure that current
businesses, particularly small businesses, are able to thrive.
[[Page S1620]]
There are a number of ways we can do this. One big thing we can do is
relieve the burden of excessive government regulations. Obviously some
government regulations are important and necessary, but too many others
are unnecessary and doing nothing but loading businesses down with
compliance costs and paperwork hours. The more resources businesses
spend complying with regulations, the less they have available for
growth and innovation. Excessive regulations also prevent many new
businesses from ever getting off the ground. Small startups simply
don't have the resources to hire individuals, let alone the consultants
and lawyers to do the costly work of complying with the scores of
government regulations.
Unfortunately, over the past 8 years, the Obama administration spent
a lot of time imposing burdensome regulations on American businesses.
According to the American Action Forum, the Obama administration was
responsible for implementing more than 675 major regulations that cost
the economy more than $800 billion. Given those numbers, it is no
surprise that the Obama economy left businesses with fewer resources to
dedicate to growing and creating jobs or that new business creation
seriously dropped off during those years in the Obama administration.
Since the new Congress began in January, Republicans have been
focused on repealing burdensome ObamaCare regulations using the
Congressional Review Act. We have already used this law to repeal three
Obama regulations, and this week we will use it to repeal at least two
more, including the ``blacklisting'' rule, which imposes duplicative
and unnecessary requirements for businesses bidding on Federal
Government contracts, and the Bureau of Land Management methane rule,
which curbs energy production on Federal lands by restricting drilling.
This methane rule would cost jobs and deprive State and local
governments of tax and royalty payments that they can use to address
local priorities.
Another area of regulatory reform we need to address is ObamaCare, as
I mentioned. Repealing the burdensome mandates and regulations this law
has imposed on businesses will go a long way toward removing barriers
to new businesses and spurring growth at existing businesses.
Another important thing we can do is remove unnecessary barriers that
restrict access to capital. Both new and existing businesses rely on
capital to help them innovate, expand, and create jobs.
In addition to removing burdensome regulations, tax reform needs to
be a priority. Measures like allowing new businesses to deduct their
startup costs and reducing rates for small businesses would spur new
business creation and help small businesses thrive. Republicans plan to
take up comprehensive tax reform later this year, and I look forward to
that debate.
The American economy has always been known for being dynamic and
innovative, and we need to make sure it stays that way. We need to free
up the innovators and the job creators so that the next big idea isn't
buried by government regulations before it has a chance to see the
light of day.
Sluggish economic growth doesn't have to be the new normal. By
removing burdensome government regulations and reforming our Tax Code,
we can spur business creation and innovation. We can increase wages and
opportunities for American workers, and we can put our economy on the
path to long-term health, where that growth rate gets back to that more
historic level that allows for better paying jobs and higher wages for
American families.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in both Houses of
Congress to achieve these goals, and I am anxious for us to start
passing bills that will put policies in place that are favorable to
higher economic growth, better jobs, and better wages for the American
people and their families.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, as we continue to debate H.J. Res. 44, a
resolution of disproval to nullify the BLM planning 2.0 rule, I would
like to bring to the attention of my colleagues an editorial published
last week in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. It outlines many of the
reasons we should oppose the repeal of the BLM planning 2.0 rule.
I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Daily Sentinel, Mar. 1, 2017]
Aligning Values
Colorado's biggest political guns are marching to the beat
of the same drum, proclaiming the Centennial State is the
perfect new location for the massive Outdoor Retailer Show
which is leaving Salt Lake City over the extreme stance
Utah's political leaders have taken on public lands.
Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and U.S. Sens. Cory
Gardner, a Republican, and Democrat Michael Bennet sent a
joint letter Monday to the Outdoor Retailer Show hailing
Colorado's bipartisan commitment to maintaining and
protecting public lands.
Considering that Utah is ground-zero for a movement to
transfer management of public lands from the federal
government to the states, it's not hard for Colorado to claim
that its values are more closely aligned with the outdoor
industry, which relies on public lands for its livelihood.
Colorado could enhance that claim if Gardner and Bennet
refuse to overturn the first major revision of the Bureau of
Land Management's land-use planning process in three decades.
Congress is seeking to overturn BLM's Planning 2.0
initiative under the Congressional Review Act. The House has
already voted to eliminate the rule. If the Senate follows
suit, it will undo an effort to increase public involvement,
improve transparency and promote science-based decision-
making in public-lands planning.
