[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7099-S7103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Healthcare

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I don't wish to take much of the Senate's 
time, but I want to emphasize and echo the comments made by the Senator 
from Tennessee. He and his ranking member, Patty Murray of Washington, 
have done a magnificent job. What I want to emphasize is not 
necessarily the content of the bill, which he has outlined expertly, 
but the process by which this bill has come to the U.S. Senate. To me, 
it is an example of how this place can and should work.
  There were a series of essentially four all-day hearings. There were 
workshops to which all Senators were invited, and I think at least half 
of the Senate attended several of those workshops. We had a bipartisan 
witness list. We had Governors. We had insurance commissioners. We had 
experts on the health services industry from around the country. The 
result was a piece of negotiated, compromised but thoroughly worked 
through, and important legislation that can do exactly what the Senator 
from Tennessee outlined: Lower premiums, end the chaos in the 
individual market, save the Federal Government money over the period of 
the next 10 or 20 years, and really make a difference for the people of 
Maine.
  I particularly want to compliment and express my appreciation to 
Senator Alexander and Senator Rounds for the work they have done to 
bring the issue to this point. I deeply hope, as the Senator from 
Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, just said, that when the President returns 
from his trip, he will see this bipartisan agreement--or in my case, a 
nonpartisan agreement--that has come forward to solve some serious 
problems. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it is a step forward. 
It also is exactly what the American people want us to do--to talk to 
each other, listen to each other, gather the data and the information, 
and come up with legislative proposals that make common sense and will 
make a better place, a better healthcare system, and serve our citizens 
and our people across the country in a better way than the current 
arrangement.
  Again, I want to compliment my colleague from Tennessee and also my 
colleague from South Dakota, Senator Rounds, for the work they have 
done on this. We are at a place where we can really do something good, 
not only substantively but also by showing the Nation how this body can 
and should work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, let me begin by acknowledging the 
leadership that Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray have 
offered and also by saying how much I have appreciated the hard work 
that Senator King from Maine has participated in, as well, in this 
process. They have worked together, side by side, to try to find some 
common ground while still retaining and protecting the principles they 
all hold with regard to how health insurance, long term, should be 
approached.
  Coming to a bipartisan agreement on this very important piece of 
legislation

[[Page S7100]]

