[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 82 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2904-S2906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Healthcare Legislation
Mr. President, secret meetings have been happening amongst our
Republican colleagues to draft a healthcare bill that could have
devastating consequences on the people we all represent. I know we are
about to have a vote on the floor, but I wanted to come to the floor to
simply remind all of my friends on both sides of the aisle of the
promises that have been made about this process and this piece of
legislation which emerged from the House last week with devastating
consequences. Those consequences include 24 million people losing
coverage and people with preexisting conditions being subjected to
$200,000 premium increases, potentially.
I just reference the words of the President of the United States, who
told us repeatedly over and over again, during the campaign and after
the campaign, that the result of this healthcare reform debate was
going to be a healthcare system that was better. President Trump
outlined that in a number of different ways.
Here is what he said on April 30, just a few weeks ago. He said:
The healthcare plan is on its way. Will have much lower
premiums & deductibles, while at the same time taking care of
preexisting conditions!
That is not true. That is a lie. The healthcare bill that emerged
from the House of Representatives did none of those things.
CBO has not come out with its final estimate. It is unbelievable that
the House voted on a reordering of one-sixth of the American economy
without a CBO estimate, but we can pretty much be sure that the first
CBO estimate will hold, in that it will say that premiums are going to
go up by 15 to 20 percent immediately for everybody, and then for the
nonyoung healthy and wealthy, premiums are going to go up even higher.
It didn't take care of preexisting conditions. It did the opposite--
allowed every State to be able to walk away from the protection of the
Affordable Care Act, which makes sure people with preexisting
conditions, which could be one-third of all Americans, can't be subject
to higher rates, and it substituted that requirement with a high-risk
pool which is dramatically underfunded to the point that it is
laughable, in the opinion of many healthcare economists.
Here is what Donald Trump said earlier this year:
We're going to have insurance for everybody. People covered
under the law can expect to have great healthcare. . . . Much
less expensive and much better insurance for everybody.
CBO says 24 million people will lose their insurance, and that number
might be higher when the new estimate comes out. This wasn't true. This
was a lie.
Finally, the President said, during the campaign:
I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state
there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare &
Medicaid.
No cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--this is a giant
cut to Medicaid. This is an $880 billion cut to Medicaid being used to
finance a giant tax cut for people making over $200,000 a year. This
wasn't true. This was a lie as well.
A lot of Democrats will be willing to talk about making our
healthcare system better, but we want our Republican colleagues, as
they are having these behind-closed-door meetings, to remember the
promises that were made. They said nobody would lose insurance,
premiums would go down--not up--and your benefit package wouldn't
become worse. If Republicans can deliver on those promises, then there
is a discussion to be had. But if anything looking like the House
product emerges, it is a violation of the promises this President and
many Republicans made over and over again.
Finally, I also want all my colleagues to remember what is happening
as we speak. Leader McConnell was on the floor talking about premium
increases announced by Blue Cross Blue Shield in Maryland. What he
failed to mention was the head of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland
came out and specifically said that a big part of the reason they were
asking for major premium increases was because of the actions President
Trump is taking right now to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. They
were not sure the individual mandate was going to be enforced. Why?
Because in an Executive order this President signed, he directed his
agencies to undermine the Affordable Care Act and to withdraw many of
the fees levied on Americans, such as that which comes if you don't get
insurance. He stopped advertising for the exchanges for the last week.
We were on target to have more people sign up this year than ever
before; but then, in the last week, the President withdrew all the
money for the exchanges. Right now, as we speak, this administration is
bleeding out the money for insurers to help pay for cost sharing within
the exchanges 1 month at a time, not telegraphing if there is going to
be any certainty for that funding in the future.
The President is undermining and sabotaging the ACA every single day.
The reason insurers are passing along premium increases or considering
withdrawing from these exchanges is because of this sabotage the
administration is undertaking of our entire healthcare system. I hope
these behind-closed-door meetings take into account all of the promises
this President and our Republican friends made that they would repeal
the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something better.
Everything we hear is that the product that emerged out of the House of
Representatives--the product that may emerge out of the Senate--
violates every single one of these promises.