Planning 2.0 is not without its critics. The Western
Governors' Association has asked Congress in a Feb. 10 letter
to ``direct the BLM to re-examine the final Planning 2.0
rule. Any revisions . . . should be crafted collaboratively
with western states.''
But there can be no revisions if the rule is repealed under
the CRA, which is a ``nuclear bomb'' of a legislative tool.
The CRA would not only overturn the rule, but block future
rulemakings that are ``substantially the same'' without prior
approval from Congress.
That means the BLM would be stuck with an antiquated
planning process, hobbling the agency in a way that
reinforces all the negative perceptions that already exist
regarding the way it manages public lands.
Sportsmen's groups, the Pew Charitable Trusts, conservation
groups and the Outdoor Industry Association all support
Planning 2.0. The WGA wants to keep it alive to improve it.
Public lands are the backbone of the outdoor industry,
which contributes $646 billion to the economy annually.
Gardner sponsored the Outdoor Recreation and Jobs Economic
Impact Act, which was signed into law by the president last
year. It requires the Bureau of Economic Analysis to
calculate the economic impact of the outdoor recreation
industry and requires the Commerce Department to provide
Congress with a full evaluation of the outdoor recreation
industry.
He obviously recognizes the importance of the outdoor
recreation industry as a jobs creator and an economic engine.
He should also understand that the industry equates killing
the rule with hampering growth.
The Senate vote may have not any bearing on whether the
Outdoor Retailer Show relocates to Colorado. But supporting
2.0 is a show of good faith that our senators get what's at
stake.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose today's resolution to
overturn the Bureau of Land Management planning 2.0 rule.
The Bureau of Land Management is charged with ensuring responsible
use of public lands, which requires extensive land use planning to
balance priorities like recreation, conservation, and energy
development. Planning 2.0 simply updates outdated planning processes
that date back 30 years to provide greater community input and
transparency. This is intended to create plans that work better for all
users, including local communities. It is also meant to reduce the time
it takes to complete the planning process.
Under the new rule, the public is involved in the planning process
early to avoid costly and time-consuming disputes later. The rule
allows for the use of current technology like geospatial data to allow
for more science-based decisionmaking.
Developing planning 2.0 took 2 years and included consideration of
more than 6,000 public comments. With today's resolution, we would
abandon modernization that makes it easier for the public and State and
local governments to be involved in the Federal planning process and
revert to rules that were written in 1983.
A wide range of sportsmen groups, including the Izaak Walton League
of America, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout
Unlimited have asked us to preserve Planning 2.0. They write:
``Stakeholders
[[Page S1621]]
from across the multiple-use spectrum agreed that the previous BLM
planning process could be improved. Under the outdated process,
opportunities for public involvement were too few, and the public
didn't learn about agency plans until they were already proposed.''
If we pass this resolution today, BLM will have to go back to that
outdated process and would be prohibited from proposing a rule that is
substantially similar to planning 2.0. I urge my colleagues to vote
against this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
TrumpCare
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, last night the Republicans in the House
revealed their plan to scrap the ACA and replace it with something much
worse--TrumpCare. There are so many things that are wrong with this
bill. A lot of us are still going through the 184 pages and all of its
implications, so it is impossible to encapsulate all the difficulties
in this legislation in one speech.
I am going to highlight eight problems with this bill to start. First
of all, this bill is a complicated and rushed mess. Despite the fact
that they had 7 years to work on their own plan, the Republicans
cobbled together a bill that makes no sense. In an effort to make
everyone in their caucus happy, they have made no one in their caucus
happy. That is why we have seen conservative groups--from AEI to AFP,
the Heritage Foundation, the Koch brothers--come out and express
opposition to the legislation.
Second, this bill cuts Medicaid. They are going to use a phrase
called block grants, but I want everyone to understand that is cutting
Medicaid. That is a euphemism for cutting the resources for Medicaid.
This cuts a program that helps more than 70 million Americans across
the country get the healthcare they need. It means less care for
pregnant moms, less care for families with loved ones in nursing homes.
Nursing home benefits will be totally trashed, and all of these changes
will reduce Medicaid to a level not seen before.
