Senator Lamar Alexander explains his crucial vote in the impeachment trial.

by Rod Williams - Noah Weiland, a reporter with the New York Times has  been sending out daily

Lamar Alexander

email blast summarizing and offering commentary on the day's impeachment developments. In the report yesterday he reported that the Senate voted not to hear from additional witnesses or consider additional evidence saying that vote virtually assured President Trump's acquittal.

As anyone who has been paying attention now knows, that crucial vote to hear additional witnesses failed by a vote of 49 to 51. All Democrats voted in favor and all Republicans were opposed, except for Senators Susan Collins and Mitt Romney who voted with the Democrats.

Weiland noted that several Republicans issued statements explaining their vote. He found four of them of interest.  The four were Marco Rubio of Florida, Rob Portman of Ohio, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. The thing that made these four explanations interesting is that they each admitted Trump's wrongdoing but argued that it did not rise to the level of removal from office. This is what he said of Alexander.

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said in a statement last night that Mr. Trump did what Democrats accused him of, and that those actions were “inappropriate.” He said that “there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.” (Ben Sasse of Nebraska said that “Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us.”)

He went on to elaborate on Lamar Alexander's vote.

My colleague Carl Hulse interviewed Mr. Alexander in a small private office on the third floor of the Capitol this afternoon. There, the outgoing senator offered more detail on how he thought about his “no” vote on witnesses. Why call them, Mr. Alexander asked, “if you are persuaded that he did it.”

I called Carl to ask about what Mr. Alexander’s decision can tell us about how Republicans came together to effectively end the trial.

Carl, I was struck by the political-cultural argument behind his vote. He said removing Mr. Trump from office would “pour gasoline on cultural fires that are burning out there.” Why did he frame his decision that way? 

He thought it would just be too disruptive, that even if you add up all this conduct, it just isn’t of the level for which you’d remove a president at such a volatile moment.

He thought that this close to the election, doing something so drastic as pushing the president out of office would have sparked what would basically be a rebellion. People wouldn’t have accepted the election, he thought. He talked to me about what would happen to the primary ballots Mr. Trump’s name is on already. 

What does he think the “cultural fires” are? 

He thinks of it as the divide between urban and coastal America and the rest of the country, and that people outside of the coasts would go crazy if Mr. Trump was thrown out. The president is the embodiment of the Republican Party and its position now. Conservatives identify their conservatism with Mr. Trump. Senate Republicans challenge him at their own risk. 

In your interview with Mr. Alexander, he said: 

“Whatever you think of his behavior, with the terrific economy, with conservative judges, with fewer regulations, you add in there an inappropriate call with the president of Ukraine, and you decide if your prefer him or Elizabeth Warren.”

He’s presenting the impeachment case as a kind of one-off incident, the July 25 call between Mr. Trump and Ukraine’s president, amid the glory of a conservative political agenda. Ukraine was just one part of Mr. Trump’s record, he’s thinking. They have to weigh it against what Mr. Trump would say are his biggest accomplishments. Mr. Alexander thinks if you do that and you’re a Republican, you’ll still vote for Mr. Trump. To him, Ukraine is part of an overall record that people can consider in ten short months.

I agree with Senator Alexander and am pleased that he explained his vote.  I do not think the president did "nothing wrong."  I do not think the call was "a perfect call." It appears to me he did attempt to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.  I don't reach a conclusion that the president was motivated by a desire to harm the reputation of Joe Biden and influence the next election, but think that may have been at least part of the motivation. In any event, I do not want to impeach the President over this issue. His record of accomplishments out weighs this one inappropriate action. 

Below is Senator Alexanders full statement he released to the media and public explaining his vote.

“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.

“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.” ###

Top Stories

According to the Freedom Works Scorecard, Just How Conservative are your Congressmen and Senators?

Freedom Works is a conservative activist organization with over 6 million members who are passionate about promoting free markets and individual liberty. Members share three common traits: a desire for less government, lower taxes, and more economic freedom. Freedom Works was founded in 1986. Every year, Freedom Works produces a "scorecard" rating each member of the House and Senate. The higher the score the more often the legislature voted in agreement with positions taken my Freedom Works.  Below are the scores of Tennessee's delegation.

The Senate score is based on ten key votes and the House score is based on 30 key votes. To view the issues that comprise the score, follow these links: House, Senate. The highest possible score is "100."  The higher the score the more often the legislator agreed with the positions favored by Freedom Works.

You will notice that Senate Lamar Alexander has a low score of 24. Ten other Republican Senators had a lower scores including Mitch McConnell and Roy Blunt and Lindsay Graham.  There was not a single Senate Democrat who was more conservative than the most liberal Republican.

