[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5100-5102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Corker):
  S. 761. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
individuals to receive a premium assistance credit for insurance not 
purchased on an Exchange, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Health Care Options Act of 2017, 
introduced by Senator Corker and me, would address the emergency in the 
health insurance exchanges in Tennessee and in other States. This 
legislation would allow any American who receives a subsidy and has no 
insurance available on their exchange next year to use that subsidy to 
buy any State-approved insurance off the exchange.
  Second, the legislation would waive the Affordable Care Act 
requirement that these Americans--who, remember, have zero insurance 
options for their subsidies--have to pay a penalty for not purchasing 
the insurance.
  Third, the legislation would bring peace of mind between now and the 
beginning of 2018 to millions of Americans--some of the most vulnerable 
people in our country--who face having zero options of health insurance 
to purchase with their subsidy in the year 2018 because of the 
collapsing ObamaCare exchange markets.
  Here is why urgent action is needed. There are 11 million Americans 
who buy individual insurance now on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. 
Approximately 85 percent of them receive a subsidy to help them buy 
insurance. For those who don't like subsidies for people buying 
insurance, I would remind us that about 60 percent of insured Americans 
get insurance on the job, and the average tax break for people with 
employer sponsored insurance is about $5,000. What we are talking about 
is the 4 percent of insured people who don't get insurance on the job, 
who don't get it from the government and Medicare and Medicaid, and 
this subsidy gives them some money to help them buy insurance if they 
are mostly low income.
  While these 11 million make up only 4 percent of the total insured 
population in this country, this 4 percent is where much of today's 
political turmoil rests.
  In the Knoxville area where I live, the one remaining insurance 
company on the Affordable Care Act exchange has pulled out for the year 
2018. So it is a near certainty that there will be zero insurance 
options for 40,000 Tennesseans who live there and buy their insurance 
on the exchange. In other words, for approximately 34,000 Tennesseans 
living in Knoxville who rely on an Affordable Care Act subsidy to buy 
health insurance, their subsidies will be worth as much as a bus ticket 
in a town with no buses running.
  There is a real prospect that the same thing may happen to all 
230,000 Tennesseans who buy insurance on the exchange. As I said, 85 
percent of them rely on a subsidy to afford insurance; they just will 
not have any insurance policies to buy.
  The decision Friday by the House of Representatives to not vote on 
the health care bill changes nothing about the urgency of rescuing 
these 230,000 Tennesseans who buy insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges 
that our State insurance commissioner has told us are ``very near 
collapse.''
  While Congress continues its work to enact long-term structural 
health reforms, we must take immediate action to help these 230,000 
Tennesseans and millions of Americans in other States facing the same 
dire consequences.
  This is not just a problem for Tennesseans. Last year, 7 percent of 
counties in the country had just one insurer offering plans on their 
Affordable Care Act exchange. This year, that 7 percent has risen to 32 
percent of the counties in this country having just one insurer 
offering plans on the Affordable Care Act exchange. There are five 
States this year that have only a single insurer offering ACA plans in 
their entire State--Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and 
Wyoming. And in nine States, there is only one insurer offering ACA 
plans in a majority of the counties in the States: Tennessee, North 
Carolina, West Virginia, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, 
and Florida.
  Next year, in 2018, we know the problem will be much worse. As more 
insurance companies announce their plans for the 2018 plan year, it is 
very likely that more counties across the Nation will face challenges 
similar to those in the Knoxville, Tennessee, area, where, again, 
having an ObamaCare subsidy will be as useful as having a bus ticket in 
a town with no buses running.
  Now, there is a solution to this. As I mentioned, the legislation 
that Senator Corker and I are introducing will do three things: First, 
it will allow Americans to use their Affordable Care Act subsidy--the 
money they are getting now--to purchase any health insurance plan 
outside of the exchange, as long as the insurance is approved by the 
State for sale in the individual market. That means Americans on the 
exchanges will have options to purchase insurance where the Affordable 
Care Act has left them with none. This option will be given to 
individuals who live in the counties where the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services certifies that there are zero options on the ACA 
exchange.
  Second, when the Secretary certifies that there are zero insurance 
options on the exchange, the legislation will waive the Affordable Care 
Act's requirement to buy a specific health plan or pay a fine of as 
much as $2,000 for a family of four. The law's individual mandate, in 
other words, will not apply to these individuals. And, of course, it 
shouldn't. They shouldn't be penalized for not buying insurance when 
there is no insurance to buy.
  The legislation's temporary authority would be in place only through 
the end of the 2019 plan year.
  Third, I hope that this legislation will provide some peace of mind 
for those Knoxville area residents and Americans in counties across the 
country trapped in collapsing exchanges.
  This is not a permanent solution. Congress has a responsibility to 
continue its work to solve this problem and to give more Americans more 
choices of lower cost health insurance.
  Long term, Americans should have the freedom to make their own 
choices about their family's health care needs. But in the short term, 
we must act on behalf of 230,000 Tennesseans, some of the most 
vulnerable citizens in our State, and millions of other Americans in 
other States who are likely to have zero choices of insurance in 2018.
  Earlier this afternoon, the Tennessee insurance commissioner, Julie 
Mix McPeak, who has testified before the Senate and made public 
statements that the Tennessee Affordable Care Act exchanges were in 
virtual collapse--what she means by that is no one will be selling 
insurance in them--issued this statement in support of the bill that 
Senator Corker and I have introduced. She said:

       This bill ``would definitely be helpful for Tennessee 
     consumers. We are in favor of any legislation that improves 
     consumer choice and provides access for Tennesseans. It is 
     completely unacceptable for our consumers to have a subsidy 
     but no ability to purchase insurance on the exchange. We 
     support any option that avoids that result.''

  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 762. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform 
provisions relating to whistleblowers; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 2006, I was successful in enacting 
much needed updates to the IRS whistleblower program. Up until that 
time, the program was entirely a voluntary award program. There was 
also no central office within the IRS for handling whistleblower 
claims. Given this, there was little incentive for whistleblowers to 
step forward potentially risking their careers.
  My 2006 amendments sought to bolster the IRS whistleblower program by 
making a special program targeted at going after high-dollar tax 
cheats, such as corporations. It did this by making awards mandatory in 
cases where a whistleblower discloses tax fraud totaling $2 million or 
more. Moreover, the 2006 amendments established the Whistleblower 
Office within the IRS to formalize and manage the program.

[[Page 5101]]

  The IRS whistleblower program has turned into one of the most 
effective programs in addressing tax evasion--leading to the recovery 
of more than $3 billion in taxes that otherwise would have been lost to 
fraud. I firmly believe the program has the potential to collect even 
greater sums going forward. However, for this to occur, the IRS is 
going to have to completely embrace the program and start to view 
whistleblowers as their allies.
  The Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report on the 
program in 2015 that expressed concerns that long timelines and poor 
communication may be discouraging whistleblowers. This is exactly what 
I have been hearing from whistleblowers for years. Too often 
whistleblowers are waiting in the dark for years with no communication 
on where their claim is in the system.
  While the IRS has made improvements in this area, I fear that without 
further improvements some whistleblowers may start to question whether 
stepping forward is worth their time and effort. My concern is 
exacerbated by the fact that under current law, IRS whistleblowers have 
no protections against employer retaliation for good-faith disclosures.
  That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden today in 
introducing legislation that seeks to address these issues. The IRS 
Whistleblower Improvements Act would increase communication between the 
IRS and whistleblowers, while protecting taxpayer privacy, and provide 
legal protections to whistleblowers from employers retaliating against 
them for disclosing tax abuses.
  To increase communication, our bill would specifically allow the IRS 
to exchange information with whistleblowers where doing so would be 
helpful to an investigation. It would further require the IRS to 
provide status updates to whistleblowers at significant points in the 
review process and allows for further updates at the discretion of the 
IRS. It does this while ensuring the confidentiality of this 
information is maintained.
  Moreover, to protect whistleblowers from employer retaliation, our 
bill extends antiretaliation provisions to IRS whistleblowers that are 
presently afforded to whistleblowers under other whistleblower laws, 
such as the False Claims Act and Sarbanes-Oxley.
  Too often, whistleblowers are treated like skunks at a picnic. This 
is unfortunate, as often the only way to discover fraud and abuse is 
for a whistleblower to step forward. It is time we roll out the welcome 
mat for IRS whistleblowers. Our bill takes a good step in that 
direction.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Wyden and me in supporting this 
commonsense legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNET (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Booker, Mr. Cardin, 
        Mr. Sanders, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Udall, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. 
        Heinrich, Ms. Warren, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Franken, Ms. Hassan, Mr. 
        Nelson, Ms. Harris, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Coons, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Blumenthal, 
        Mr. Carper, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Van Hollen):
  S. 767. A bill to provide that the Executive Order entitled 
``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth'' and signed on 