By the way, Medicare doesn't escape the ax. It is also in trouble if
we enact the House legislation. TrumpCare will actually move up the
date of insolvency of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years, to the year
2025. That is not 20, 30 years from now when they talk about the Social
Security trust fund. That is quite soon to have Medicare be insolvent,
and they are accelerating the date in which Medicare becomes insolvent.
Third, this bill hits the elderly with an age tax. Here is how the
law currently works. It is basically a cap on the amount that an
insurance company can charge a senior for healthcare. It says you
cannot charge more than three times the amount you charge a young
person for a senior citizen.
It is capped at three times what you charge for young people. This
would increase the cap to five times the cost. If a young person's
health insurance costs $250, the maximum under the current law is $750.
Now you are talking five times $250--$1,250 per month.
This is an age tax. If there is any doubt about how difficult this is
going to be for senior citizens, ask the AARP. They are a bipartisan,
well-respected organization that works in every State. Seniors across
the country need to understand what this age tax is. You will pay more
for health insurance if the law passes as it is.
Fourth, and this is a very important point. This is basically not a
healthcare bill because if it were a healthcare bill, everybody knows
it would require 60 votes. It would be enacting new legislation. This
is a budget bill. All they can do, really, is cut taxes related to
healthcare. This is a bill that cuts taxes for rich people.
How does it finance it? First of all, it finances--probably a lot of
it by borrowing. The other portion of it is by cuts to Medicare and
Medicaid. TrumpCare has special tax cuts that only benefit the highest
earning households and another one that will go to insurance company
executives who make more than half a million dollars a year.
You cannot make this stuff up. They are cutting taxes for insurance
company executives who make more than half a million dollars each year,
and they are financing it by cutting healthcare for the people we all
represent.
Fifth, this bill will blow up the debt and the deficit. The crazy
thing is, we don't actually know how much our debt and deficit will
increase because Republicans are in such a hurry to rush this through
without a formal CBO analysis. We have no idea how much this is going
to cost--probably trillions, but they haven't even asked for a CBO
score. They don't want to know how much this is going to blow up the
debt and the deficit because all of the fiscal hawks will be found to
be hypocrites who have been railing about deficits for all of their
career. Yet this might be the biggest budget-busting piece of
legislation in many, many years, and they don't want to know how much
it costs because they have made a promise. They are going to go ahead
and fulfill that promise no matter how ridiculous it is.
Sixth, this bill will trash mental health coverage. The ACA was a
huge step forward for the mental health community because it required
insurance companies to cover mental health and substance abuse
disorders. We are in a moment when every State is struggling with an
addiction crisis. What I don't know is why we would rip away these
services when so many people are counting on it to break their
addictions.
Seventh, this bill will defund Planned Parenthood because they can't
help themselves in the U.S. House of Representatives. Planned
Parenthood is a provider that offers healthcare to millions of women
across the country, but this bill will stop low-income women from
getting critical health services like breast cancer screenings from
local clinics. Oftentimes, this would happen in communities where women
have nowhere else to turn. Many community health centers don't have the
services women need or they have twice the wait times that a Planned
Parenthood would have. For women waiting to find out if they have
cancer, that is simply not an option.
Finally, this bill is too partisan. I think we can all agree that our
approach to healthcare could use some improvements, and I am more than
ready to work with my Republican colleagues to make healthcare better.
That is not just a rhetorical flourish. I have tried to back that up
with my legislative actions. I have worked with Senator Hatch on
legislation to increase access to high-quality care in hard-to-reach
regions. I have worked with Senator Cassidy and many others on a bill
to create a public health emergency fund. I have worked with Senators
Wicker, Cochran, and Thune on a telehealth bill.
We can work together on healthcare, but it requires three things: No.
1, good faith, and there is no good faith in this piece of legislation.
No. 2, bipartisanship. This bill, I am quite sure, will get zero
Democratic votes in the House or the Senate. No. 3, we need legislative
hearings. We need to have a conversation in the light of day and let
the American people weigh in. We need to figure out what it is that
they are doing to the American healthcare system.
If they are so proud of their plan, why no hearings? If they are so
proud of their plan, why not get at least a score from the
Congressional Budget Office? If they are so proud of their plan, why do
they lack the confidence that any Democrat will support it?
