Hatch Charts Path Forward for Obamacare Repeal, Challenges Colleagues to Keep Promises
"Last night, we blinked"
Washington, D.C.— In a speech on the Senate floor today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, spoke about the Senate's unsuccessful Obamacare repeal efforts thus far and challenged his Republican colleagues to keep their promises of the last seven years to repeal the broken healthcare law.
Last night, a handful of our members announced that they would not support the compromise bill, even though it would have repealed Obamacare’s taxes, reformed Medicaid by putting it on a sustainable path for future generations, and included the largest pro-life protections on federal spending that I’ve ever seen.
This, Mr. President, was the opportunity we had been working toward. All we had to do was come together and compromise and seven and a half years of promises would have been much, much closer to being fulfilled.
But, last night, we blinked.
And, frankly, I think the members who opted to scuttle the compromise bill will eventually have to explain to their constituents why they left so many Obamacare fixes on the table and walked away from this historic opportunity.
Senator Hatch continued:
Do we want to repeal Obamacare, or are we fine with leaving it in place? That’s the question we have to ask ourselves.
Keep in mind, Mr. President, the vast majority of Republican Senators are already on record having voted two years ago in favor a full Obamacare repeal with a two-year delay.
Of course, in 2015, we knew that the President would veto that legislation, and we now know that the current occupant of the White House would surely sign it. That’s really the only difference between then and now.
Was the vote in 2015 just a political stunt? Was it just pure partisanship? I know some of our Democratic colleagues claimed that was the case. Were they right?
I sure hope not. On the contrary, I sincerely hope that any member of the Senate who voted for the 2015 bill and who has spent the last seven and a half years pledging to repeal Obamacare hasn’t suddenly changed their position now that the vote has a chance to actually matter.
Recognizing the frustrating process, Senator Hatch spoke about the importance of action and the devastating consequences of congressional inaction.
Right now, we have essentially two choices. We can keep talking about repealing Obamacare and wish for a better future, one with more Republican votes or more Democrats willing to acknowledge reality. Or, we can press forward with the numbers we have and make good on the commitments we’ve made to the American people.
To quote the old Scottish nursery rhyme: If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
Translation: More talking and more wishing won’t get us anywhere.
We can either take a significant step forward to undo Obamacare’s mandates and taxes that have collectively wreaked havoc on our healthcare system. Or, we can dither about some more and leave them in place for the foreseeable future.
In my view, Mr. President, the choice is an easy one. I urge all of my colleagues to once again vote with me to repeal Obamacare.
The complete speech, as prepared for delivery, is below:
Mr. President, the final pieces of Obamacare were signed into law a little over seven years ago. Since that time, Republicans – not just in Congress, but throughout the country – have been united in our opposition to the law and our commitment to repeal it.
This hasn’t been simply a political or partisan endeavor. We’re not just trying take a notch out of President Obama’s win column. The simple truth is that Obamacare isn’t working.
The law was poorly written and the system it created was poorly designed. Even a number of Obamacare supporters have come to acknowledge that it hasn’t been working the way it was promised to work. As a result, millions of Americans have suffered astronomical increases in their health insurance premiums and fewer and fewer insurance options to choose from.
That is Obamacare’s great irony: The law requires people to buy health insurance while also making it impossible to do so.
For seven and a half years, Republicans have fought to expose the failures of Obamacare and have pledged time and again to repeal it.
Every single Republican member of the Senate has expressed support for repealing Obamacare. Most of us have made promises to our constituents to do just that. And, those promises – coupled with the obvious failures of Obamacare – are a big reason why we now find ourselves in control of both chambers of Congress and the presidency.
For the last six months, Republicans have worked in good faith to find a path forward to both repeal and replace Obamacare.
The released discussion drafts attempted to bridge the divide between our more conservative and moderate members, so the products were never going to be perfect. Such is the inherent nature of compromise.
The draft released last week included additions to address member priorities, and was likely the best chance we had at a compromise bill to repeal and replace Obamacare with significant entitlement reform.