We await the ability to work together, Republicans and Democrats, to
preserve what works in the healthcare system, to fix what doesn't work,
and to hold our Republican friends and the President of the United
States to their promises.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 20 minutes
of postcloture time remaining, equally divided between the chairman and
the ranking member of the Committee on Finance, prior to a vote on the
Lighthizer nomination.
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and good friend,
Chairman Hatch, for his courtesies. We have worked very closely
together on this nomination. This was a challenging task, and I thank
Chairman Hatch for his cooperation.
Mr. Lighthizer needed a waiver because he had represented foreign
interests. It was extremely important that we work with Senator Manchin
and other colleagues to address the enormous needs of the miners, and
we had a whole host of Members with a variety of extremely important
trade issues--matters like steel, aluminum, and digital goods in our
part of the world; we also care about softwood lumber tremendously.
Chairman Hatch and I worked with all the members of the Finance
Committee. It was a unanimous vote, and I thank him for his
cooperation.
We have talked a little bit about trade and what a modern trade
policy is going to look like. The Lighthizer discussion is the
beginning of the debate on trade in this Congress, and I have tried to
be clear about my agenda. My agenda is to create more red, white, and
blue jobs in America--high-skilled, high-waged jobs. Very often, the
trade jobs pay better than do the nontrade jobs because there is more
value added in them; there is a higher level of productivity. So my
view is, as we set out on this journey to get more high-skilled, high-
waged jobs, look to Asia where there are going to be 1 billion middle-
class people there in a few years. What we ought to do is focus on
growing them in the United States, making them in the United States,
adding value to them in the United States, and then shipping them
somewhere. That is my idea of a modern trade agenda.
So far, the administration's trade agenda amounts to a muddle of 140-
character tweets, mixed messages, and overhyped announcements that seem
to be backed by not much substance. I think we are going to have to put
together a coherent strategy quickly to promote our exports and fight
back against trade cheats. That is not exactly what we have seen from
the administration to date.
We can almost suffer whiplash from the reports about what happens
with various trade deals. Late at night, it was reported that the
President is about to pull the United States out of NAFTA; then
suddenly there is another
[[Page S2905]]
report saying he has changed his mind after a conversation with the
Canadians. Next, at a moment of extreme tension on the Korean
Peninsula, it is reported that the President is threatening to pull out
of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. Then suddenly that threat is walked
back. So the President has made some major statements with respect to
trade deals on the books, but he has yet to give us much in the way of
specifics on how he would like to bring that about.
If one is trying to run a business in Oregon or around the United
States that exports to foreign markets, it is pretty hard not to feel
rattled and confused by some of the President's statements and tweets
about trade. One might even make the decision not to invest and not to
hire additional workers. I hope the President will soon see that some
of the uncertainty and confusion that has been stoked as a negotiating
tactic is not a recipe for creating red, white, and blue jobs.
I do think Robert Lighthizer knows what the challenge is really all
about, and I want to tell him I have appreciated our conversations. He
is a real pro at this. I have appreciated his views, particularly on
digital goods, which I think are so important to our burgeoning
technology sector, and his views on Canadian lumber.
I would also like to state at this time that I think very highly of
Secretary Ross. He has been very constructive in our conversations,
particularly on Canadian softwood lumber.
Obviously, the U.S. Trade Representative will lead our country in
trade negotiations, and that will be Mr. Lighthizer's role. The bulk of
the expertise of trade does reside within his office. When Mr.
Lighthizer is confirmed, as I hope he will be and expect he will be,
this expertise will no longer be silent.
I will wrap up simply by way of saying that the United States may be
the world's largest economy, but it represents only 4 percent of the
world's consumers. Red, white, and blue jobs in the United States
depend on our ability to sell to the other 96 percent. The number of
middle-class households around the world is going to double over the
next decade. This represents a lot of potential buying power for the
American brand, the Oregon brand. The fact is, people all over the
world love buying the goods and the services we make. It is going to
take a lot of hard work to smash through the barriers that block
American-made goods and fight back against trade cheats.