Look, we do have the opportunity to work together to improve
healthcare, but this bill is basically a mess. It is worse than I
thought. I think it is worse than a lot of people thought, especially
given that they have been talking about this for 7 years. So one might
think they would have had a really well-thought-through plan. This has
all of the characteristics of something that was rushed out the door in
about a 48-hour period.
I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this very bad piece of
legislation and give us some space and time to do this right and to do
this in a bipartisan fashion.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous request that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S1622]]
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, TrumpCare is here, and you are going to
hate it. This replacement for the Affordable Care Act has been 7 years
in the making. On a cursory overview, it appears that when you ask the
question as to who gets hurt under the replacement plan, the answer is
everyone, with the exception of insurance companies, drug companies,
and the very wealthy.
I hope we are able to step back and take our time to analyze what
this replacement plan is going to do to Americans who badly need
healthcare, who believed Republicans when they told them that they were
going to repeal the bill and replace it with something better, and who
believed President Trump when he said that he was going to repeal the
Affordable Care Act and replace it with something that was wonderful,
that insured everybody who was insured under the Affordable Care Act
and did it at lower costs.
I know that my colleagues who are well meaning in this Chamber cannot
read this replacement plan and understand it to do anything but strip
coverage away from millions of Americans and to drive up costs for
millions of Americans. There is no credible way to look at this
replacement plan without seeing the devastation that will be wrought.
I want to spend just a few minutes, now that we have had this plan to
look at for 24 hours, talking about how dangerous it is and pleading
with my Republican colleagues to take their time and, hopefully, decide
instead to work with Democrats to try to strengthen the Affordable Care
Act, fix what is not working as well, but preserve the parts that are
working.
Here is what I mean when I say that everyone, with the exception of
insurance companies, drug companies, and the superrich, is hurt by the
GOP replacement plan. First, this idea that we are going to end the
Medicaid expansion--that is what this replacement plan does. It says
that in 2 years, effectively 2020, the Medicaid expansion will go away.
That means in my State, 200,000 people will lose healthcare. Millions
across the country will lose healthcare. They are, by and large, the
poor and the lower middle class--largely women and children who can't
get insurance other than through the Medicaid expansion--who will no
longer be able to get it. Medicaid has been expanded in Democratic
States, Republican States, blue States, red States. Letting Medicaid
expansion hang around for 2 years is no solace to people who will jam
into those years as much healthcare as they can get, but then be
without it afterwards.
Even more insidious is the part of the GOP healthcare replacement
plan that would turn Medicaid into a block grant after 2020. This has
been talked about in conservative circles for a long time, but has been
resisted, again, by Democrats and Republicans who understand what that
means. It means Medicaid will eventually wither on the vine and will
become a State responsibility. No longer will the Federal Government
help States pick up the costs for insuring the most vulnerable
citizens.
Remember who Medicaid covers. Medicaid covers 60 percent of children
with disabilities in this country. Of the tens of millions of kids
living with disabilities, 6 out of 10 of them get their insurance from
Medicaid. If Medicaid is turned into a block grant, let me just tell
you, let me guarantee you that healthcare will end for millions of
those kids. If it does not end, it will be dramatically scaled back
because States cannot afford to pick up 60, 70, 80 percent eventually
of the cost.
Thirty percent of non-elderly adults with disabilities are covered by
Medicaid. Sixty-four percent of nursing home residents are covered by
Medicaid. Two out of every three of our senior citizens who are living
in nursing homes are covered by Medicaid. If you block-grant Medicaid,
all of a sudden States will not be able to pick up those costs and will
not be able to deliver healthcare to people in nursing homes. That is
just the truth.
The Republican bill effectively ends coverage for 11 million people
all across this country who are covered by the Medicaid expansion after
2 years, and then it jeopardizes care for tens of millions more by
dramatically cutting the Medicaid Program and the Medicaid
reimbursement to States. This is not a game; this is 11 million people.
Remember, it is not a guess because in 2020 you will be reverting
back to the rules before the Affordable Care Act. Before the Affordable
Care Act, 11 million fewer people were covered under Medicaid. Even if
States maybe hang around and decide to front the billions of dollars
necessary to cover a few million of those, you are still talking about
5, 6, 7, 8, 9 million people who will lose insurance--again, people who
can't buy it anywhere else. This is people's lives we are playing
with--as I mentioned, 200,000 in Connecticut alone.