March 28, 2017, shall have no force or effect, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, even with all the dysfunction in Congress, 
somehow the American people continue to expect that Washington will 
enact policies that bear at least some relationship to the challenges 
they face. Unfortunately, the administration's new Executive order on 
energy fails even that low bar.
  This order will not expand energy production, it will not make us 
more energy independent, it will not create more American jobs, and it 
will also not protect us from the ravages of climate change. That last 
point is somewhat less surprising than the first because, unlike 
millions of Americans and 99 percent of scientists, this administration 
does not believe that climate change is real or that humankind is 
contributing to it.
  To understand where this Executive order comes from, I think it is 
important to see where we were before this administration took office. 
Put simply, the United States was already on track to achieve energy 
independence. Our country is producing a tremendous amount of low-cost 
energy. Since 2008, solar energy production has grown more than 50-
fold, wind power is up 3-fold, and oil production in the United States 
of America is up 75 percent. In fact, 5 years ago, we began producing 
more oil than we import.
  You can see on this slide that over the period of time that the Obama 
administration was in office, oil production rose like this, and net 
imports have gone like this--an important fact considering our 
geopolitical situation in the world. We are also now producing so much 
natural gas that facilities that were built originally to import gas 
are now being reengineered to export gas from the United States. I, 
along with other people in this Chamber, have worked hard to try to 
make sure those facilities are expedited so we can get the benefit of 
that exported natural gas.
  Even before President Trump rode to the rescue with his Executive 
order, the Wall Street Journal told us that exports of natural gas 
could more than double over the next 5 years, just based on what we are 
doing already. We are also using energy far more efficiently in our 
homes, our appliances, and our automobiles, which is why the 
administration's action to reverse higher fuel standards last week--
well, I just would say, talk about a solution in search of a problem. 
That is one.
  There is not a person in Colorado who said to me: Michael, do you 
know what we ought to do? We ought to reduce the fuel efficiency 
standards on automobiles. We ought to create a regulatory environment 
where the United States can't sell competitive automobiles in the 
world. Nobody has said that because not only are they concerned about 
climate, they are concerned that we lead the world when it comes to 
innovation. And that order, just like a budget that cuts the EPA by 30 
percent, that targets the climate scientists at the EPA, that targets 
the satellites that are above our heads so that we can't see what is 
happening on our planet--this is all so we can perpetuate a willful 
view that climate change doesn't exist, and it is the same thing with 
this Executive order.
  All of the trends that are in place right now--right before this 
administration took office--have combined to reduce our reliance on 
foreign energy in recent years, even as our economy has grown and 
average prices at the pump, because of the abundant supply, remain 
under $2.30. We are just a few years away from exporting as much oil 
and gas as we import. That is important for our country.
  Colorado has been a huge part of America's growing energy 
independence and, by extension, our national security. That is because 
in many ways Colorado led the way in developing a commonsense approach 
to expanding energy production while ensuring clean air and a healthy 
planet. We brought environmentalists together with the oil and gas 
industry to develop one of the first State limits on methane pollution. 
It became a model for the country. We passed the first voter-led 
renewable energy standard in the Nation, which became a model for the 
country. We established our own limits on carbon pollution at the State 
level, and in this process we have created 13,000 renewable energy 
jobs, with wind jobs alone expected to triple by 2020. On average, 
these jobs pay over $50,000. This is not some Bolshevik experiment or 
some socialist experiment. These are manufacturing jobs in the United 
States of America, in Colorado, that would not be there if it hadn't 
been for the policy decisions that were made in this body and in other 
parts of Washington, DC, and the supply chain that goes along with 
those manufactured turbines is critically important to our economy. At 
the same time we were doing all that, we preserved over 56,000

