[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 82 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3065-S3075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) disapproving the rule 
     submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the 
     definition of the term ``Fiduciary.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the provisions of the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 USC 801, and following, there will be up to 
10 hours of debate, equally divided between those favoring and opposing 
the resolution.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, H.J. Res. 88 is exactly the same as the 
resolution of disapproval I introduced in the Senate, but it has 
already passed the House. So today if we could take a vote and pass it, 
we could send it to the President, hopefully, for his signature or at 
least for him to express himself one way or another.
  There are nine letters in the word ``fiduciary.'' There are 672 pages 
of definitions describing that one 9-letter word. This is a solution in 
search of a problem. It is bad for America, bad for our savers, and 
makes ``too big to fail'' even bigger in America today.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
461 people of the United States of America who are opposed to this 
bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     May 23, 2016.
       To the Members of the United States Senate: The undersigned 
     associations, chambers of commerce, organizations, and small 
     businesses are writing to express our deep concerns regarding 
     the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) final rule on the 
     Definition of a Fiduciary. This rule disproportionately 
     disadvantages small businesses and those businesses with 
     assets of less than $50 million, and stifle retirement 
     savings for millions of employees by placing additional 
     burdens on America's leading job creators, small businesses. 
     This will substantially reduce retirement savings for many 
     Americans, and therefore we urge you to support S.J. Res. 33.
       On April 6, 2016, the DOL issued a final rulemaking that 
     expands what is considered fiduciary investment advice under 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 
     negatively impacting small business retirement plans and 
     savers with less than $50 million in assets. Through SEP IRAs 
     and SIMPLE IRAs, small business owners and their employees 
     have accumulated approximately $472 billion of retirement 
     savings covering more than 9 million U.S. households. The DOL 
     final rule threatens the continued success of these plans and 
     the ability of small businesses to provide retirement 
     security at a time when millions of Americans have reached or 
     are approaching retirement age. Ultimately, it may even 
     encourage additional saving losses for those who will not be 
     able to access meaningful investment assistance.
       First, the final rule makes it harder to provide retirement 
     plans to small businesses or any business that has less than 
     $50 million in assets (small plans). The broadened definition 
     of investment advice includes routine communications where no 
     intention to provide individualized fiduciary advice has been 
     expected, such as ``sales'' communications and certain 
     educational materials. However, despite this broad 
     definition, the proposal carves out large plan advisors from 
     this definition. If a fiduciary has $50 million or more in 
     assets, the advisor to that large plan is exempt from being a 
     fiduciary, while an advisor to a fiduciary with less than $50 
     million in assets, which primarily constitutes small 
     businesses, is not.
       Because an advisor to plans with less than $50 million are 
     not carved out of the rule, the advisor who is trying to 
     market retirement savings option to a small plan is 
     considered to be providing investment advice and must 
     determine how to comply with the rule. Due to these 
     additional burdens advisors to small plans are likely to 
     incur additional costs, which will be passed on to the plan. 
     Further, some advisors to small plans may be incentivized to 
     no longer offer their services to small plans if they 
     determine that the small-scale of such plans means the 
     expense and risk of changing business models and fee 
     structures is not justified.
       Second, advisors to small plans must either change their 
     fee arrangement or qualify for a special rule called an 
     ``exemption'' in order to provide services on the same terms 
     as before. The new exemption called the ``Best Interest 
     Contract'' incorporates many new challenging conditions and 
     requirements that would substantially increase costs for 
     advisors that may ultimately get passed down to small plans 
     or small business employees.
       Finally, the final rule limits investment education to IRA 
     owners, including small business employees participating in a 
     SEP IRA or SIMPLE IRA plan. While advisors are permitted to 
     provide model asset allocations appropriate for IRA owners, 
     they are not permitted to help identify specific funds or 
     investment options that correlate to the model asset 
     allocations. This restriction will make it more challenging 
     for small business employees, and may ultimately deter them 
     from saving for retirement altogether.
       More complex regulations mean more hurdles and compliance 
     costs and a greater likelihood of litigation. Main Street 
     advisors will have to review how they do business and likely 
     will decrease services, increase costs, or both. Under the 
     final rule, small business SEP IRA and SIMPLE IRA arrangement 
     will become more expensive to serve, meaning that small 
     businesses will ultimately lose access to their advisors and 
     disproportionately bear the costs of excessive regulation. 
     Consequently the DOL's fiduciary rule ultimately harms the 
     very small businesses and workers they are intended to 
     protect. We strongly urge the Senate to take action to help 
     preserve retirement savings for Americans.

  Mr. ISAKSON. I want to read one paragraph from the letter because it 
says better than anything I could say what is wrong with the fiduciary 
rule that is proposed by the Department of Labor.

       First, the final rule makes it harder to provide retirement 
     plans to small businesses or

[[Page S3066]]

     any business that has less than $50 million in assets. . . . 
     The broadened definition of investment advice includes 
     routine communications where no intention to provide 
     individualized fiduciary advice has been expected.