Do you know who else gets hurt by this replacement plan? Older
Americans. It seems that older Americans are really targeted in this
plan because although the underlying Affordable Care Act says that you
can't charge older Americans more than three times that of younger
Americans, this replacement plan changes the rules. It allows insurance
companies to jack up prices on older Americans. So a 60-year-old would
have their premium go up by about one-quarter. That is roughly $3,000,
according to an AARP study. I don't know about the Presiding Officer,
but a lot of adults getting ready to qualify for Medicare in
Connecticut don't have $3,000 sitting around.
But it gets worse. Because the premium support is so skimpy, under
this plan, that same 60-year-old in Connecticut would have their
premium support--their tax credit--cut in half, from $8,000 down to
$4,000. Do the math. That is a $9,000 increase in healthcare costs for
a 60-year-old resident in Connecticut. That is unaffordable. There is
just no way for anybody to say that for that 60-year-old living in
Connecticut or living in Nebraska or living in California, that is
better healthcare. Nine thousand more dollars out of pocket for a 60-
year-old is not better healthcare.
The claim is that this bill will cover people with preexisting
conditions, but because there is no minimum benefit requirement, the
plans don't have to cover anything that you need for your preexisting
condition. So, yes, they can't technically charge someone with cancer
more, but they don't have to cover chemotherapy. The Affordable Care
Act says insurance has to be insurance. There has to be some minimum,
basic level of benefits so that everybody knows that when they buy an
insurance plan, they are basically getting coverage for maternity care,
for cancer treatment, for mental illness. Because this legislation
strips away any requirement that insurance be insurance, maybe you get
insurance if you have cancer, but it may not cover anything you have.
Of course the cruelest piece of this bill says that if you lose
insurance, you then get charged more. Republicans are right that in the
Affordable Care Act as it exists today, there is a penalty if you don't
buy insurance. Republicans just do their penalty differently. What this
replacement plan says is that if you lose insurance and you try to get
it later on, you will pay 30 percent more. I admit that there is a
penalty in the underlying Affordable Care Act and there is a penalty in
the Republican bill, but the problem is that under the existing
Affordable Care Act, the help you get to buy insurance allows you to
buy insurance. That is why 20 million people have insurance today. But
because the tax credits are basically cut in half under this proposal,
it will render healthcare unaffordable; thus, more people will have
gaps in coverage; thus, more people will pay the penalty.
So in the end, this bill really does not provide protection for
people with preexisting conditions because they are not going to be
able to buy insurance in the first place. They are going to fall into
that gap, and then they are going to have to pay more. Even if they do
have insurance, it may not even cover what they need.
All of this is made harder to understand because it seems to be one
big excuse to deliver a giant tax cut to the wealthy. The Joint
Committee on Taxation estimates that this bill would cut taxes by $600
billion for the wealthiest Americans. The Affordable Care Act was
financed in part by a tax on unearned income for people making over
$250,000 a year. I live in a pretty wealthy State--Connecticut--but
people who are making $250,000 and a whole lot of unearned income are
not amongst the most needy in our society. The average tax cut under
this bill
[[Page S1623]]
would be $200,000. Why? Because we are taxing so few people who are
making such big amounts of money, the average tax cut would be
$200,000.
It is so hard to understand because when you do the sum total of
parts that are moving under this replacement plan, it seems as if the
biggest parts that are moving are care away from millions of poor
people and the elderly and money going to the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans. That is not hyperbole; that is just how this bill works out.
The biggest net result of this bill from the status quo is that
millions of people who are on Medicaid today in a few years won't have
it--those are kids; those are the disabled; those are the elderly--and
a handful of very wealthy Americans will make out with enormous tax
cuts under this legislation.
I guess it is no secret that this bill was crafted behind closed
doors. Seven years in the making, and this bill was hidden from public
view until yesterday. Now House Republicans are saying they are going
to give the American public 1 week to look at this. No estimate of the
cost--they are going to ram it through as quickly as they can.
I held half a dozen townhalls in the summer of 2009, when the tea
party tempest was at its highest, where people really wanted to talk to
me about how upset they were with the way the healthcare debate was
going. One of the refrains that I heard in those townhalls was that
Democrats were ramming through the Affordable Care Act. Everybody heard
it. Ramming through the Affordable Care Act. It was on FOX News every
night. It was part of our townhalls regularly.
