[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.

                          ____________________