Repealing Obamacare: Let’s Get This Done
A repeal bill must address all of Obamacare’s shortcomings and replace them with market-based solutions.
By Mike Lee & Mark Walker — December 9, 2016
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442894/obamacare-repeal-fix-whole-thing
Since 2010 everyone in the Republican party has agreed that Obamacare must be repealed. Most Republican members of Congress — ourselves included — were elected, and reelected, on the promise that we would take any opportunity possible to end this partisan, ham-handed, and unconstitutional law.
When Republicans attained control of both the House and Senate in 2015, we saw an opportunity to lay the foundation for full repeal under a possible future Republican president. To that end, we penned an article in National Review calling for Congress to send President Obama a bill repealing Obamacare. “It is more important than ever for Republicans in Congress to honor the promises we have made to the American people,” we wrote. “We can do this, before the end of the year, through a procedure known as ‘budget reconciliation.’”
House and Senate Republicans followed through on this promise. We sent a bill to President Obama’s desk that would have repealed much of the law, and was promptly — and unsurprisingly — vetoed. But this exercise was not, by any measure, a fruitless effort.
That bill, H.R. 3762, established the minimum standards against which any future Obamacare repeal bills would be measured. It zeroed out Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, scrapped the taxes, revived health savings accounts, and rolled back the Medicaid expansion and subsidies. Majorities in the House and Senate are on record voting for all of these items. We can do it again.
But there is no denying that any new reconciliation repeal bill in the next Congress will have a different outcome. This time, when the House and Senate send such a bill to the White House, the incoming president has said he will sign it. That is why it is so important that we get this repeal bill right.
And the bare minimum simply is not enough this time.
A minimum effort could end up hurting many Americans. Specifically, the law’s many insurance mandates drive up health costs and force individuals to violate their deeply held religious convictions. When government bureaucrats and politicians decide that every insurance policy must cover free doctor visits and abortifacients, Americans who don’t need those options end up paying more for products they don’t want. That’s great for the insurance companies, but not for taxpayers or consumers.
Some have argued that insurance regulations fall outside the scope of what Senate rules allow in a reconciliation bill. But since taxpayers are on the hook for billions in health insurance premiums every year, we should not give up on tackling the insurance regulations that inflate those premiums.
But deleting Obamacare from federal statute will be only the first step in reforming federal health-care policy. Republicans cannot wash their hands of the consequences of the Democrats’ failed health-care experiment. We have a responsibility to fix the broken government policies that have crippled our health-care system for decades. This means providing a transition, for however many years, for the market to recover and be able to serve individuals and businesses with more affordable, accessible health coverage. This means implementing the best of the many free-market repair proposals that Republicans have been developing for the past six years. People need options, not heavy-handed government mandates.
The details of a replacement plan do not have to be finalized now. But overall, it must honor medicine’s founding principle: primum non nocere — first, do no harm.
Congress and the Trump administration can’t afford to fumble the repeal of Obamacare. We can’t afford to just squeak by with the bare minimum, while preserving many of Obamacare’s most burdensome and intrusive provisions.
The American people have entrusted Republicans with a historic opportunity. They gave us the House, the Senate, a majority of governor’s seats, and the White House. Now we must honor the trust they have put in us by repealing and replacing Obamacare with health-care policies that lower costs, improve quality, and increase access for all Americans.
— Mike Lee represents Utah in the U.S. Senate. Mark Walker represents North Carolina’s sixth congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.
-----------------------------------------------------
Sen. Lee Issues Statement on National Defense Authorization Act
WASHINGTON – Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) issued the following statement Friday explaining his vote against the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act:
"I voted no on the final version 2017 National Defense Authorization Act because it doubles down on irresponsible defense budget gimmicks that ultimately harm the men and women serving in our military and removed key Utah priorities such as religious liberty protections for government contractors and blocking the sage grouse from being listed as an endangered species. It also reauthorizes the DoD’s Syria Train and Equip program for another two years despite past failures and risks to our interests in the Middle East.”
A digital version of this release is available here.
=====================================
December 9, 2016
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: Make American Energy Great Again
For the past eight years, President Obama and his allies in Congress have feverishly worked to centralize energy regulatory power in Washington, empowering federal bureaucrats to micromanage how energy producers operate their facilities and run their businesses.
The fundamental problem with centralized regulatory authority is the tendency of Washington bureaucrats to be ignorant of – and often indifferent to – the interests of the people who live in the communities that are affected by their rules.
This isn’t a knock on the men and women who work in the federal bureaucracy, most of whom are well-educated and well-intentioned. But there’s no doubt that a regulator in Washington, DC, knows less about a coal mine in Sevier County, Utah than a regulator in Salt Lake City.
But starting in January 2017, we can begin to move all that decision making power closer to the people.
The incoming Congress and new administration give us the best opportunity in recent memory to put Washington – especially federal energy policy – back on the side of hardworking Americans.