In the House you will notice that Jim Cooper scored a "9."  Cooper sometimes likes to pretend he is a conservative, but his votes does not support that contention.  There were 75 Democrats who scored as high or higher than Jim Cooper. Among the Democrat Representatives more conservative than Jim Cooper was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Except for one Republican who was more liberal than a Democrat and one Democrat who was more conservative than a Republican, all of the others divided as conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats.

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander has put his legacy at risk | Opinion

by Rod Williams, Guest columnist, The Tennessean, Published  Aug. 30, 2019 -

Alexander needs to bring the Restore Our Parks Act to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and pass this legislation once and for all.

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander has long been known as an advocate for Tennesseans. He’s represented our state as governor, president of the University of Tennessee and as the state’s senior senator for more than four decades. He’s a man born in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains who never forgot where he came from, and he has built a legacy of improving health care, education and our national parks across the nation. But all good things must come to an end. Early this year, Alexander announced he will retire at the end of 2020.

Yet if he leaves office without one final detail, there will be a gaping hole in his legacy.

Our national parks face a $12 billion backlog in deferred maintenance projects, including $162 million in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park alone. The backlog represents thousands of roads, bridges, bathrooms and facilities, and emergency response systems that are in dire need of repair. And with 318 million visitors in 2018, our national parks are only getting more wear and tear.

 Smokies improve local economy 

Alexander understands the importance of our national parks. Not only are they vast oxygen tanks for our environment, national parks improve the local economy around them. In 2017, visitors spent more than $154 million along the Natchez Trace Parkway, ending in Nashville. In Rutherford County, Stones River National Battlefield saw its fourth-highest visitor attendance in 2018. That same year, the Smokies drove $953 million in visitor spending to the East Tennessee and western North Carolina region. That spending supports local restaurants and hotels, tourist attractions, tour guides, fly-fishing companies, sports outfitters and other businesses that rely on the millions of people who go to the Smokies each year. Yet if we let our national parks fall apart, the unreliable bathroom facilities, closed roads and precarious trails will only drive away visitors and the money they spend. East Tennesseans understand the importance of getting rid of the backlog. Just look at Ian and Charity Rutter, who took the time to make the case for our national parks to U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett this past spring. As business owners in the Townsend community whose customer base includes a healthy number of tourists, they know the longer we wait, the harder it’ll be to restore our parks. 

Restore Our Parks Act introduced 

I know Alexander understands the importance of our national parks. He introduced the Restore Our Parks Act in 2018 to cut the backlog in half by creating a dedicated revenue stream that can help fix our parks. He’s talked about getting rid of the backlog during his visits to the Smokies, during congressional hearings and even on social media. Several members of Congress, including Tennessee Reps. Phil Roe, Chuck Fleischmann, Burchett, Steve Cohen and Jim Cooper, have cosponsored a companion bill in the House.  Yet restoring our parks does not seem to be a priority to Alexander. Maybe it’s a sign Alexander has been in Washington too long. Maybe he hasn’t spent enough time in the Smokies over the last few years. Maybe he’s forgotten the region he came from. Maybe if he were running for re-election, he’d have gotten this legislation passed already.

Yet I don’t want to believe that.

I know Alexander cares about our community, and he wants to ensure our national parks remain a vital part of it for generations to come. That’s why, with just over a year left in the Senate, Alexander needs to bring this legislation to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and pass the Restore Our Parks Act once and for all. Anything less is a $12 billion broken promise.

Top Stories

I applaud Lamar Alexander, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and other Republicans who took a principled stand for constitutional governance.

Twelve courageous Republican senators voted for the bill to terminate President Trump's emergency declaration yesterday. I am pleased that Tennessee's own Senator Lamar Alexander was among them. Alexander and the other who voted for the bill to terminate Trumps emergency declarations were not against the wall but were against President Trump's end run around the Congress to get it.  The Constitution gives Congress the power to appropriated money. Trump tried to get wall funding from Congress, Congress did not give it to him, so he declared a national emergency to reallocate funds. This is as much a blatant abuse of power as anything President Obama ever did. 

Most of the Senators who were outraged at President Obama's abuse of power and who wrapped themselves tightly in the Constitution were deafeningly silent when it came to Trump's abuse of power. There was not a louder critic of Obama's abuse of power than Senator Ted Cruz but he apparently developed a bad case of laryngitis. During the 2016 Republican campaign for the Republican nomination for president, I was tempted to support Senator Cruz and was torn between Cruz and Rubio. I ended up supporting Rubio. I am pleased to see Rubio was one of the twelve who voted for the bill to terminate President Trump's national emergency. I supported the better man. Curz is a strong advocate of the Constitution when it would frustrate a Democrat objective but not so much when constitutionalism would frustrate a Republican agenda. Rubio is principled.  

