Schumer Floor Remarks on TrumpCare and the State Retirement CRA
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer delivered remarks on the Senate floor outlining the problems with House Republicans’ ACA replacement plan as well as the Congressional Review Act rolling back a Department of Labor rule on state-run retirement programs. Below are his remarks:
First, Mr. President, a note on healthcare.
As the House Republican caucus continues their effort to revive TrumpCare, I just want to remind my friends in the House of a few things.
First, the significant changes House Republicans are proposing to the bill would still cause premiums and deductibles to rise, would still jack up the costs on low-income and older Americans and, most importantly, doesn’t change a thing about the 24 million fewer Americans who would get healthcare. It may actually increase that number, but it certainly won’t decrease it.
Second, it’s unwise and irresponsible to rush through a brand new bill without a new CBO score, without committee hearings, without any debate on the floor of the House.
If this thing was so good, why wouldn’t there be open debate? Why wouldn’t there be open discussion?
And I hope if the bill gets to the Senate – and I hope it doesn’t – but if it will, I hope we won’t mimic the House: have no committees, no hearings, no CBO score, not much debate. That would be very wrong.
Third, even if the new version of TrumpCare passes the House – and we hope that it does not – its chances for survival in the Senate are small. We don’t even know if the new version would survive under the rules of reconciliation.
The amendment to allow states to drop the pre-existing condition requirement, for instance, very possibly violates the Byrd rule. If the moderate group in the House gets an additional amendment to deal with the very same issue, that may violate the Byrd rule as well -- because if Republicans try to throw money at their problem (as it has been reported), they may end up violating the budget instructions to reduce the deficit. And they won’t even know if it does violate the Byrd rule, because, again, they won’t have a CBO score.
As my friend the Republican Senator from South Carolina, Sen. Graham said: “I just don't see how you square the circle here.” – He’s talking about the TrumpCare bill. “Some of the things the Freedom Caucus wants probably won't make it through the Senate.” Now I’d add that the same is true for the group of moderates who are angling for more changes to the bill right now.
The reality is, TrumpCare cannot pass the Senate. So to my moderate Republican colleagues in the House, I ask: “Why would you risk a yes vote for a bill that is devastating to your constituents and has a miniscule chance, probably no chance of becoming law?”
We Democrats are ready and willing to work with our Republican colleagues on ways to improve the Affordable Care Act and our healthcare system in general. Drop repeal and then come talk to us about finding a bipartisan way forward.
We are always willing to work in a bipartisan way. But again, to repeat, bipartisan means talking to both sides and taking from both sides, not just throwing the bill down and saying ‘you have to support it.’
That’s what bipartisanship is.
Now, let me talk about the Retirement CRA, the vote that’s coming before us quite soon.
Mr. President, so far this Congress, the Republican Majority has passed 13 CRAs, Congressional Review Act votes, all on party-line votes. Far from being a major accomplishment, these CRAs just overturn rules passed at the very end of the Obama Administration
To make them a major accomplishment of the first 100 days misreads what they are, especially when compared to history and compared to many other presidents.
And most of them -- to boot, even worse -- rather than benefitting the America people, they just benefit large, wealthy special interests.
Not just this one, but just about all of them. They’re not for working people. They are not for middle-class Americans. There are some narrow special interests who don’t like it, and this Congress goes along, this Republican-led Congress - it’s not right.
Let me give you a few examples.
- The Republicans passed a CRA that removed protections for our waters and streams from the harmful pollution that comes from the runoff of mining sites. Why? Large mining companies wanted it. The American people weren’t crying out for it.
- This Republican Congress passed a CRA that would make it easier for the adjudicated mentally-ill to purchase firearms, a priority for the gun lobby—certainly not of the American people.
- They even passed a CRA that allowed large oil, mining, and gas companies to make payments to foreign governments (essentially bribes) without having to disclose them.
That’s not the America we know. That’s not the shining city on a hill. That’s not the lady in the harbor with the torch in the city in which I live.
And now, later today, the Republican Majority is going to have a vote on another CRA. This one may be the worst of all because it would essentially block initiatives by states to provide alternative retirement savings options for millions of Americans.
Is that because Americans are clamoring ‘take away my ability for retirement if my company doesn’t give me one?’ No. We haven’t heard a peep about that.
It’s because the private financial institutions – Wall Street – who manage retirement plans don’t want to see any competition from city or state retirement plans. This CRA is another giveaway to the wealthy special interests. And that will hurt working Americans who should have more low-cost choices when it comes to their retirement.
We all know, Mr. President, our nation faces a serious retirement security problem. Pensions – often a guarantee for large numbers of Americans – are vanishing. New employers often don’t provide pensions. Older employers’ pension plans are running low. People used to feel when they retired there would at least be something there so they could live their final years in dignity are worried, as they should be.
55 million working Americans do not have a way to save for retirement through their employer – that’s nearly half of all private-sector workers aged 18 to 64. So it’s a huge concern.
So what did the Obama administration do in its last few months? Wisely, they said sates could set up initiatives for employees to save through their employers’ payroll systems.
The Obama administration acted to allow states to pursue these initiatives by exempting them from overreaching federal regulations and then providing necessary consumer protections. That’s what people want. Now, maybe some of these big financial interests don’t want it because the plans the states head up will be a lot cheaper and more cost-effective than the private sector plans, but we have to adapt to the 21st century. Any way we can help people with security in their golden years with retirement savings, we should.
And here is another issue. We hear a lot from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about states’ rights. Well, this regulation doesn’t force the states to do it. It allows the states to do it. It gives them a choice. This CRA vote would reregulate the states.
My Republican friends, who spare no opportunity to decry regulation and exhort states’ rights will re-impose a regulation on states from Washington. My Republican friends talk about increasing Americans’ freedom of choice in all sorts of matters. What about their choice in terms of retirement, one of the most important things to the American people?
Mr. President, middle-class incomes are squeezed in so many different directions. It’s harder to scrap and save for retirement when the cost of college, medicine, and other essentials keep going up while take-home pay is stagnant. It makes sense to give Americans a choice to start saving earlier, at a lower cost, for retirement.
That’s why 23 State Treasurers from states across the political spectrum, from Utah and Kentucky – our two speakers before me -- have written to their Senators opposing this CRA. Red states and Blue states alike want to pursue this option. Polling shows that, across party lines, 77% of voters support state-facilitated retirement savings.
But Republicans want to block it. We haven’t heard one good reason, one good reason. We know the real reason – financial institutions who don’t want competition, particularly if it’s a little cheaper for the worker. Another example of special interests taking hold of the Republican agenda.
Almost every one of these CRAs have been at the behest of a narrow special interest over the interests of working Americans, and unfortunately it’s a metaphor for both the new Trump administration and how our Republican colleagues are marching in lockstep – in lockstep to support wealthy people (who are doing great) over the middle class and working people who need help.
President Trump promised over and over again in his campaign to stick up for working Americans. He said that he would be their voice, their champion. Since he’s taken office, President Trump sure hasn’t governed that way – he’s pursuing policy after policy that would help the wealthy, hurt the middle class, breaking promise after promise to working Americans.
I would ask him to veto this legislation. Leader Pelosi and I are sending him a letter – putting out a statement to ask just that. Stand up for working people. There is no good argument to do away with what the Obama administration did. There is no good argument against people wanting to decide their own retirement plan.
This CRA is another test. If the President and our Republican colleagues were truly a champion of the working man and woman, he’d veto this bill. We call on him to do so.