Well, let me tell you what happened in 2009. The House process
spanned three committees: the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Ways
and Means Committee, and the Education and Labor Committee. The House
had 79 bipartisan hearings and markups on the health reform bill--79
bipartisan hearings and markups. House Members spent nearly 100 hours
in hearings, heard from 181 witnesses, and considered 239 amendments
and accepted 121. The HELP Committee had 14 bipartisan roundtables, 13
bipartisan hearings, and 20 bipartisan walkthroughs on health reform.
The HELP Committee considered nearly 300 amendments and accepted 160
Republican amendments. The Finance Committee held a similar process.
When the bill came to the floor, the Senate spent 25 consecutive days
in session on health reform--the second longest consecutive session in
history.
So don't tell me that the Affordable Care Act was rushed through when
during that time the HELP Committee considered 300 amendments, held
dozens of hearings, and in 2017 there are going to be no committee
meetings, no committee markups, no committee amendments, and barely a
week for the public, for think tanks, for hospitals, for doctors, for
patients to be able to consider the chaos that will be wrought if this
healthcare plan goes through.
So I am on the floor today to plead with my Republican colleagues to
step back from this potential debacle. This seems like it was written
on the back of a napkin in order to rush something out into the public
so that Republicans can claim they are fulfilling the promise they
made, without thinking through the consequences.
Over and over again, I heard my Republican friends and President
Trump say they are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace
it with something better. I heard the new Secretary of Health and Human
Services say that no one was going to lose insurance, that costs were
not going to go up, and that the insurance protections were going to be
preserved. None of that will be true under the current plan under
consideration. Everybody knows it, which is why it is being hidden from
public view.
Politicians love praise. We love good press. So if Republicans
thought this was a praiseworthy plan, they would not be hiding it. They
would not be trying to rush it through. They would be celebrating an
achievement they have been crowing about for years--replacing the
Affordable Care Act with something that is better.
This is worse for everyone except for insurance companies, drug
companies, and the superrich. The superrich get a big tax cut, and all
of the fees that were levied on the insurance companies and drug
companies that were used to pay for additional expansion go away.
Tucked inside here, there is even a very specific tax cut for
insurance company CEOs. I mean, think about that. Tucked into this bill
is a specific tax cut for a select group of individuals--insurance
company CEOs. I represent a lot of those CEOs, but it does not make it
right.
I hope we will find a way to work together to try to strengthen the
Affordable Care Act and fix what is wrong. The plan that was unveiled
yesterday--I understand not by the Senate but by the House--hurts
everybody except for a select few. I think most of my colleagues know
we can do better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:45
p.m. today, there be 15 minutes of debate remaining on H.J. Res. 44,
equally divided in the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Discharge and Referral--S. 416
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be discharged from
further consideration of S. 416 and the bill be referred to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are coming to the end of debate on
the disapproval resolution for the BLM Planning 2.0 Rule. I would like
to take just a few minutes to highlight the very broad support it has
drawn here on Capitol Hill but really across the country.
Here in the Senate, I mentioned earlier that there is a total of 17
Members who have joined me in sponsoring our version of this
resolution. That is nearly one-fifth of this Chamber. It includes every
Republican from a Western State with BLM lands within its borders.
These are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado,
Nevada, Montana, even Kentucky, and the State of the occupant of the
Chair, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, so a very strong contingent of
Members who are in support of this disapproval resolution.
Across the Capitol, the House of Representatives passed this
resolution with bipartisan support a couple of weeks ago through the
leadership of Representative Cheney of Wyoming. This resolution wound
up with 234 votes in the House. That is a pretty strong vote.
The reason why so many Members of the House and the Senate want to
overturn BLM's planning 2.0 Rule is pretty simple. We know what it
means for our Western States. We don't like the impacts that it will
have and neither do a wide variety of elected officials and
stakeholders back home.
In my State of Alaska, I have heard from the Alaska Municipal League,
the Alaska Farm Bureau, and the Associated General Contractors of
Alaska. The Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce wrote to ask us to
overturn the rule. The Alaska Chamber wrote in support of our
resolution because they said BLM's planning process ``has grown to be
substantially lengthier, more confusing, and burdensome for
stakeholders to engage in.''