There is an argument to be made that technically President Trump's use of  calling a national emergency to get his funding for the wall is legal. It may withstand a constitutional challenge, but I hope it doesn't. It is time we returned to constitutional governance. The Congress have given too much power to the executive branch. The Executive branch has power never envisioned by the founders. Congress has passed vague bills and let the bureaucracy make rules and have given the bureaucracy the right to also adjudicate those rules.  Presidents have gradually assumed more power and Congress has let them.  President Obama famously ruled by a "phone and a pen." He unilaterally changed laws and got by with it.  He greatly expanded the power of the executive. I had hoped that a Republican president would reverse the trend toward the imperial presidency but President Trump is accelerating it. When a future Democrat president declares a national emergency to take money from the military to build wind mills because of the crisis of global warming, Republicans will have no right to complain. That president will be doing the same thing President Trump is doing.

Significant legislative powers were given to the executive branch by the National Emergencies Act of 1976. It gave the President the power to call a national emergency and provided Congress the option of  terminating the President's emergency declaration. In the past the power of the president to call a national emergency has been used occasionally, but never as a tool for the president to get by means of declaring a national emergency what he could not get legislatively. It has usually been used to respond to a crisis that could not wait for Congressional action. 

Senator Mike Lee proposed a bill to take back from the executive the power to rule by declaring national emergencies. His bill would have said that a national declaration would automatically end  after 30 days unless Congress voted affirmatively to extend the emergency.  This would still have given a President the power to call a national emergency but would have restored some balance to the balance of powers. His bill did not get any Democrat support. Democrats are no more concerned about constitutional governance than Republicans.  Like most Republicans, they are in favor of the Constitution when it advances their agenda and not so much when it would hinder their agenda. I applaud the twelve Republicans who took a principled stand for constitutional governance.  Below is a statement from several of the senators explaining their vote.

 
Senator Mike Lee:

Congress is supposed to be the first among the federal government’s three co-equal branches.For decades, Congress has been giving far too much legislative power to the executive branch. While there was attention on the issue I had hoped the ARTICLE ONE Act could begin to take that power back. Unfortunately, it appears the bill does not have an immediate path forward, so I will be voting to terminate the latest emergency declaration. I hope this legislation will serve as a starting point for future work on this very important issue.

Senator Rand Paul:

I stand with President Trump on the need for a border wall and stronger border security, but the Constitution clearly states that money cannot be spent unless Congress has passed a law to do so.

Senator Marco Rubio:

We have an emergency at our border, which is why I support the president’s use of forfeiture funds and counter-drug money to build a wall. However, I cannot support moving funds that Congress explicitly appropriated for construction and upgrades of our military bases. This would create a precedent a future president may abuse to jumpstart programs like the Green New Deal, especially given the embrace of socialism we are seeing on the political left

Senator Lamar Alexander:

I support the president on border security. I have urged him to build the 234 miles of border wall he has asked for in the fastest possible way by using $5.7 billion already approved by Congress. But his declaration to take an additional $3.6 billion that Congress has appropriated for military hospitals, barracks and schools is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution that I swore an oath to support and defend. 

Never before has a president asked for funding, Congress has not provided it, and the president then has used the National Emergencies Act of 1976 to spend the money anyway. The problem with this is that after a Revolutionary War against a king, our nation’s founders gave to Congress the power to approve all spending so that the president would not have too much power. This check on the executive is a crucial source of our freedom.

This declaration is a dangerous precedent. Already, Democrat presidential candidates are saying they would declare emergencies to tear down the existing border wall, take away guns, stop oil exports, shut down offshore drilling and other leftwing enterprises—all without the approval of Congress.

Top Stories

Sen. Alexander: President Trump did the right thing by deal to reopen the government.

Sen. Lamar Alexander

by Senator Lamar Alexander - President Trump did the right thing Friday by announcing a deal to reopen the federal government. Thursday, I voted twice to reopen the government. And on Friday, the Senate voted to open the government unanimously.

It is now time for Congress to work together to produce a comprehensive bill to secure our border, including physical barriers where appropriate. That’s what we did for the last four presidents by approving in Congress, on a bipartisan basis, 654 miles of physical barrier on the 1,954 mile border. And that’s what we should do now working with President Trump. When a president, elected by the people of the United States, has a legitimate objective, we in Congress should bend over backwards to try to meet that objective if we want a result, regardless of whatever you may think of him or her.