is only the first step. As you know, a deal was announced last month to 
give States permanent flexibility to avoid some of ObamaCare's most 
crushing mandates, while also temporarily authorizing the cost sharing 
reduction, or CSR, payments for 2 years. That is what the piece of 
legislation we are referring to in this particular case, the Alexander-
Murray legislation, would do.
  This agreement is a win for conservatives who have spent the past 7 
years promising to relieve the American people of ObamaCare's 
skyrocketing premiums, limited choices, and Federal chokehold. For the 
first time since ObamaCare was forced onto the American public, the 
Alexander-Murray legislation is an opportunity to provide permanent, 
meaningful opportunities for States to opt out of some of ObamaCare's 
most egregious mandates under the 1332 waiver program, while making 
healthcare more affordable for their constituents.
  As a former Governor, like my colleagues Mr. Alexander and Mr. King, 
I understand that the best decisions are made at the State and local 
levels, not by Federal bureaucrats. Empowering States with new 
opportunities to innovate and strengthen their individual health 
insurance markets in a way that meets their citizens' unique needs is a 
first step toward repealing ObamaCare and allowing the marketplace to 
once again be competitive and innovative.
  In exchange for the permanent 1332 waiver changes, we have agreed to 
temporarily authorize the administration to make CSR payments for 2 
years, similar to the provisions of the Better Care Reconciliation Act, 
which 49 Republican Members of the U.S. Senate supported earlier this 
year.
  Recall that President Trump announced recently that he would stop the 
CSR payments after a Federal court found them to be illegal because 
they had not been appropriated by Congress. Not surprisingly, the 
previous administration had continued making these payments, a practice 
that President Trump rightfully and correctly stopped after months of 
warning that he would do so. We applaud the President for returning 
this appropriations decision to its constitutional place--with 
Congress.
  We also recognize that there are millions of Americans who will face 
steep premium increases come January as a result of this challenging 
decision. This is in addition to the already skyrocketing premium 
increases that Americans are facing because of ObamaCare, because of 
the concept on which it was built. The American people did not ask for 
ObamaCare, and they shouldn't be unfairly punished.
  By extending these payments for only 2 years, our legislation will 
stabilize the market and help provide a smooth transition as we 
continue to work on a full repeal and replacement. Providing a smooth 
transition away from ObamaCare has been included in every serious 
Republican healthcare plan to date. We have to have a transition in 
order to move away from the existing healthcare plans. In fact, I 
cannot think of a single GOP colleague who doesn't support a smooth 
transition so that we don't hurt families as we move away from our 
current, unworkable system.
  It is also important to point out that Alexander-Murray is merely a 
step one in the total repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. Because of 
House and Senate rules, the 1332 waiver changes outlined in our bill 
are not eligible to be included in budget reconciliation legislation, 
which is the vehicle being used to repeal and replace ObamaCare by 
congressional Republicans and which we continue to work on. We need 
both bills. This is a two-step process.
  We fully expect there to be an opportunity for us to finish the full 
repeal and replace of ObamaCare next year and are united in our desire 
to get it across the finish line. But 1332 waiver changes found in this 
bill require bipartisan support in the Senate, period. It requires 60 
votes. That is not available to us or is not part of the remaining part 
of the challenge of the total repeal and replacement. We need both 
bills in order to get this done.
  We have also included additional assurances within this bill to make 
certain our bill does not bail out insurance companies, as Senator 
Alexander stated earlier. CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, 
confirmed this in the October report, noting that it benefits taxpayers 
and low-income policyholders, not insurance companies.
  I also want to point out that there is also a fiscal case to be made 
for continuing the CSR payments in the short term. The nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office--once again, the CBO--found that the 
Federal Government will be on the hook to subsidize care of the 
individuals who otherwise would receive premium assistance via the CSR 
payments.
  The CSR payments have ended. Insurers who stay in the individual 
marketplace will be forced to raise their prices to compensate. Instead 
of costing $7 billion, as it did this year under the use of CSRs, the 
CBO estimates that the disruption caused by abruptly ending the CSRs 
will cost the Federal Government an average of $25 billion annually, 
more than four times the current rate.
  The fact that ObamaCare is failing is not a partisan issue. Members 
of both parties have acknowledged that it is rapidly sinking. Our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe it is fixable. 
Republicans believe we have to go in a different direction. Democrats 
have refused to admit the failure. They recognize it is sinking--they 
think it is fixable--but, until now, have been unwilling to make any 
concessions to the law they were solely responsible for creating.