Lastly, the trade rules in many particulars are out of date, so we
have a lot of work to do to promote labor rights, combat human
trafficking, crack down on trade in illegally taking wildlife and
endangered species, and get the trade system updated so it includes
things like digital goods and small businesses that now have an
international reach, which is especially important. The trading system
has to respond more quickly to countries that break the rules or are
unfairly producing basic commodities, such as steel and aluminum. This
is especially true with respect to China.
As policymakers, we must continue to take an honest look at the trade
rules and fix what doesn't work so that American workers aren't left
behind. It is long past time to invest more resources in monitoring,
litigating, and enforcing our trading partners' obligations, including
China's. The United States must respond more aggressively and more
rapidly to threats to U.S. workers and businesses.
There was a recent example of how this is done right when the
Commerce Department said ``enough'' to Canada's unfairly traded
softwood lumber. The steps the Commerce Department took were undeniably
warranted after mill towns in Oregon and many other States have been
clobbered over the last few decades. My first preference is a long-term
agreement with Canada, but if they are not going to come to the table,
I will keep fighting for our mills and mill jobs, and I will insist the
administration do the same.
The U.S. needs to carry that same steadfast approach across the
board--getting trade enforcement right is not just a lumber issue. That
means more resources for boots on the ground: investigators and
enforcers. Not just at the office of the USTR but also at Customs and
Border Protection and the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Labor,
State, and Interior, where investigators are tasked with stopping trade
in illegally taken wildlife. Bottom line, trade enforcement requires
all hands on deck. If you boost trade enforcers at one agency only to
wipe out the trade enforcers at another, you will fail to protect
American workers from unfair or illegal imports.
So I will be looking closely at the budget that the President submits
to determine whether he is serious about delivering real results on
trade enforcement or whether the campaign rhetoric and dramatic tweets
are just a bunch of hot air,
In recognition of the need for a new approach on trade enforcement,
Congress recently passed new laws that give the President better tools
to respond when trading partners don't follow the rules. It also passed
legislation to strengthen domestic laws that enable the U.S. to
unilaterally respond when American jobs are under threat, and it
provided new direction should the President wish to negotiate new trade
agreements or renegotiate past ones. In the coming months, I expect
that those tools will not just sit and gather dust while the
administration talks tough with respect to trade.
It takes consistency, strategy and a lot of hard work to get trade
done right. I have confidence that Robert Lighthizer will work to
pursue a trade agenda that is coherent, constructive, and will deliver
for American workers, and I will support his nomination.
However, I want to express reservation on one issue pertaining to
this nominee. During his confirmation hearing, Senator Stabenow asked
Mr. Lighthizer how he would deal with situations in which he was
conducting trade negotiations with a country in which the President has
business interests. Senator Stabenow wanted to make sure that the
President's personal financial interests wouldn't take precedence over
the public interest. Mr. Lighthizer seemed surprised by the question,
saying, quote, ``the idea that this President would do anything
untoward is . . . far out of the realm of possibility.''
I would like to put Mr. Lighthizer on notice. This is a legitimate
issue, and I share Senator Stabenow's concern. Never before has this
country faced a circumstance in which our trade representative will be
negotiating trade agreements with countries in which the President or
his family have active business interests, whether it is trademarks,
golf courses, or construction deals. I have introduced a bill requiring
the President, when initiating trade negotiations, to disclose whether
he has business interests in the country that we will be negotiating
with. I intend to press this issue as trade negotiations move forward.
Trade should be about fighting on behalf of American workers and
businesses. It is not about the President's bottom line.
Finally, on an issue that has been closely related to this
nomination, I want to commend several of my colleagues for working
together to provide relief to retired mineworkers regarding their
healthcare costs. Senator Manchin has been a crusader on behalf of the
mineworkers. Hardly a week went by over the last several months when I
didn't hear from Joe Manchin about how important it was to get the
mineworkers the healthcare benefits they have earned. And he has worked
hand-in-hand with Senators Brown, Casey, and Warner, all of whom serve
on the Finance Committee. Chairman Hatch deserves thanks for working
with us to get this across the finish line as well.