Nobody wins in a shutdown. This shutdown over the past few weeks demonstrates why it is always wrong for either side to use shutting down the government as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations—it should be as off-limits as chemical weapons are to warfare. Boy Scouts shouldn't get a merit badge for telling the truth, and senators and presidents shouldn't get a merit badge for keeping the government open. That's what we are supposed to do.

We began to make progress this week when we did something we know how to do—vote. Then, the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, and the Democratic leader, Senator Chuck Schumer, walked back to Senator McConnell’s office and they began to talk. And here we are less than 24 hours later with a result.

I wrote an op-ed earlier this month for the Washington Post where I offered three specific solutions to help address the humanitarian crisis and secure our border:

Go small—Give the president the $1.6 billion he asked for in this year’s budget request, which the bipartisan Senate Appropriations Committee approved. Provide an additional $1 billion to improve border security at ports of entry, which everyone concedes is needed.
  
Go bigger—Pass the bill that 54 senators voted for last February, which combined a solution for children brought to the United States illegally and $25 billion in appropriated funding for border security over 10 years.

Or even better, go really big—Begin the new Congress by creating a legal immigration system that secures our borders and defines legal status for those already here. In 2013, 68 senators — including all 54 Democrats — voted for such a bill, but the House refused to take it up. That bill included more than $40 billion and many other provisions to secure our borders.

The American people elected us to make the government work better for taxpayers, not to shut it down. It is now up to Congress to work together to do our most basic job—fund the government—and to help President Trump achieve his reasonable goal of securing our southern border.

Top Stories

President Trump has offered a reasonable compromise to end this partial government shutdown

Sen. Lamar Alexander

by Lamar Alexander - A government shutdown is always the wrong idea. It is the wrong idea under President Trump, just as it was the wrong idea under President Obama. Members of Congress should first remember that when a president who has been duly elected by the people of the United States -- whatever you may think of him or her -- has a legitimate objective, it is our responsibility to do everything we can to accommodate that objective, if we want a result. 

This week, the President proposed a sensible compromise, including relief for “dreamers,” to end this inexcusable government shutdown. It is time for Democrats to respect the president’s reasonable requests for border security including 234 new miles of physical barrier. Presidents Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton and George H.W. Bush, with bi-partisan congressional support, built 654 miles of physical barriers along our 1,954 mile southern border. Why is President Trump the only president not allowed to build more wall?

I’m hopeful Congress will pass the President’s proposal and reopen the government. In the meantime, it’s wrong for federal employees to work and not get a paycheck. That’s why I cosponsored the Pay Excepted Personnel Act -- legislation to ensure the over 400,000 federal employees who are required to work during the shutdown can receive their paycheck.

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander: My last two years will focus on cutting health care costs

by Lamar Alexander, The Tennessean -  Up to half of health care spending is unnecessary.

That’s according to Dr. Brent James, a member of the National Academy of Medicine, who testified before my committee that 30 percent, and probably as much as 50 percent of all the money spent on health care is unnecessary. ...the truth is we will never have lower-cost health insurance until we have lower cost health care.... the unnecessarily high cost of health care is that the health care system does not operate with the discipline and cost-saving benefits of a real market. (link)

Rod's Comment: I think everyone recognizes that the market is not working in health care.  Cost continue to soar.  There is not a "price" for health care services when who is paying the bill determines what is the price.  When a third party pays the bill no one cares what something cost.  We must bring cost under control. I wish Alexander success in the next two years as he focuses on cutting health care cost

Top Stories

TN Senator Lamar Alexander says government shutdown 'will produce a success for no one'

"I want to make sure Tennesseans know, as I have said from its beginning, that I believe there is no excuse whatsoever for this partial government shutdown. When the government shut down under President Obama, I said that I was elected to make the government work for taxpayers, not to shut it down. The same is true under President Trump. " (link)

Top Stories

Senator Lamar Alexander not to seek reelection in 2020

Press release, NASHVILLE, Tenn., December 17, 2018 – United States Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement:

I will not be a candidate for re-election to the United States Senate in 2020. The people of Tennessee have been very generous, electing me to serve more combined years as Governor and Senator than anyone else from our state. I am deeply grateful, but now it is time for someone else to have that privilege. I have gotten up every day thinking that I could help make our state and country a little better, and gone to bed most nights thinking that I have. I will continue to serve with that same spirit during the remaining two years of my term.