  We must seize the opportunity to provide States with much needed 
relief from ObamaCare and show that States are far better at coming up 
with health insurance rules which are tailored to their individual 
needs. The only tradeoff is in fulfilling our promise to stabilize the 
individual market temporarily while we continue our work to repeal 
ObamaCare and replace it with a truly competitive market-based system. 
In the meantime, States will already be given that option under our 
plan.
  Let me just share this. Sometimes when you look at a bipartisan piece 
of legislation, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
point to the fact that they want to stabilize the market now. 
Republicans will point to the fact that we need to stabilize the market 
and provide the opportunity for the full repeal and replacement to 
become effective. ObamaCare started in 2009. It was passed in 2009. Yet 
it took until 2014 for all of the impacts to actually begin to 
accumulate--5 years. To undo it, it will take time for the States to 
create their fixes.
  We have to pass the legislation, and the HHS has to create the rules. 
Then, at the local level, at the State level, the State legislatures 
have to create the laws once again that were torn apart by ObamaCare in 
the first place. Then their divisions of insurance and their 
departments of health have to actually create the rules. The insurance 
companies that are out there that want to compete once again have to be 
able to contract with doctors and hospitals. They have to go on out and 
not only write the contracts that will comply with the law and the 
regulations, but then they also have to go on out and market that 
product to individuals.
  The exchange from one contract under ObamaCare to a contract with a 
competitor, which is when insurance carriers can actually offer 
different types of products to group plans or to individuals, will take 
time. That transition can hardly be done in less than 2 years, thus the 
need and the offer in all of the Republican proposals to take this 2-
year time period and actually help the American people get through this 
very difficult time without hurting them more than the pain they will 
have already felt with the continuation of ObamaCare. It simply takes 2 
years to make any reasonable transition happen.
  Once again, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Senator 
from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, and the way in which he has created a 
team effect, a team plan, on getting this through. I also acknowledge 
the hard work of Senator Murray and her working side by side with 
Senator Alexander in trying to find common ground so her colleagues see 
the importance, from their perspectives, while, at the same time, those 
of us on this side of the aisle reflect on the first step in a long-
term goal of the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare.
  For the first time, we have a chance. For the first time, we have an 
opportunity to take a step statutorily, with

[[Page S7101]]