But, last night a handful of our members announced that they would not support the compromise bill, even though it would have repealed Obamacare’s taxes, reformed Medicaid by putting it on a sustainable path for future generations, and included the largest pro-life protections on federal spending that I’ve ever seen.
This, Mr. President, was the opportunity we had been working toward. All we had to do was come together and compromise and seven and a half years of promises would have been much, much closer to being fulfilled.
But, last night, we blinked.
And, frankly, I think the members who opted to scuttle the compromise bill will eventually have to explain to their constituents why they left so many Obamacare fixes on the table and walked away from this historic opportunity.
So, where does that leave us?
The Majority Leader has announced his intention to shelve the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare with a single piece of legislation. Instead, the Senate will move forward to vote on legislation to simply repeal Obamacare, with a two-year delay.
So, long story short, we have one more chance to do what we’ve all said we wanted to do.
I am aware that some members have already expressed their skepticism – if not their opposition – to this approach. I would hope that they will take the time to reconsider.
As senators contemplate this path, they should keep in mind that the upcoming vote is not about the next two years, nor is it about the past six months. We’re not going to be voting to approve a specific process for drafting and enacting an Obamacare replacement. And, we’re not voting to approve the way this effort has moved forward during this Congress.
I know some of our colleagues have doubts about the path forward. Others have complaints about the path that got us here. But this vote, in my view, will simply be about whether we intend to live up to our promises.
Do we want to repeal Obamacare, or are we fine with leaving it in place? That’s the question we have to ask ourselves.
Keep in mind, Mr. President, the vast majority of Republican Senators are already on record having voted two years ago in favor a full Obamacare repeal with a two-year delay.
Of course, in 2015, we knew that the President would veto that legislation, and we now know that the current occupant of the White House would surely sign it. That’s really the only difference between then and now.
Was the vote in 2015 just a political stunt? Was it just pure partisanship? I know some of our Democratic colleagues claimed that was the case. Were they right?
I sure hope not. On the contrary, I sincerely hope that any member of the Senate who voted for the 2015 bill and who has spent the last seven and a half years pledging to repeal Obamacare hasn’t suddenly changed their position now that the vote has a chance to actually matter.
If we vote to pass a full repeal, will we be solving all of our healthcare problems with a single vote? Certainly not.
But, that was never going to be the case, Mr. President. Anyone who thought repealing and replacing Obamacare would be easy once we had the votes was likely not paying attention to the problems plaguing our healthcare system.
However, if we act now to pass the full repeal, we will be taking significant steps toward accomplishing our goals and keeping our promises. If we pass up yet another opportunity – if we can’t muster the votes to pass something we’ve already passed – I have a hard time believing we’ll get another shot to fulfill our promise and repeal this unworkable law anytime soon.
What does that mean?
Among other things, it means a congressional bailout of failing insurance markets, probably before the end of 2017. Frankly, that ship may have sailed on that one after last night’s developments. We’re probably looking at an insurance bailout one way or another. Those who will be interested in moving an insurance bailout later this year should be ready to explain how they want to pay for it.
Failure would also mean premiums continue to skyrocket and people will be left with few, if any available insurance options, even though they will still face penalties if they don’t make a purchase.
It would mean that the Obamacare taxes and mandates remain in place. And, it would keep Medicaid expansion on the books indefinitely, most certainly creating a scenario for Governors to advocate for the federal government to continue paying close to 100 percent of the share for able-bodied adults.
Mr. President, we already know what happens if we leave Obamacare in place – that scenario is playing out before our very eyes. That downward spiral of broken promises – the one the American people have to deal with every day – is the reason we’ve all committed to repealing Obamacare.
Now, don’t get me wrong, Mr. President. I wish the path that got us to this point had been easier, with less melodrama and acrimony. To be honest, I wish we had simply moved to this full-repeal strategy at the outset, because, as I noted several times early in the year, it is probably the most feasible path forward if we want to achieve our goals.
It would be nice if things had gone differently. But, this is where we are, with only 52 Republicans in the Senate and a minority that has, from the beginning, wanted no part of this process.