Alexander is the only Tennessean ever popularly elected both Governor and U.S. Senator.  His 2008 general election vote total of 1,579,477 is the largest ever received by a statewide candidate.  Alexander is chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. He authored opioids legislation signed into law in October which President Trump called “the single largest bill to combat a drug crisis in the history of our country.”

In 2016, he wrote the “21st Century Cures Act,” which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called “the most important law of this Congress.”

In 2015, Alexander authored the “Every Student Succeeds Act,” fixing “No Child Left Behind.” President Obama called the new law “a Christmas miracle,” and the Wall Street Journal said it was the “largest devolution of federal control to the states in a quarter century.”

As chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations subcommittee, Alexander provided four years of record funding for national laboratories, supercomputing and waterways, including restarting Chickamauga Lock.  

You can read more about the senator’s work here.

A seventh-generation Tennessean born and raised in Maryville, Alexander was twice elected governor of Tennessee.  He was chairman of the National Governors Association and of President Ronald Reagan’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. He then served as president of the University of Tennessee and U.S. Secretary of Education under President George H.W. Bush.   In 2002, he was elected to the United States Senate and was re-elected in 2008 and 2014.  His Republican colleagues elected him three times to be chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

He is a country and classical pianist who has performed on the Grand Ole Opry and for the Billy Graham Crusade. When not in public office, he co-founded a law firm and two successful businesses. He and Leslee Kathryn [Honey] Buhler married on January 4, 1969. They have four children and nine grandchildren.

 Rod's Comment: I remember when Lamar Alexander was publicly sworn in as Governor. A mass of people walked up Charlotte Avenue to the Capitol and I was among them.  Along with many others, I wore a red plaid flannel shirt and a button that read, "I walked the last mile with Lamar Alexander," or something like that.  For those who may not know, Lamar ran a very unusual campaign and walked the full length of the State, starting in Mountain City and ending in Memphis.  After being elected he was privately sworn in early to stop outgoing Governor Ray Blanton from making massive last minute prison pardons.  Blanton was extremely corrupt, selling liquor license and pardons and engaging in other corruption. Lamar Alexander was young, handsome, and wholesome and a breath of fresh air.

I think Lamar Alexander has served the people of our state well. He may not be a partisan bomb thrower but he is a good legislator and is thoughtful, principled, and respectful.  Those seem to be qualities not in high demand these days.  While I have respect and admiration for Lamar, everyone at some point probably ought to retire. It is time to let a younger generation have a seat at the table. I wish Lamar Alexander the best in his retirement.

Top Stories

Sen. Lamar Alexander skeptical Supreme Court will agree with ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional

by Joel Ebert, The Tennessean - One day after a federal judge in Texas issued a decision in which he deemed the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, a key Tennessee lawmaker expressed skepticism that the nation's high court would concur. 

In a statement issued Saturday, Sen. Lamar Alexander, who is chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said, "If the U.S. Supreme Court eventually were to agree that Obamacare is unconstitutional — which seems unlikely, however poorly the law was written — I am confident that any new federal law replacing it will continue to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions who buy health insurance." (link)

Top Stories

Alexander at Axios Event: The Debate Should Move From Health Insurance to Health Care Costs

 “I'm going to focus on making the system more of a market, getting rid of barriers, and—if I could—find a way to make it possible for those of us who buy health care services every day to know the price of what we're paying for.” – Sen. Lamar Alexander

WASHINGTON, December 12, 2018 — Senate health committee Chairman Lamar

You can watch Senator Alexander’s discussion
with Axios’ Mike Allen here

Alexander (R-Tenn.) today said the health care debate should “move from health insurance to health care costs.”

At an event hosted by Axios today, Alexander discussed his 2019 health care policy priorities, specifically reducing the cost of health care, with Axios co-founder and Executive Editor Mike Allen.

“My focus over the next two years is to see if we can do one or two big things to reduce health care costs and maybe 10 or 12 little things and try to move the whole debate from health insurance where we've been stuck for eight years arguing about six percent of the health insurance market, that's Obamacare, to health care costs,” Alexander said. “You'll never get lower-cost health insurance until you have lower-cost health care.”

He added: “We've had five hearings on reducing health care costs and Dr. Brent James, who is a member of the American Academy of Medicine said that 30 to 50 percent of what we spend on health care is unnecessary. So I was so startled by that, that I asked the other witnesses, they agreed with him, and I asked the next panel of witnesses and the next, and they agreed with him too. That means that, of the huge amount we spend on health care, we unnecessarily spend an amount of money that's more than the gross domestic product of every country in the world, but nine.”

Mike Allen: You said that one of the biggest problems is people don't know the true cost of their health care.