This will require a dual-track approach that simultaneously reins in our hyperactive federal bureaucracy and takes positive steps to return regulatory authority to the states.
We can – and should – start the process of repealing the most harmful and costly federal regulations right away. For President-elect Trump, this means undoing many of his predecessor’s executive orders, like the moratorium on coal leasing. And on Capitol Hill, we can get to work immediately after the new Congress is sworn in, by using the Congressional Review Act to rescind the laundry list of regulations the Obama administration issued in the past several months.
Much of this can be accomplished in the first 100 days of the new administration. But we must also advance long-term, structural solutions that decentralize regulatory authority out of the federal bureaucracy.
This should begin with a much-needed and fundamental attitude adjustment within administrative agencies (which is one reason I’m extremely encouraged by the nomination of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency), so that Washington’s regulators remember that their job is to work with – not condescend to – the states.
Finally, Congress should work to pass, and get signed into law, legislation that empowers states to resume their rightful role in regulating the energy producers within their borders. For federal lands states, like Utah, I believe the only fair and sustainable solution is a full transfer of all non-controversial federal land back to the state governments. But this is a long-term goal, and in the meantime, we can develop solutions that encourage co-management of public lands and that prevent federal rules from preempting or overriding effective regulations implemented by state agencies.
Advancing public policies that support and strengthen the revival of energy production in our country is important for all Americans, but especially for our fellow citizens involved in producing, refining, and transporting our nation’s energy resources – jobs like construction workers, rig and drill operators, and miners – where upwards of 90 percent of workers don’t have, or need, a college degree.
If we want our economy to produce the jobs and wage growth it has in the past, the energy sector is perhaps the best area for the incoming administration to start.
Issue in Focus: The AT&T – Time Warner Merger
We are living in a golden age of television. One TV writer recently wrote that for “the first time I’ve beg[un] to feel like there may, in fact, be too much good TV.”
The creativity, however, is not limited to content creators. Networks and distributors are also innovating to allow consumers new and unprecedented access to their content of choice. No longer are consumers limited to whatever bundle their local cable operator has negotiated. Dish, Sony, and DirecTV all offer cable bundles allowing consumers to stream live television over the Internet. Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and CBS, among others, allow consumers to purchase programming directly. And more innovation is on the horizon, as many industry participants expect 5G wireless technology to provide more competition to broadband and landline cable, opening up even more possibilities to content creators and distributors.
This brings us to AT&T’s proposed $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner.
AT&T is the second-largest wireless carrier in the United States and, through its DirecTV and U-verse subsidiaries, the largest U.S. cable and satellite provider. Time Warner is currently the world’s third-largest television network and filmed TV entertainment company, including CNN, TNT, HBO, and Warner Brothers’ film and TV studio.
The companies claim that this acquisition will result in significant benefits for consumers, including a “stronger competitive alternative to cable and other video providers” and a significant competitor to the digital advertising giants Google and Facebook.
Some critics claim the merger could stifle the development of new content delivery systems like Sling and PlayStation Vue, which allow customers to watch a live stream of cable channels via their Internet connection. The worry being that the new AT&T-Time Warner entity would withhold HBO or CNN from these new firms.
Other critics worry that AT&T will unduly favor Time Warner content by not counting that content against the wireless customers’ data caps. More commonly known as “zero-rating” the FCC recently found that the practice “may obstruct competition and harm consumers by constraining their ability to access existing and future mobile video services not affiliated with AT&T.”
The issues raised by this deal are complicated and, like most antitrust analysis, very fact intensive, which is why the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights held a hearing on the proposed merger earlier this week.
The Antitrust Subcommittee, which I chair, does not render any final judgment on the proposed merger, that responsibility lies with the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission.
But we will continue to monitor the issue and make sure the next administration enforces our nation’s antitrust laws properly.
============================================
Why Obama shouldn’t unilaterally declare a Bears Ears monument
By Mike Lee December 12 at 3:16 PM
Mike Lee, a Republican, represents Utah in the Senate.
President Obama and I haven’t always seen eye to eye on public policy. But what many don’t know is that we’ve also agreed, and worked together, on several issues — including ending the warrantless surveillance of Americans and forging a compromise bill to reform unfair federal sentencing laws.
We also share a concern for our nation’s founding document and the health of the institutions it created. For instance, the president and I both prefer that major policy changes be made, as the Constitution requires, through the legislative process by which Congress writes and passes legislation and the president either vetoes or signs it.
As Obama told New York Magazine before the election, “If there’s one wish that I have for future presidents, it’s not an imperial presidency, it is a functional, sensible majority-and-opposition being able to make decisions based on facts and policy and compromise. That would have been my preference for the majority of my presidency. It was an option that wasn’t always available. But I hope the American people continue to understand that that’s how the system should work.”
I share this hope.