a 60-count vote, in actually making changes to the substance of 
ObamaCare. It is high time. It is time to get started. It is time to 
move forward.
  I thank all of our colleagues for working side by side in at least 
slowing down the damage which has been occurring and which will 
continue to occur until we get the full replacement of ObamaCare behind 
us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks 
not be counted against my postcloture time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, while Senators Alexander and Rounds are on 
the floor--Senator King has just left--I find it ironic that the four 
of us who are gathered here are former Governors and are interested in 
getting things done and are interested in working across the aisle. We 
want to be able to achieve better results for less money. I applaud 
Senators Alexander and Murray for their efforts in trying to ensure 
that we begin to do that.
  I think my friend from South Dakota gives much credit to President 
Obama in his attacking what was originally bipartisan legislation that 
had been introduced here in 1993 by Senator Orrin Hatch, with 22 
Republican cosponsors, and that later became RomneyCare.
  The idea behind their proposal was that there ought to be exchanges 
in every State and that the people could join if they did not have 
healthcare coverage; No. 2, that there would be a sliding scale tax 
credit to help buy down the cost of coverage for people who got their 
care in the exchanges; No. 3, that there would be an individual mandate 
that said you don't have to get coverage but that, if you don't, you 
have to pay a fine; No. 4, that there would be an employer mandate that 
said employers of a certain size would have to cover their people; No. 
5, that insurance companies could not refuse to cover people with 
preexisting conditions.
  Barack Obama had nothing to do with that. We continue to hear folks 
deride the idea of the exchanges and the five points I just mentioned 
as ObamaCare. He had nothing to do with it. When we marked up the 
Affordable Care Act, we took, really, those ideas from the 1993 
legislation here, with 23 Republican cosponsors--RomneyCare--and 
proposed and implemented it, I think, in 2006. It worked. When we were 
marking up the Affordable Care Act, we were actually looking for 
something that worked in order to give coverage to people in a cost-
effective way.
  In 1993, the Republicans used, I think, what was originally a 
Heritage idea--Romney in 2006. They had a good idea, and it used market 
forces. What we have never done since the Affordable Care Act went into 
place is actually enable a good Republican idea to work. I think what 
Senator Alexander has put together with Senator Murray can help move us 
closer to that step.
  Some other things that I think we ought to do include a reinsurance 
plan along the lines that Senator Kaine and I have introduced, and 
that, I think, has a fair amount of support in a lot of corners. If we 
are not going to have an individual mandate--and I think we ought to, 
but if we are going to take it away--the other thing is to make sure 
that we put in its place the exchanges having young, healthy people so 
you have a group of folks in each State in the exchanges who are 
insurable without the insurance companies losing their shirts.
  I think one of the great things about what Senator Alexander and 
Senator Murray are trying to do here is to take the small step of 
ensuring that the cost-sharing reductions really help lower income 
people with their copays and help them with their deductible costs. If 
we can do that, along with the 1332 waiver, which I support, this can 
be a confidence builder. Maybe we can do some other things like the 
reinsurance ideas we have and others have. If there is a better idea 
than the individual mandate, by golly, let's do that, but we need 
healthy, young people in the exchanges.
  My hope is, we can find common ground and make it on a little broader 
range of ideas to bring us good healthcare coverage at an affordable 
price and then turn--kind of pivot--to the Affordable Care Act itself. 
As for the stuff in the Affordable Care Act that ought to be changed or 
dropped, let's do that. As for the portions of it that ought to be 
preserved, let's do that as well.
  Again, I commend my friends for coming up with this very good step. 
My hope is that we can get a vote for it.
  I met with a lot of insurance company folks earlier today. We do not 
agree on everything, but one of the things I heard from them is, if we 
were to do what Senator Alexander and Senator Murray have called for 
with respect to cost-sharing reductions and if we were to do some kind 
of reinsurance plan along the lines of what Tim Kaine and I have 
suggested--but not necessarily that--and if we were to do something to 
make it clear that the individual mandate or some other mechanism were 
going to be in place and stay in place so we could get young people 
into the exchanges, if we were to do those three things, they told us, 
we could bring down premiums anywhere from 30 to 35 percent in the 
exchanges.
  Who benefits the most? As it turns out, it is not just the people who 
are getting their coverage in the exchanges. Who else benefits the most 
is Uncle Sam because, if we reduce premiums by 30 to 35 percent, Uncle 
Sam, which pays all of these tax credits to help buy down the cost of 
coverage in the exchanges, reaps a big benefit as well, and that helps 
to bring down the size of the deficit, which is good.
  I was just inspired by your words, of both of you, and wanted to say 
that and to applaud your efforts. It is a pleasure and an honor to work 
with you, and I look forward to doing more of that.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to briefly thank the Senator 
from Delaware.
  As the Senator from South Dakota said, this has been a very 
contentious issue, but we thought that if we listened enough, we might 
find a few things we could agree on. Senator Murray and I not only 
involved our committee, which is a committee of 22 or 23 Senators, but 
we invited anyone not on the committee to come and meet with the 
witnesses--the Governors and the State insurance commissioners--for an 
hour before the hearings. We had nearly 60 Senators involved in the 
entire process on those 4 days. That is pretty remarkable when you have 
60 Senators--more than half of whom are not on the committee of 
jurisdiction--attending and participating, and that helped develop what 
we did.
  The person with the best attendance was Mr. Carper, the Senator from 
Delaware. He is not a member of the committee, but he came to every one 
of the committee meetings, and he often stayed for the hearings 
themselves. I thank him for his active participation.
  In boiling it all down, I think what we are trying to say is, there 
is a lot we still do not agree on, but we have heard the American 
people. Healthcare is on their minds. They are signing up, and those 
who are in the individual market are getting sticker shock if they do 
not have any government support. For the next couple of years, we have 
a plan that will avoid chaos and begin to limit the growth of premiums 
and, in 2019, reduce premiums. In addition to that, it will give 
Americans a new plan to buy called the catastrophic plan, and it will 
give many States the opportunity to use some of their own ingenuity to 
create a larger variety of choices.
  That is a good set of options with which to respond to the American 
people who ask: Why don't the President and the Congress work together 
to do something about healthcare? It does not solve all of the 
problems, but it is a step in the right direction, and it is something 
we can build on.
  I thank the Senator from Delaware for his contribution, and I thank 
the Senator from South Dakota for his.
  I hope, when the President returns from Asia, that he will look at 
the agreement he asked us to produce, and I hope he will support it. If 
he does, I believe it will be part of the law when we go home for 
Christmas.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S7102]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, my hope is that during President Trump's 
visit to Japan, he asked the leader of Japan why it is that when Japan 
only spends 8 percent of its GDP on healthcare, it gets better results 
than we do, and it covers everyone. Yet, when we spend 18 percent, we 
don't cover everybody, and we don't get better results. That is a good 
question, and I hope the President and Prime Minister Abe got into 
that. Yet that is something I need to turn away from now.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Bill Wehrum 
to be EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
  We have seen this movie before, but like many sequels, this one may 
actually be worse than the original. My opposition to this nominee 
should not come as a surprise to my colleagues or to Mr. Wehrum 
because, in 2005, President George W. Bush nominated him for the exact 
same position, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the 
EPA. I opposed his nomination at that time, as did many of my 
colleagues, and he was not confirmed.
  Prior to his nomination in 2005, Mr. Wehrum was an industry lawyer 
and later a political employee at the EPA. He served as chief counsel 
to Jeff Holmstead, then the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, from 2001 through 2005. While serving at the EPA during this 
time, Mr. Wehrum had a concerning track record of suppressing 
scientific information and the work of the EPA's career staff, 
deferring to industry on issues of public health, and not responding to 
my colleagues and to me when we were then serving on the Environment 
and Public Works Committee.
  President Bush eventually nominated Mr. Wehrum to fill Jeff 
Holmstead's seat and to serve in an acting capacity as Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation at the EPA, something Mr. Wehrum 
would not be able to lawfully do today.
  Behind me, to my left, is an excerpt from an editorial from April 
2006. The New York Times published an editorial opposing Mr. Wehrum's 
nomination that mirrored my concerns at the time:

       [The Holmstead era at EPA] will be remembered chiefly for 
     its efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act (particularly with 
     respect to rules governing mercury emissions and older power 
     plants), to manipulate science and to elevate corporate 
     interests above those of the public. Mr. Wehrum, who served 
     as Mr. Holmstead's deputy and doctrinal hit man, could make 
     things worse.

  That is a direct quote from this editorial. This is the New York 
Times editorial from 2006 opposing Mr. Wehrum's nomination for the very 
same position he seeks today.
  During the Environment and Public Works Committee's consideration of 
Mr. Wehrum's nomination in 2005, I voted against him because I feared 
he would continue to fail to clean our air and protect public health. 
Despite the fact that Mr. Wehrum was not confirmed due to his inability 
to secure the 60 votes needed for cloture on his nomination, he was 
able to serve as Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA's air office 
for 2 years.
  Since leaving the EPA, Mr. Wehrum has returned to industry and served 
as an industry lawyer in litigation against the EPA.
  Since returning to the private sector, Mr. Wehrum has reflected on 
his time spent at EPA. In doing so, he didn't point to the good work he 
did at the Agency to advance its public health mission or the lasting 
protections he put in place that made a difference in the lives of 
ordinary citizens; instead, he noted that his tenure at EPA was really 
good for business, saying:

       I'm a much better lawyer now than when I first joined the 
     agency. To really get to know how the agency works and how it 
     ticks, I think that is very valuable. I have expanded my 
     capabilities which will hopefully allow me to be effective in 
     generating business and clients.

