[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 51 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1958-S1959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as ObamaCare, on its seventh
anniversary of being signed into law by our previous President, Barack
Obama.
Looking back at what has happened to healthcare over the past 7
years, there isn't a whole lot of good news to report. Since that time,
Americans have been hit with hundreds of billions in new taxes,
healthcare costs have risen exponentially, and families have struggled
with fewer options and reduced access to healthcare services.
Just in the last year, healthcare premiums have gone up 25 percent
for the typical ObamaCare plan. That number is even higher in my home
State of South Dakota where premiums have increased 37 percent.
ObamaCare has also driven health insurance companies to completely
leave the marketplace, leaving Americans with fewer insurance options.
Again, I will use my own State as an example. Under ObamaCare, the
number of companies offering insurance in the individual market in
South Dakota has dropped from 13 to a mere 2 today. While this is
unfortunate, we are better off than folks in Alaska, Alabama, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, and Wyoming, all of whom have no options at all, as
only one insurer offers plans in those exchanges. This is also the case
for more than 1,000 counties across the Nation, basically one-third of
all the counties in total.
As a result of these skyrocketing costs and reduced options, the
number of Americans enrolling in ObamaCare continues to drop
dramatically. Projections continue to be millions fewer than predicted.
Between 2016 and 2017, nearly a half-million fewer Americans signed up
for the exchange. All of this has barely moved the number of uninsured
South Dakotans between 2010, when ObamaCare was enacted, and today. So
the health insurance market was crippled, premiums have skyrocketed for
hard-working families, and our economy has suffered tremendously under
the ACA, only to have the same number of insured and uninsured
individuals in my home State as before we started.
Nationwide, Americans are rejecting ObamaCare in record numbers. We
saw this rejection of ObamaCare repeatedly over the past 7 years, when
the American people elected into office candidates who at least in part
ran on the platform of repealing ObamaCare. ObamaCare's higher taxes,
fees, and penalties on businesses and investors have also taken a toll.
Meanwhile, consumers who are facing higher premiums and deductibles
have less to spend on goods and services. With one-sixth of our economy
tied to healthcare, this has been detrimental to growth and to
opportunity. It has also been easy to see how the healthcare industry
has rejected ObamaCare over the past 7 years, with many insurers
pulling out of the market and in other places the markets collapsing
altogether. This limits competition and leaves little room in the
healthcare industry, which is why ObamaCare is failing to control the
cost of healthcare in our country. Cost control is a crucial component
in providing truly affordable healthcare, and that begins with the
elimination of ObamaCare's added bureaucracy and paperwork. We must get
government out of the way and allow competitive markets to work once
again, and that is what we are seeking to do with ObamaCare's
replacement, which is expected to receive a vote in the House later
today.
Since we started the process of repealing and replacing ObamaCare, my
office has received a number of calls and emails from South Dakotans
who have expressed concerns. I want to make it clear to them and to all
Americans that during the period in which we transition away from
ObamaCare and toward a more affordable, competitive system, we
understand that the continuation of coverage is an essential component.
We plan to include a number of items that are very important to the
American public: guaranteed renewal of coverage, portability of
coverage for those who change jobs or leave the workforce by retiring,
and a ban on lifetime limits, because if you bought insurance, you
shouldn't run out of insurance.
The provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act which were
included in ObamaCare should be included in our plans. There should be
no exclusions on preexisting conditions if one maintains insurance from
policy to policy, without lapses, and we should include provisions to
allow children to remain on their families' plans until they are at
least the age of 26.
We understand that there is a way to retain all of these positive
provisions
[[Page S1959]]
which are vital to ensuring continued health insurance coverage for all
American families who want it, while also providing a fair and open
marketplace that provides a strong, healthy, competitive market. This,
in turn, will bring affordable, efficient health insurance with
innovative products that will actually help to control the cost of
care. That is what the GOP alternative, while still far from perfect,
is seeking to do. One thing we do know is that the end result will be
better than ObamaCare.
As a father and a grandfather, I understand how important it is to
have access to affordable healthcare. No one should be priced out of
healthcare coverage for one's family. But our current system is simply
not working. After 7 years of ObamaCare, the American people are
dealing with higher healthcare premiums, fewer options, more taxes, and
reduced access to care. Health providers are struggling with more
bureaucracy, with more time spent filling out paperwork instead of
caring for patients, and being frustrated by ObamaCare's crippling new
regulations.
As I have said from time to time, ObamaCare is a rapidly sinking
ship, and there is simply no hope for a recovery. On its seventh
anniversary, it is hurting more people than it is helping, and it must
be repealed and replaced before it totally crumbles under its own
weight.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to comment on the nomination of Mr.
Friedman to be the U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Shortly, we will be
having that vote.
I consider the U.S.-Israel relationship to be a strategic anchor for
the United States in the Middle East and one of our most important
relationships with any country. Since the creation of the State of
Israel, support for this relationship has been bipartisan, bicameral,
and supported by successive U.S. administrations. This bilateral
relationship is also sustained by the deep bonds of friendship between
the people of our two countries. This relationship has benefited Israel
and has benefited the United States.
Given the range of strategic challenges across the globe that our
country faces and the unprecedented instability and violence embroiled
in the Middle East today, it is critical that we take steps to unify
support for the U.S.-Israel relationship across the political spectrum.
Thus, I believe it is vital that the U.S. Ambassador to Israel be seen
as a unifying figure in this enduring relationship.
I really do believe that there is broad understanding and support in
the Senate and the House for the special relationship between the
United States and Israel--Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle
East, a country that we can rely on for important intelligence
information and that has an economy which is similar to ours. It is a
country that has enjoyed a special relationship with the United States
since 1948, when Harry Truman recognized Israel after the historic vote
at the United Nations.
Following extensive consideration of Mr. Friedman's record and taking
into account his statements during his nomination hearing, I have
concluded that his past record would make it very difficult for him to
serve as that unifying force. For that reason, I am unable to support
his nomination as America's top diplomat in Israel.
I appreciate Mr. Friedman's efforts before the committee to express
regret for his substantial record of divisive, inflammatory, and
offensive statements. Unfortunately, I believe the body of Mr.
Friedman's published works, not to mention his public statements, will
compromise his effectiveness in representing the United States and all
Americans, as well as the Government of Israel and all Israelis.
Taken together, Mr. Friedman's statements and affiliations make it
clear that he does not believe a two-state solution is necessary for a
just and lasting peace. I am concerned that Mr. Friedman's history on
this issue, in which he calls the two-state solution a scam, will
undermine his ability to represent the United States as a credible
facilitator of the peace process. There is simply no realistic,
sustainable prospect for lasting peace between the Israelis and the
Palestinians other than as two states, living side by side, with
security.
I thank Chairman Corker for the manner in which this nomination was
handled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I think we had
ample opportunity, and I thank Chairman Corker for that, but I do urge
my colleagues to reject this nominee.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate,
notwithstanding the previous order, move to the rollcall vote now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Friedman
nomination?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Paul).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Ex.]
YEAS--52
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
Manchin
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--46
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
Markey
McCaskill
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Isakson
Paul
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________