We have heard from our leaders in the Alaska State Legislature, State
Senators Pete Kelly and John Coghill, who have asked for this rule to
be nullified, as have several of our Alaska Native corporations,
including CIRI, Olgoonik, and Calista Corporation. The Alaska chapter
of the Safari Club opposes it because its landscape-level approach to
land management planning has the potential to withdraw and lock up even
more land in Alaska.
Alaska's energy, mineral, and timber producers are united in their
opposition to this rule and in their support of our disapproval
resolution. We have heard from the Resource Development Council, the
Alaska Oil and Gas Association, the Alaska Forest Association, the
Council of Alaska Producers, the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, the
Fortymile Mining District, and the Alaska Miners Association, and they
all oppose BLM's planning 2.0 Rule because it reduces economic
opportunities for Alaskans--those who actually live near these BLM
lands, who know
[[Page S1624]]
the most about them, and who depend on them to provide for their
families.
It is the same story in many other Western States, from Arizona and
New Mexico to Washington and Oregon, to Montana and South Dakota. This
rule affects all 12 BLM States, and those States just are not happy
about it.
We have heard from about 80 groups so far that oppose that rule, and
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the list of supporters be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 15/H.J. Res. 44
Strong Support From Western Stakeholders
National Stakeholders
American Energy Alliance, American Exploration and Mining
Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American
Petroleum Institute, Americans for Prosperity, American Sheep
Industry Association, Association of National Grasslands,
Independent Petroleum Association of America, National
Association of Conservation Districts, National Association
of Counties, National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National
Mining Association, National Water Resources Association,
Public Lands Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Western
Energy Alliance.
State Stakeholders
Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Alaska Chamber of
Commerce, Alaska Chapter, Safari Club International, Alaska
Farm Bureau, Inc., Alaska Forest Association, Alaska Miners
Association, Alaska Municipal League, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association, Alaska Support Industry Alliance, Alaska
Trucking Association, Calista Corporation, Cook Inlet Region,
Inc., Council of Alaska Producers, Fortymile Mining District,
Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, Members of the Alaska
State Senate, Olgoonik Corporation, Resource Development
Council.
Arizona Association of Counties, Arizona Cattle Growers
Association, Arizona County Supervisors Association, Arizona
Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona Mining Association,
California Cattlemen's Association, California Farm Bureau
Federation, California Wool Growers Association, Rural County
Representatives of California, Colorado Cattlemen's
Association, Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Wool Growers
Association, Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Farm Bureau
Federation, Idaho Wool Growers Association, Montana
Association of Counties, Montana Association of State Grazing
Districts, Montana Electric Cooperatives' Association.
Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Montana Mining Association,
Montana Petroleum Association, Montana Public Lands Council,
Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Wool Growers
Association, Eureka County, Nevada, Nevada Association of
Conservation Districts, Nevada Association of Counties,
Nevada Cattlemen's Association, Nevada Farm Bureau
Federation, New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, New
Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, New Mexico Wool Grower,
Inc, North Dakota Stockmen's Association, Association of
Oregon Counties, Oregon Association of Conservation
Districts, Oregon Cattlemen's Association.
Oregon Farm Bureau, South Dakota Cattlemen's Association,
South Dakota Public Lands Council, Utah Association of
Conservation Districts, Utah Association of Counties, Utah
Cattlemen's Association, Utah Farm Bureau Federation, Utah
Wool Growers Association, Washington Cattlemen's Association,
Washington Farm Bureau Federation, Western Interstate Region
of NACo, Governor Mead of Wyoming, Petroleum Association of
Wyoming, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts,
Wyoming County Commissioners Association, Wyoming Farm
Bureau, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, Wyoming Wool
Growers Association.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. This list includes our Nation's energy and mineral
producers, the people who keep our lights on, who provide fuel for our
vehicles, and who construct everything from semiconductors to
skyscrapers. The American Petroleum Institute, the Independent
Petroleum Association of America, the Western Energy Alliance, the
National Mining Association, and the American Exploration & Mining
Association are all opposed to this rule, and so are many State groups,
like the Arizona Mining Association, the Montana Electric Cooperatives'
Association, and the Petroleum Association of Wyoming.