Alexander: “Well, that's it. The first thing is to get rid of the barriers in the way of innovators, but nobody knows the cost. Secretary Azar is going to be here. He's got a great story about how he went for a procedure and found out it costs several thousand dollars and he got on the website and checked around and found out he could get it for $550 in the doctor's office. So the way our system is set up, you don't know the price and if no one knows the price, prices aren't going to come down.”

Mike Allen: Now you talked about the next two years, and in January, we're going to have divided government… What is one big thing that you believe you can accomplish next year as Chairman?

Alexander: “Well, I've talked already with [Senator Patty Murray], and on my short list is reducing health care costs. … I'm going to focus on making the system more of a market, getting rid of barriers, and if I could find a way or ways to make it possible for those of us who buy health care services every day to know the price of what we're paying for, that would be the single most important thing I could focus on for two years. I mean, we should do that. The Members of Congress should not sit around with the facts in front of us that we're spending $1 to $1.8 trillion unnecessarily on health care and not do anything about it.”

Background:
In a Senate floor speech yesterday, Alexander announced he will be seeking specific legislative, regulatory, or sub-regulatory solutions to help lower health care costs. During the speech, he said, “Up to half of health care spending is unnecessary.”

Alexander yesterday sent a letter to leading health care experts at the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, economists, doctors, nurses, patients, hospital administrators, state regulators and legislators, governors, employers, insurers, and innovators asking them to identify specific ideas about how to reduce health care costs for taxpayers, employers, and families after concluding a series of five Senate health committee hearings exploring the same topic.

At the first hearing of the series, the committee established a common understanding of how much health care costs; at the second hearing, the committee explored ways to reduce unnecessary health care spending; at the third hearing, the committee focused on ways to reduce the administrative burden on doctors and hospitals; and at the fourth hearing, the committee focused on finding ways to improve access to information about the cost and quality of health care for patients. At the fifth and final hearing of the series, the committee examined what the private sector is doing to encourage innovation and what Washington can do to get out of the way to lower costs.

Top Stories

Imposing tariffs is like shooting ourselves in both feet at once

From Senator Lamar Alexander - The administration has imposed tariffs on aluminum and steel and now other products, including soybeans and other products grown and manufactured in our country. In general, these tariffs are a big mistake. I have urged President Trump instead to focus on reciprocity. Tell other countries “do for our country what we do for you.” I've worked for 40 years to bring the auto industry to Tennessee. It has done more than anything to raise our standard of living and to raise family incomes in our state. Tariffs will lower our standard of living and will hurt Tennessee more than almost any other state. 

 I've said to the president as respectfully and as effectively as I can, “Mr. President, we agree on taxes. We agree on regulations. We agree on judges. We're proud of having the best economy in 18 years, the lowest employment rate that anybody else can remember, but these tariffs are a big mistake. They will take us in the wrong direction.” I have not been successful in talking with the president about this, but I intend to keep trying. There are other and better ways to persuade our trading partners to do for us what we do for them instead of shooting ourselves in both feet at once, which is what we do when we impose these tariffs. 

Rod's Comment: I agree. I appreciate Lamar taking a strong position opposing Trumps foolish policy on trade. Congress should reclaim the authority to set tariffs.

Top Stories

THE HEALTH CARE OPTIONS ACT OF 2017

The Health Care Options Act of 2017 is sponsored by Senator Lamar Alexander. While this is not a repeal and replacement for Obamacare, this sounds like a reasonable proposal to help those who are being left without any insurance coverage as Obamacare collapses. The summary is provided by Senator Alexander' office.

Action is needed now to help Americans who may soon have zero health insurance options on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges. The Health Care Options Act will allow these Americans—who would otherwise be unable to use their ACA subsidy to purchase health insurance—to use their subsidy to buy any insurance plan approved by their state.

PROBLEM: MILLIONS MAY HAVE ZERO OPTIONS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE
ON ACA EXCHANGES NEXT YEAR

Individuals who receive an ACA subsidy can only use that subsidy to purchase health insurance through an ACA exchange. They are locked in a failing system.

These Americans had fewer health insurance options on the ACA exchanges for the 2017 plan year than the year before, and next year, millions face an even worse reality: having zero health insurance options to purchase on their ACA exchange.

While Congress needs to enact long-term structural health reforms, it must take immediate action to provide relief for Americans trapped in collapsing exchanges.

• In 2016, 7 percent of counties in the United States had just one insurer offering plans on their ACA exchange. This year, that number jumped to 32 percent.

• Five states have only one insurer offering ACA plans in their entire state this year: Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming.