Right now, we have essentially two choices. We can keep talking about repealing Obamacare and wish for a better future, one with more Republican votes or more Democrats willing to acknowledge reality. Or, we can press forward with the numbers we have and make good on the commitments we’ve made to the American people.
To quote the old Scottish nursery rhyme: If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.
Translation: More talking and more wishing won’t get us anywhere.
We can either take a significant step forward to undo Obamacare’s mandates and taxes that have collectively wreaked havoc on our healthcare system. Or, we can dither about some more and leave them in place for the foreseeable future.
In my view, Mr. President, the choice is an easy one. I urge all of my colleagues to once again vote with me to repeal Obamacare.
We’ve blown a number of opportunities already in recent weeks. Last night, we blew a big one. I hope we can avoid doing the same with this upcoming vote. If not, we’ll have to answer to the American people and explain to them why we failed.
With that, I yield the floor.
===================
Senate Leaders Introduce Bill to Restore Regulatory Accountability
Washington, D.C.—The Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA) was introduced to restore accountability to the regulatory process. The bill ensures proper judicial review, empowering the courts—not agencies—to interpret all questions of law, including both statutes and regulations.
The Senate bill was introduced by Senators Hatch (UT), Grassley (IA), Lee (UT), Lankford (OK), Flake (AZ), Crapo (ID), Tillis (NC), Kennedy (LA), Cruz (TX), Cornyn (TX), and Sasse (NE).
“Our Constitution clearly sets up three separate branches of government that have designated powers to check one another,” Senator Hatch said. “This important balance of power is essential to our country’s freedom. Administrative agencies, however, have continuously eroded that balance of power by subjecting the courts to judicial deference, allowing the federal bureaucracy to impose expensive and often unnecessary rules that strain family budgets and impede our ability to create jobs. Our bill fortifies regulatory accountability by restoring the constitutional responsibility of the courts to check and restrain federal regulators.”
“For too long, unelected bureaucrats have relied on Chevron to expand their own authority beyond what Congress ever intended,” Chairman Grassley said. “This has weakened our system of checks and balances and created a recipe for regulatory overreach. The Constitution’s separation of powers makes clear that it is the responsibility of Congress, as the People’s representative, to make the law. And it’s the job of the courts – not the bureaucracy – to interpret the law. This bill helps to reassert those clear lines between the branches. By doing so, it makes the government more accountable to the People and takes a strong step toward reining in the regulators.”
“In practice Chevron deference has become a direct threat to the rule of law and the moral underpinnings of America’s constitutional order,” Senator Lee said. “The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2017 will restore that balance by bringing back traditional judicial review of administrative actions.”
“The Constitution gives each branch of government unique and exclusive power: Congress writes the law; the executive enforces the law; and the courts interpret the law,” Senator Flake said. “However, the Chevron doctrine increasingly allows the executive branch to do all three. That’s not what the Framers envisioned and this bill is a good first step to bringing government in line with the structure of our Constitution.”
“The introduction of the Restoration of Powers Separation Act is a crucial first step in restoring the proper role of judicial review,” Senator Crapo said. “This bill will stop future abuses of power by making it clear that courts, not administrative agencies, have the rightful authority to interpret questions of law.”
“One of the biggest challenges facing our nation is a large and cumbersome regulatory environment that negatively affects hardworking American families and business, and impedes our nation’s economic growth and potential,” Senator Tillis said. “I am proud to join this legislation that takes the necessary steps to hold unelected bureaucrats and regulators accountable by restoring the proper separation of powers.”
“It’s no secret that Chevron deference has gotten a little out of hand,” Senator Kennedy said. “It’s vital to our separation of powers that we restore the balance – and this bill does just that. I’m proud to join my colleagues in bringing about this needed reform”
"Our Constitution clearly defines the lawful checks and balances among the three branches of government, yet for far too long executive agencies have operated as if they can simply dictate the law," Senator Cruz said. "That is unacceptable. It is past time for Congress to assert its appropriate place as a coequal branch of government. I am glad to again join my colleagues in both Houses in this effort to remedy the damage done by the previous administration’s lawlessness, and reverse the dangerous trend of enabling bureaucracy at the expense of Congress and the courts."