The framers of the Constitution made Congress the most powerful branch of the federal government, giving it the exclusive authority to make and change federal laws, because they knew it would be the most accountable to the people. They believed that a consent-based government such as ours would cease to function if Americans came to see it as illegitimate, so they put Congress in charge of federal lawmaking and then they put the people in charge of Congress.
That is why it would be a mistake for the president to listen to those urging him to unilaterally declare a Bears Ears National Monument in southeast Utah. Any such declaration would short-circuit an ongoing healthy debate, further sow distrust in government among the American public and push us another step closer to an imperial presidency.
There is so much common ground when it comes to protecting the million-plus acres of public lands in southeast Utah. Above all, everyone involved wants to ensure that the vast stretch of land in the Bears Ears region, which contains tens of thousands of Native American cultural sites and some of the most beautiful scenery in the world, is preserved for future generations.
But there are also some honest disagreements about how exactly the land should be protected. Most Native Americans who live around Bears Ears and use the land on a daily basis fear that a monument designation will strictly limit their access to it. Other Utahns in the region worry that they will no longer be able to use the land for grazing and mineral development, which is exactly what happened after President Bill Clinton unilaterally designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante a national monument in 1996. Even advocates for a national monument worry that current law does not provide tribes with a meaningful role in management of a monument.
Supporters of a monument designation cite the 1906 Antiquities Act, but that law was specifically written to protect archaeological sites from looting and vandalism. That is why the act requires designated monuments to be “confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and a management of the objects to be protected.” The Obama administration has used the law to set aside 548 million acres of land and water, more than double any other administration. The act was never intended to give a president the unilateral power to dictate land-use management wherever he saw fit.
The administration recently blocked the Dakota Access Pipeline due to strong opposition from local residents. I urge it to give the same respect to the residents of San Juan County, Utah. They do not want this monument. They do not want outside interests from coastal urban areas dictating to them how to live their lives and manage their lands.
This does not have to be a divisive issue. The House recently moved a bill through the Natural Resources Committee that could better protect these lands. The existing legislation is not perfect, but if it is allowed to work its way through the legislative process, subject to amendments in both the House and the Senate, it can produce a consensual outcome.
We can settle this issue through democracy and compromise — unless Obama decides to cut short this debate by declaring a national monument via executive fiat. Undoubtedly, such an action would make many Democrats and special-interest groups happy. But at what cost? As one of his final acts as president, is Obama willing to take our great nation one step closer to the imperial presidency that he, most Americans and I rightly fear?
=============================
Lee, Klobuchar Call for “Careful Consideration” of Three Agribusiness Mergers
WASHINGTON - Today, Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez and Department of Justice Antitrust Division Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse calling for “careful consideration” of three recent proposed agribusiness mergers.
“We write to you regarding three proposed transactions in the seed and agrochemical industry: the merger of Dow Chemical and Dupont, the acquisition of Syngenta by ChemChina, and the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer,” the letter reads. “These transactions are currently being reviewed by either the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice. While we take no position about the legality of any of the proposed transactions under the antitrust laws, we believe they raise important competition issues that the Department and Commission should carefully review.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing titled, “Consolidation and Competition in the U.S. Seed and Agrochemical Industry.” You can read testimony from the hearing here.
A digital version of this release and the letter sent to Chairwoman Ramirez can be found here.
===============================
Click here to watch
Lee Calls on White House Not to Designate Monument Next Week
SALT LAKE CITY—On Wednesday night, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) took to Facebook Live to address rumors that President Obama could unilaterally declare a Bears Ears National Monument southeast Utah as early as next week.
The full video is available on Senator Lee’s Facebook page and his YouTube channel. Portions of the transcript are provided below:
“Good evening fellow Utanhns, I wanted to take just a moment to talk to you about some disturbing rumors we are hearing in Washington DC. Many of you have been fighting alongside me and with many others over the past six years to make sure President Obama doesn’t designate any additional monuments in the state of Utah. We’re hearing today that President Obama may well be moving forward with a monument designation, possibly designating a monument in the Bears Ears area as early as next week.”
“We have to remember that when Sally Jewel, the Secretary of the Interior, went through the Senate confirmation process after she was nominated … I asked her about how she would use this authority, how she would advise President Obama in using the Antiquities Act and she made a pretty solemn promise at the time. She said “I would not advise the President of the United States to use the Antiquities Act in the absence of widespread local buy in. In other words the local affected communities, those most directly impacted by presidential designation of a monument under the Antiquities Act, would need to enjoy widespread local support. We don’t have that in San Juan County. We don’t have anything close to that, not among elected officials down there, not among the people generally down there."
“I want to make clear, if heaven forbid this does happen, I will work tirelessly with the incoming Trump administration to make sure that this national monument never gets off the ground; to make sure it is undone, that is defunded, unwritten, rewritten, repealed, whatever it is that we have to do to undo it."
=============================