I see that my good friend, Chairman Hatch, is here to make his
remarks. I thank him for the cooperation he has shown. I think the
interests of both sides in processing this nomination have been
advanced.
A lot could have gone awry here. We had challenges with getting the
waiver Mr. Lighthizer needed. We needed the space to make sure the
miners were protected. Members had strong views.
I thank Chairman Hatch for the diplomacy and cooperation he showed me
and our side. I think that is why there was a very large vote for Mr.
Lighthizer in the committee.
I will be voting aye this afternoon and look forward to the
Chairman's wrap-up remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
[[Page S2906]]
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, who is an excellent
person to work with. We enjoy each other and enjoy working together. We
are getting a lot done, and I appreciate his kind remarks here today.
I rise today in support of the nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be
the next United States Trade Representative. Mr. Lighthizer was
reported out of the Finance Committee unanimously--Democrats and
Republicans--and I hope he receives a similarly strong bipartisan vote
here on the floor.
By statute, Congress has designated the USTR as the primary official
for developing and coordinating U.S. trade policy, advising the
President on trade, and leading international trade negotiations. The
USTR must also report directly to and consult closely with Congress on
a wide range of issues affecting international commerce. The USTR is
Congress's first and most important point of contact when it comes to
trade policy. Therefore, in order for Congress to have an effective
voice in shaping our Nation's trade agenda, we need to have a fully
staffed and functional USTR office.
For that reason, I have been very critical of the pointless and
unprecedented delays we have faced in filling this vacancy, in filling
this position, due to some unreasonable demands from some of my friends
on the other side of the aisle. This delay has served only to weaken
Congress's position in trade policy and has hampered our ability to
provide the new administration with substantive input. Despite this
ill-advised delay, I am pleased that Mr. Lighthizer's nomination has
finally been brought to the floor, and I thank my colleagues for that.
Mr. Lighthizer's years of experience in public service, including as
staff director for the Senate Finance Committee, as Deputy USTR during
the Reagan administration, and in private practice, make him extremely
well qualified to serve as our Nation's representative. Mr.
Lighthizer's knowledge and experience will be vital to his service in
this position and vital to our country.
Put simply, growing our economy and creating better paying jobs for
American workers require increased U.S. trade. Toward that end, I have
spoken to Mr. Lighthizer about the importance of removing trade
barriers for American businesses, workers, consumers, and, where those
barriers have already been removed, maintaining the status quo.
I know there is quite a bit of discussion going around about
potential changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement. As I told
Mr. Lighthizer, there are definitely opportunities to update and
improve NAFTA, but it is important that the administration follow the
spirit of the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.
Mr. Lighthizer and I have also discussed the importance of protecting
U.S. intellectual property rights around the globe through strong
enforcement and better rules in trade agreements. I believe he
recognizes the importance of this priority, and I will work to ensure
that this issue plays a prominent role in our future trade
negotiations.
I have also made clear to Mr. Lighthizer that I believe consultation
on trade policy between Congress and the administration is essential,
particularly if our agreements are going to adhere to the standards
Congress put forward in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities
and Accountability Act of 2015, the statute that included the most
recent reauthorization of trade promotion authority.
On this key point, I believe Mr. Lighthizer and I are in agreement.
As U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Lighthizer will have the task of
holding our trading partners accountable, ensuring that Americans don't
pay more for the products their families need and helping American
businesses and workers sell more of their goods and services around the
globe.
This is not an easy job, but I am confident that Mr. Lighthizer is up
to the task. As chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over
our Nation's trade policy, I am committed to working with him to ensure
that we advance a trade agenda that will grow our economy, create more
jobs, and expand market access around the globe for America's farmers,
ranchers, and manufacturers.
Mr. President, I suggest we vote on Mr. Lighthizer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All postcloture time has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Lighthizer
nomination?
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 Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 127 Ex.]
YEAS--82
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--14
Blumenthal
Gardner
Gillibrand
Harris
Markey
McCain
Merkley
Reed
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Warren
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--4
Capito
Isakson
Murkowski
Sullivan
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________