“When you write laws, you’re hired and fired by the people in the voting booth – that’s Self-Government 101,” Senator Sasse said. “Sadly, that’s not what happens when Congress punts to unelected regulators and the courts defer to unaccountable bureaucrats. Our straightforward bill reaffirms what our kids learn in high school civics: Congress writes the laws, judges apply them, and the executive branch enforces them."
Background:
For many years, the nation has witnessed a steady accumulation of power within administrative agencies. As a practical matter, agencies’ power to regulate and to adjudicate has supplanted legislation and judicial review as the primary means by which governance takes place at the federal level. This trend only accelerated under President Obama, whose major legislative actions—such as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank—delegated massive amounts of power to the federal bureaucracy.
The central precept undergirding the Constitution is the notion that liberty depends on the separation of powers and the preservation of check and balances. As James Madison put it in Federalist 47, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” By definition, the accumulation of power within administrative agencies represents a shift away from the constitutional separation of powers and the liberty it protects. Insulated from the checks and balances on its authority, the federal bureaucracy imposes an estimated $1.88 trillion burden on the economy each year, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. That equals roughly $15,000 per household and 11.5 percent of the nation’s 2012 GDP. This figure is more than $300 billion higher than combined individual and corporate federal income tax receipts and equivalent to 85 percent of U.S. corporate profits in 2013. Judicial review represents the most effective remaining independent check on regulation and administrative action.
One of the primary means by which the judiciary checks the otherwise-unbridled powers of the federal bureaucracy is by evaluating whether an agency’s action violates the law. In such cases, the paramount matter in contention is the meaning of the law at issue. For many years, the courts’ held that when considering the meaning of legal text, “[i]t is for the courts, not the [agencies], ultimately to determine as a matter of law what they include.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 427 (1920). This approach was anchored in Chief Justice John Marshall’s seminal words in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), that “i[t] is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
However, in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute as long as the statute is “ambiguous” and the agency’s reading is “reasonable.” In practice, these terms are interpreted extraordinarily leniently for agencies. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court has extended similar deference to other legal interpretations by agencies. For example, in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 453 (1997), the Court applied the Chevron standard to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations. Furthermore, in Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), the Supreme Court held that statutory interpretations by an administrative agency can override previous interpretations by federal courts, and in City of Arlington, Tex. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm., 133 S. Ct. 1863 (2013), the Supreme Court even went so far as to hold that a court must defer to an agency's interpretation that concerns the scope of the agency's jurisdiction.
The Separation of Powers Restoration Act would clarify in Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act that courts shall decide “de novo all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and rules.”
=========================
Hatch Introduces the Helium Extraction Act to Bolster Helium Production
Washington, D.C.—Today, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the senior Republican in the United States Senate, introduced the Helium Extraction Act to bolster helium production on federal lands. The legislation increases regulatory flexibility by allowing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to treat helium leases similar to oil and gas leases. Hatch’s proposal will help ensure a long-term domestic supply of helium, which has been jeopardized by the impending closure of the Federal Helium Reserve in 2021.
“Due to limited production and supply, helium prices have risen by as much as 250 percent in the last decade,” Hatch said. “This sharp price increase significantly impacts a wide array of important industries—including space, defense, medical, and many others—that depend on reliable supplies of helium. Our nation’s federal lands, particularly in Utah, offer abundant supplies of recoverable helium, and this legislation would help promote its responsible development.”
Background:
Currently, the BLM can extend oil and gas leases for varying on-the-ground conditions, which is needed if production from a site is better or worse than anticipated. The oil and gas leasing process is a proven regulatory structure that promotes responsible development. Unfortunately, under the Mineral Leasing Act, that same regulatory flexibility is not afforded to helium leases, which discourages production of helium on federal lands. The Helium Extraction Act, S. 1572, would make an amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act to direct the BLM to treat helium leases in the same manner as oil and gas leases.