  In generating business and clients. Sadly, my fears of 2005 were 
well-founded, and only one thing has changed--the Senate rule with 
respect to the number of votes we need to consider and confirm a 
nominee. If Mr. Wehrum is confirmed this week, it will be because he is 
the beneficiary of the Senate's elimination of the requirement with 
respect to needing 60 votes to consider nominees. It will not be 
because he is better suited for this important job.
  I will walk through some telling numbers for my colleagues this 
evening. The first number is 31. That is the number of times Mr. Wehrum 
has represented industry against the EPA in Federal court since 2009.
  Let me be clear on this. After serving in an unconfirmed capacity at 
the EPA because he was too far outside the mainstream to be confirmed 
by this body, Mr. Wehrum then left the Agency and has spent the years 
since suing that very same Agency and attempting to weaken 
environmental and public health protections on behalf of his industry 
clients. Many of these lawsuits are still ongoing and, in the majority 
of the pending lawsuits, Mr. Wehrum has represented the interests of 
Big Oil.
  Look at another poster. The number 27. What does 27 refer to? It 
refers to the number of times public health groups prevailed in court 
when challenging Bush-era clean air regulations that Mr. Wehrum helped 
to craft because they did not follow the law or sufficiently protect 
public health. Failing to follow the Clean Air Act meant delays in 
public health protections and uncertainty for businesses across 
America.
  I don't doubt that Mr. Wehrum is a fine lawyer--so why were so many 
of the rules he helped to write found to be unlawful? The confirmation 
process is essentially a job interview. It is not a job interview with 
EPA, in a sense, and it is not really a job interview with us, but it 
is a job interview with the American people. In this case, Mr. Wehrum 
is essentially applying for the job he already had at EPA, and you 
would think that would be easy, but Mr. Wehrum's resume shows that a 
great deal of the work he did in his last job as Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation was not up to par. In this job, 
subpar work impacts millions of Americans, especially children and the 
most vulnerable among us.
  The next number is 10. Ten is the number of additional years that 
children were exposed to toxic air emissions from powerplants because 
of delays Mr. Wehrum helped put into place while at the EPA.
  The next number is eight. The number eight refers to the number of 
days before Mr. Wehrum's latest confirmation hearing when he was in a 
courtroom arguing against rules that would protect 2.3 million miners, 
construction workers, and bricklayers. According to Mr. Wehrum, 
``People are designed to deal with dust. . . . People are in dusty 
environments all the time and it doesn't kill them.''
  The next number is two, which is the number of times the DC Circuit 
Court cited ``Alice In Wonderland'' in its decisions to reject EPA 
rules that Mr. Wehrum helped craft because, in the court's view, the 
regulations were based on fantasy rather than following ``the rule of 
law.''
  The next number is one. One is the number of times that language from 
a law firm that represented industry--and also happened to be Mr. 
Wehrum's former employer--made it verbatim into a clean air regulation 
that Mr. Wehrum stated he was ``extensively involved'' in preparing.
  Think about that.
  Zero. Zero is the number of times Mr. Wehrum advocated in court for 
stronger clean air regulations since leaving the EPA. It is an 
especially troubling number for those of us living in downwind States 
like Delaware. We live at the end of America's tailpipe, along with our 
neighbors in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and folks 
all the way up to Maine. Zero is also the number of times Mr. Wehrum 
expressed a desire to protect public health when I met with him prior 
to his confirmation hearing.
  Mr. Wehrum sits before us again today nominated for the very same 
position he was nominated for 12 years ago. After reviewing Mr. 
Wehrum's record, talking to him in person, and listening and reading 
his answers during the hearing process, my position has not changed 
since 2005, primarily because his views do not appear to have changed.
  Like other EPA nominees, Mr. Wehrum was evasive on many of the 
questions asked of him, even convincingly forgetting a case that he 
worked on against the renewable fuel standard in National Chicken 
Council, et al v.

[[Page S7103]]

EPA. However, what was clear in the answer that he did give, and in his 
conversation with me, is that public health simply is not Mr. Wehrum's 
main concern.
  In fact, when asked what Clean Air Act regulation he does support, he 
answered as follows:

       I represent clients in private practice. It is my legal 
     ethical duty to zealously represent their interests.