• Nine states have only one insurer offering ACA plans in a majority of the counties in the state: Tennessee, North Carolina, West Virginia, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, and Florida.

• Next year, we know the problem will be much worse. There are 34,000 Americans who rely on an ACA subsidy to buy health insurance on the exchange in Knoxville, Tennessee. All of the insurers who have offered plans on that exchange have announced that they are leaving for 2018, leaving no options.

• 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 Knoxville.

ACTION NEEDED: MORE HEALTH CARE OPTIONS

• Americans with an ACA subsidy but no health insurance on their ACA exchange would be allowed to use their ACA subsidy to purchase health insurance outside of an ACA exchange, as long as the insurance is approved by the state for sale in the individual market.

• Available to individuals who live in a county where the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies there are no options on the ACA exchange.

• The individual mandate penalty would not apply for these individuals.

• This temporary authority would be in place through the end of the 2019 plan year.

Top Stories

Republicans defend NAFTA

Ripon Advance News Service - U.S. Sens. Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) led a letter on Monday that highlighted the positive impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the potential consequences of abandoning the trade deal.

The letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was signed by 18 senators, including U.S. Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Jerry Moran (R-KS), John Thune (R-SD), Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Pat Roberts (R-KS).

“Given that the agreement is more than two decades old, there are areas in which NAFTA will benefit from strengthening and modernization,” the letter states. “On the other hand, efforts to abandon the agreement or impose unnecessary restrictions on trade with our North American partners will have devastating economic consequences.”

The senators noted that NAFTA has led to “tremendous growth” in U.S. trade with Mexico and Canada, and that it has “integrated cross-border supply chains that benefit U.S. employers, and more than tripled U.S. exports of goods, including agricultural and manufactured goods, and services.”
U.S. trade policy has been a prominent issue in recent months, the letter acknowledges, and taking a fresh look at NAFTA will be an immediate priority.

President Donald Trump had discussed terminating NAFTA as recently as last month, but had said he would delay such a move after the president of Mexico and the prime minister of Canada urged the United States to renegotiate rather than scrap the deal.

“If I’m unable to make a fair deal, if I’m unable to make a fair deal for the United States, meaning a fair deal for our workers and our companies, I will terminate NAFTA,” Trump said on April 27 in remarks during a meeting with the president of Argentina. “But we’re going to give renegotiation a good, strong shot,” he added.

The group of senators who signed the letter and who represent states that see a significant economic impact from trade said they will maintain a keen interest in the on-going process surrounding NAFTA.

Top Stories

Sen. Lamar Alexander chides White House, says actions can cause 'earthquakes' abroad

by Dave Boucher , USA TODAY NETWORK - Tennessee, May, 16, 2017- A leading Republican senator from Tennessee is questioning whether the Trump administration understands the impact of its actions after a report revealed the president provided classified information to high-ranking Russian officials. ....

In a cryptic statement Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., described the global impact of White House actions.  "Those working in the White House would do well to remember that just a little tilt there can create earthquakes out in the country and around the world," Alexander said. (link)

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander proposes Obamacare patch

Senator Lamar Alexander has proposed a common sense piece of legislation that would provide a temporary fix to Obamacare for those who live in areas where there are no insurers selling policies on the Obamacare exchanges. The proposed legislative would do two things. First, it would let people who get subsidies use that subsidy to purchase any state-approved insurance plan.  The insurance plans not sold on the exchange may offer less coverage than those sold on the exchange.  As an example, a plan not sold on the exchange may not offer maternity coverage.

The second thing Alexander's plan would do is remove the tax penalty for failing to buy a policy when there is no policy offered on the exchange.  Currently 16 counties in Tennessee have no insurer for 2018.  Currently, one in three counties in the nation have just one insurer in the local market.  The number of counties with only one insurer and the counties with no insurer are expected to increase in 2018.  While Alexander's plan sounds like a very reasonable proposal to me, I expect it to be be met with opposition.

Liberals will see any accommodation as a retreat from Obamacare and will argue that instead of retreat that the government needs to poor more money into the system to entice more insurers to participate in the exchanges.  I also would suspect that some conservatives will hold out for a full collapse of Obamacare and will view any modification as propping it up. We will see. Action must take place soon to avoid a crisis. Insurers are now setting rates and designing plans to meet a June deadline.  Alexander is to be commended for being the adult in the room. (For more see this link and this one.)

Top Stories

Sen. Lamar Alexander sees the Republican healthcare plan released this week as a good start

USA TODAY NETWORK - Tennessee, WASHINGTON – Sen. Lamar Alexander sees the Republican healthcare plan released this week as a good start toward repealing and replacing the reforms enacted under former President Barack Obama, but he’s not yet ready to commit to voting for the package.