Joining them are many of our Nation's farmers and ranchers, the
individuals who provide so much of our Nation's food supply, whether
that is steak or whether that is milk or something else. The National
Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Sheep Industry
Association have registered their opposition. The American Farm Bureau
Federation opposes the rule and so do many of its State partners,
including the Colorado Farm Bureau, the New Mexico Farm & Livestock
Bureau, the Oregon Farm Bureau, and the Washington Farm Bureau.
Perhaps most critically, planning 2.0 has drawn strong opposition
from local and State governments, the entities that are elected to
represent all of the people, not just one specific interest. The
National Association of Counties, the voice of county governments all
across the country, sent a letter outlining their support for the
disapproval resolution. Another group, the National Association of
Conservation Districts, wrote that planning 2.0 should be repealed
because it ``skirts the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and
reduces the ability of local government involvement'' while seeming
``forced and blind to the many issues raised in the public comment
period.''
Again, this disapproval resolution has drawn strong support from a
wide range of stakeholder groups--energy, mining, and grazing,
America's farmers and ranchers, State officials, local counties, and
conservation districts. Everything from the Alaska Trucking Association
to the Public Lands Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have all
weighed in. At last count, more than 80 groups had asked us to repeal
BLM's planning 2.0 Rule, and I am sure there are many others that are
not included in that count.
We have heard such strong support because this is a misguided rule
that will negatively impact our Western States. It subverts the special
status relationship between the Federal Government and the States and
local governments. It limits local involvement and local input. It
opens the door for decisionmaking authority to be centralized at BLM's
headquarters here in Washington, DC. It upends BLM's multiple-use
mission by allowing the agency to pick and choose among preferred uses,
while sidelining industries that provide good-paying jobs in our
western communities.
I think there is broad agreement that planning 2.0 should be
overturned. That is what we are here to do, and we will have that
opportunity in just a few moments.
So I ask all Members of the Senate, including those who do not have
BLM lands in their States, to consider the strong support this
resolution of disapproval has drawn and to join us in passing it at 4
o'clock.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we had a chance earlier today to talk
about this Congressional Review Act resolution before us that I urge my
colleagues to turn down. This resolution basically would negate a very
important aspect of a rule that was put in place to help the public
have more input on public lands.
The rule was pretty straightforward--common sense--to make sure that
there was a lot of increased public input to bolster the decisionmaking
process and to ensure that there are 21st century management policies
in place.
There is nothing in this rule that was implemented in the last
administration that erodes or takes away from the States' and local
governments' planning processes and the decisionmaking they do.
So it is very important to me that we continue to have the
transparency and openness and sunshine in our public planning. I think
one editorial from the Post-Register from Idaho said it best. So I will
read from it.
Resource management planning. Sound boring? Maybe. But if
you are a Westerner, it definitely shouldn't be.
Resource management planning (RMP) affects how you can or
can't use the vast swaths of public lands outside your back
door for things like hunting, camping, four-wheeling, hiking,
fishing, and rock climbing--a lot of the things you probably
love about being a Westerner.
With a new Republican presidential administration in power
and the GOP-controlled Congress rubbing its hands together in
delight, ready to implement part one of its grand scheme for
public lands--cashing in on
[[Page S1625]]
those resources--RMPs should get a whole lot more interesting
to Westerners.
Since 2014, BLM officials have been toiling away,
rebuilding the current rules for land use planning in a
significant way for the first time since 1983. . . .
One important change is that Planning 2.0 would let the BLM
take into account local impacts from the beginning.
Going on to read from the editorial:
The Republican-controlled House has already passed a
resolution to strike Planning 2.0 from the books once and for
all. The Senate will vote within days on whether or not
they'll use the same sledgehammer--the Congressional Review
Act (CRA). It's an especially diabolical weapon.
Once the CRA is used on Planning 2.0, it will be gone
forever. It prevents future BLM rules for planning land use
from being introduced if they are ``substantially the same.''
The utterly confounding part is why this rule is being
picked on in the first place. . . .
Planning 2.0 actually mandates more local control, gives it
more often and is a smarter, more elegant solution to sharing
use of our public lands.
I couldn't say it better than that editorial. Local communities are
watching. They want more sunshine. They want more input. They want a
smoother process. They don't want lawsuits that take forever. They want
us to work in a collaborative fashion, guaranteeing the public input of
local governments, States, and our citizens in how we manage our
Federal lands.
I urge my colleagues to turn down this resolution.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--48
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Isakson
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) was passed.
____________________