[[Page 5102]]

oil and gas jobs, even as drilling has slowed because of, again, 
abundant supply, to say nothing of the jobs Colorado has created just 
because it is a place where other people would like to live. They want 
to come to Colorado, as they want to go to Nevada, because there is a 
high quality of life. There is a lot of sunshine in both places.
  I am pleased to have the chance to work with the Senator from Nevada 
to make sure we not only extended the investment tax credit with 
respect to solar, but we put language in there together--Republicans 
and Democrats together--to create an idea that those credits would kick 
in at the beginning of construction, not having to wait until the end. 
That has made a big difference to our solar industry.
  Long ago, the State of Colorado and, I would say, many other States 
have broken past the false choice between our economy and the 
environment. That is the course we have charted in Colorado, and if the 
President were serious about energy independence, he would support that 
approach. Instead, he is trying to undermine it with this new order. By 
undoing national standards for carbon pollution, the order threatens to 
undercut our thriving clean energy industry. There are 465 solar and 
wind businesses across our State supporting over $8 billion in 
investments. By retreating from the fight against climate change, the 
order recklessly endangers Colorado's $646 billion outdoor recreation 
industry, not to mention the health of our national forests that line 
the banks of some of the most vital watersheds in America.
  As the President targets our environment and clean energy economy 
with this Executive order, he has dressed it up as something good for 
jobs, as he did during the campaign. Yesterday, the President stood 
before a group of coal miners and promised to ``cancel job-killing 
regulations'' and ``put our miners back to work.''
  Just 2 weeks ago, I was on the Western Slope of Colorado, a region 
with a number of mining communities. These communities, some of whom 
have helped invent hydraulic fracture and directional drilling, know 
that their challenges have far more to do with low prices and 
competition from natural gas than from the EPA. They know that their 
way of life and the way of life of communities like theirs all across 
the United States require real solutions to help them grow and 
diversify their economies. These communities get it. They understand 
it, but the President clearly does not.
  Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran this article entitled 
``Despite Trump Move on Climate Change, Utilities' Shift from Coal Is 
Set to Continue.'' According to the article, last year, power from coal 
plants fell while power from natural gas rose 35 percent. Nationwide 
major utilities are shedding coal and increasing natural gas and 
renewables. That is the reality of our energy market and of the global 
economy, but this administration, when it comes to energy and when it 
comes to climate, is not operating in reality. It is operating amongst 
political slogans. It is operating in the theater of the absurd, where 
policies have no relationship to problems, facts don't matter, and 
false promises to struggling Americans are just another political 
tactic to win a cable news cycle.
  The American people deserve so much better. Colorado deserves so much 
better than that. That is why today I am introducing a bill alongside 
more than 30 Senators to rescind this disastrous order, protect 
American jobs, and preserve our path toward energy independence. The 
stakes could not be higher for our kids, our planet, and our economy. 
We cannot let this stand.

                          ____________________