“Let’s wait to see what comes out of the House,” which is currently reviewing the legislation, the Tennessee Republican said. .... Alexander predicted the GOP plan would bring stability and more choices to the insurance market in Tennessee, where Insurance Commissioner Julie Mix McPeak has warned that the exodus of insurers has left the Obamacare exchange, or market, near collapse.

....
Alexander said one of the things he likes most about the GOP plan is that it would allow 40,000 residents in the Knoxville area who buy their health insurance on the Obamacare exchange to use their subsidies to purchase insurance on the open market. Without that provision, they will be unable to buy a policy because the insurance giant Humana, the sole provider on the federal exchange in Knoxville, has said it will exit the market in 2018.

That “would be like having a bus ticket in a town with no buses running,” Alexander said. “These are some of the most vulnerable people in our state who need help buying insurance, and they literally won’t have any insurance to buy unless Congress acts.” (link)

Top Stories

Corker On Obamacare Replacement: Why Put It Off For Three Years? Alexander says the sooner the better.

by Lauren Fox, TPM -  Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) seemed to be leaning toward a strategy to repeal and replace Obamacare simultaneously Tuesday, something that is being pushed by House conservatives in the Freedom Caucus.

"Why would we put off for three years doing what we know we have to do?" Corker told reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday.

While Corker said he still wanted to hear from Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who was scheduled to meet with senators shortly after Corker spoke to reporters, he openly wondered whether waiting three years to replace Obamacare could create political problems down the line. (read more)

******* 

Senator Lamar Alexander who had recently said the repeal-and-replace effort could take "several years," has changed his tune. He more recently said, "the sooner we can come up with a replacement the better." "Our goal is to repeal Obamacare, have a transition period, and then replace it, and to do that in an orderly, sensible way that helps people and doesn't hurt them." (link)

Top Stories

Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander endorse Senator Sessions for AG

Senator Lamar Alexander  released the following statement on the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions  by President-elect Trump to serve as U.S. attorney general.

Jeff Sessions has been a friend and respected colleague for many years. By his service as United States attorney and as United States senator, he has earned the opportunity to be attorney general of the United States.

Senator Bob Corker said:

Jeff Sessions is widely respected in the United States Senate and is a great choice for Attorney General of the United States. His years of expertise and respect for the rule of law will serve the country well as he assumes this important role in the Trump administration.

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander: ObamaCare Repeal Will Take Years

Reposted from The Moderate Voice - Lauren Fox reports on the comments of Lamar Alexander (R-TN) on the logistics of accomplishing a long-standing GOP goal on Talking Points Memo.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) warned Thursday that it could take years to fully repeal and replace Obamacare. In an interview with reporters on Capitol Hill, Alexander said the goal of Republicans was to “be the rescue party instead of the party that pushes millions of Americans who are hanging by the edge of their fingernails over the cliff.”

Alexander, the chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that will play a central role in repealing and replacing Obamacare, signaled that the process will have to be incremental rather than rapid if Republicans want their plan to succeed. Since Donald Trump was elected last week, Republicans have been clear that getting rid of Obamacare is a high priority. But actually following through may take some more time.

“Eventually, we’ll need 60 votes to complete the process of replacing Obamacare and repealing it because Obamacare was not passed by reconciliation it was passed by 60 votes. And it was cleaned up by reconciliation because Scott Brown won his election,” Alexander said.

“Before the process is over, we’ll need a consensus to complete it, and I imagine this will take several years to completely make that sort of transition to make sure we do no harm, create a good health care system that everyone has access to and that we repeal the parts of Obamacare that need to be repealed.”

Alexander’s comments offer insight into what is sure to be a complicated and politically fraught process, but he remained vague on details. Alexander said he sees major problems with the Obamacare exchanges, but assured reporters that he agreed with President-elect Trump’s position that people with pre-existing conditions should still be protected under the law.

“The exchanges are the first problem, they need to be repealed, the individual mandate needs to be repealed. There are a number of things that need to be repealed, but I think what we need to focus on first is what would we replace it with and what are the steps that it would take to do that?” he said.

“Preexisting conditions will stay. There is no way the Congress is going to repeal preexisting conditions. it might take a different form, but people with preexisting conditions are going to be able to buy insurance in any replacement plan Republicans put forward.”

Alexander’s outlook is that senators should take time to move forward. Alexander has experience taking things slow. He led the overhaul of No Child Left Behind Act with bipartisan support. It took six years.(link to original)

Top Stories