  Well, in this job interview with the American people to be Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, the American people 
are his clients, and the fact that he cannot--or has refused to name--a 
single regulation that helps to ensure that they and their families 
have clean air to breathe is almost disqualifying in and of itself. 
Whether it is carbon, mercury, silica, or other toxic air pollution, 
Mr. Wehrum continues to show that he sides with polluters over science 
and doctors every time.
  Mr. Wehrum's extreme views will not be good for public health, and 
quite frankly the legal uncertainty that has resulted from his past 
work will not be good for American businesses. Businesses need 
certainty and predictability, and they don't get it with the kind of 
work he has done.
  Let me close by reminding our colleagues that next week we celebrate 
the 27th anniversary of the signing of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990. Twenty-seven years ago, we weren't debating how to weaken or 
delay our clean air laws. Instead, we passed bipartisan legislation 
that would improve and strengthen our clean air laws based on the very 
best science. In the process, we strengthened our economy too. Back 
then, 89 Senators, including some who still serve in this Chamber, 
voted to approve the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. As a Congressman 
over at the other body at that time, I voted along with them. A 
Republican President, George Herbert Walker Bush, signed the bill into 
law 27 years ago today. It was commonsense legislation, it was 
bipartisan, and we are all better for it.
  When the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 passed Congress, I was a 
Congressman in the House, and I voted in favor of that bill. I was 
proud of helping to pass that monumental law because I believed then, 
and I still believe today, that we can protect our environment and grow 
our economy at the same time--and we have the job numbers to prove it.
  We have had some delays in implementation, but, by and large, the law 
has been a huge success and has benefited just about every American. 
For every dollar we spend in installing new pollution controls in 
cleaning up our air, we have seen $30 returned in reduced healthcare 
costs, better workplace productivity, and saved lives. We have a return 
of $30 for every dollar we spend installing new pollution control.
  The bottom line is, fewer people are getting sick and missing work 
because of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
  When it comes to the rhetoric surrounding air regulations, there is a 
lot of fake news that people like to peddle, but as the saying goes: 
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions but not to his or her 
own facts.
  Here are the facts. Our economy did not take a slide because of clean 
air protection. Quite the opposite is true. The Obama administration 
implemented the Clean Air Act based on the best science to date. Now 
our air is cleaner. We have seen 8 years of economic growth.
  I will say that again. We have seen 8 years of economic growth, the 
longest stretch in our history. Energy prices at the pump and the meter 
are lower than when President Obama took office--lower, not higher. The 
beauty of our clean air laws is that they are not static. Our clean air 
protections keep up with the latest oversight science and the latest 
technology.
  As we learn more about what makes us sick, about what is impacting 
our environment, and about what can be done to clean it up, the EPA has 
the authority, under the Clean Air Act, to make adjustments to make it 
better, to ensure that it protects more people, not fewer. That has 
been the trajectory to date. As technology and science develop, so do 
our clean air regulations.
  That is also the story of our country. Through innovative and 
creative solutions, we strive for progress in order to have a better 
life here at home and to lead the world in tackling the environmental 
challenges of our time. Mr. Wehrum's policies have been tried and have 
been proven not only unsuccessful but even dangerous. We don't need to 
continue to move backward. We need to move forward.
  Mr. President, I will leave you and our colleagues with this. I am 
sorry to say that Mr. Wehrum has worked deliberately to halt that 
progress, to delay that progress and to roll back clean air laws that 
have been protecting America and Americans for decades. Unlike many of 
the nominees who have come before us this year, unfortunately, we don't 
have to speculate about how Mr. Wehrum would do in this position. We 
have already seen it. We have already seen it, and the results were not 
good for the rest of us.
  As his clients at this time, we deserve better representation. Today 
Americans deserve leaders at EPA who will be impartial and will look 
out for the interests of all Americans, not just Big Oil and the kind 
of clients who can afford Mr. Wehrum's legal bills.
  We have seen this movie before, and there is no need for a sequel. I 
regret having to say that, but I do believe Mr. Wehrum is not the right 
fit for this position today, any more than he was a dozen years ago.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote no on his nomination to serve as 
EPA's Assistant Administrator for air.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.