  It exempts anybody with over $50 million in assets from being applied 
to the rule and includes everybody with under $50 million.
  The President of the United States has said, as have so many of us on 
the floor of the Senate, that it is time for us to end too big to fail. 
Since what happened in 2008 to our people and our economy, we know that 
businesses get so large, they get unwieldy, and that they get so 
strong, sometimes the little guy can get crushed. But here is a rule 
that is proposed to help the little guy, and what does it do? Under the 
law, it exempts the big guys if they have $50 million or more in 
assets, but if they have $50 million or less in assets, it imposes 672 
pages of new definitions of fiduciary rules.
  Again, it is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.
  It also has a broad number of restrictions on IRA investment advice 
that investment adviser can give to an IRA saver. We know there are a 
lot of people around this town, in Washington, who want to end the IRAs 
and put government savings accounts in charge of everybody. This may be 
a part of that motivation to drive a fiduciary rule that creates more 
government savings accounts, more government savings programs, and 
fewer decisions the individual can make. The rule singles out the IRA 
for these new regulations that did not previously apply to them, and 
that is another reason this is a problem. In fact, to tell you the 
honest truth, what this bill does is it promotes less advice or no 
advice at all to a small saver and free exemption under the law to a 
big company managing their savings.
  We need to get the American people saving money. We need to get them 
planning for their future. Let's think about this for a second. We have 
a safety net today in America. We have a safety net of housing. We have 
a safety net of food stamps. We have rent subsidies. We have SSI 
disability. We have all kinds of welfare and benefits for people who 
have fallen through the cracks. Every person who falls through the 
cracks deserves the help of this country, but every person who can save 
for their future and avoid becoming dependent on the government is 
money in the bank for us, and it is money in the bank and freedom for 
them.
  To put more restrictions on a small saver, more restrictions on those 
who provide business to small savers--all we are doing is causing more 
people to go on the safety net of American Government benefits and less 
people to provide for themselves.
  If ever there were one reason and one reason alone that we should 
disapprove this resolution, it is this: Secretary Perez proposed this 
in 2010 and dropped it because there was so much opposition.
  They came back with this new proposal in 2016, and they propounded 
the rule, and the rule is now before us in this 672 pages. But the 
Senate can take the initiative today to join the House in rescinding 
this rule and recalling this rule and not letting it go into effect.
  A vote to recall this rule and rescind this rule is a vote for small 
business, a vote for freedom, a vote for equity, and a vote for the 
American people. A vote to reinstate or keep this rule instated is a 
vote against the small guy and for the big corporate financial 
interests in Washington and New York City. I don't think we want to do 
that. I think we want Americans saving for themselves--free Americans 
giving good advice to citizens who invest and seeing to it that every 
American citizen is planning for their future.
  Today I join the 461 folks who signed this letter to the Senate. I 
join my 41 colleagues in the Senate who joined me in sponsoring the 
Senate resolution. I join the majority in the House of Representatives 
who say this rule goes too far. And I plea with each and every Member 
of the Senate, when they vote today, to vote to rescind the fiduciary 
rule propounded by the Department of Labor. Let's send it to the 
President, and let's send him a message. If he wants to end too big to 
fail, then let's start passing laws that cause too big to fail not to 
get bigger and instead empower small business, the American people, and 
the small saver.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes in favor of the resolution of 
disapproval.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, after a lifetime of hard work, all 
seniors should have the chance to live out their golden years on firm 
financial footing and with peace of mind. A secure retirement is also 
important to strengthening our Nation's middle class and ensuring that 
our country works for all Americans and not just the wealthiest few, 
but for too long the deck has been stacked against people trying to 
save up for their retirement. That is especially true for far too many 
people seeking retirement advice. Until now, financial advisers and 
brokers were under no legal obligation to work in their client's best 
interest, and without this requirement, some financial advisers have 
lined their own pockets by steering clients toward complicated 
investments. Some have recommended that retirees make transactions that 
come with hidden fees and some advisers get a commission when they sell 
a financial product, even if it doesn't make sense for the client.
  We finally have a new protection that would right that wrong. It is 
called the fiduciary rule, and it is pretty simple. It says: If you are 
going to give people advice on their retirement accounts, you should 
put the client's best interest in front of your own. Unfortunately, we 
are here because Republicans want to block that new rule from helping 
families, and that is just wrong. It is not fair to people all over the 
country who are trying to put money away for retirement.
  Let's understand this new important protection and how it will help 
families. Many Americans are not financially prepared for retirement. 
Middle-class wages have been stagnant for decades, and it is getting 
harder and harder for people to make ends meet let alone save for their 
retirement. In fact, more than half of Americans have less than $10,000 
in savings. Households with people between the ages of 55 and 64 only 
have a little more than $14,000 in their retirement savings account, 
and that is the group of people closest to retirement.
  Today families need every dollar they save for retirement to count. 
When people seek out retirement investment advice, many financial 
advisers do the right thing and put their clients first. They hold 
themselves to a higher standard than what the new law currently 
requires, but some others do not.
  Take the man who worked for 50 years as an electrical engineer for a 
utility company. His daughter shared his story anonymously, but I think 
it is an important illustration for anyone who wants to save for their 
retirement. The man built a retirement nest egg in stocks and savings. 
When he was 80 years old, he sought out advice from a financial 
adviser--someone he thought he could trust. That financial adviser 
recommended he switch his savings to more complicated investment 
products. Those products came with a commission, so the adviser was 
paid with each and every transaction. Those transactions ultimately 
whittled down the retiree's savings by more than two-thirds--two-thirds 
of his retirement savings. A few years of bad, biased advice from a 
financial adviser decimated 50 years of savings.
  The new fiduciary rule from the Department of Labor would close the 
loopholes that allow brokers and financial advisers to give their 
clients biased advice. Advisers will now make a legally binding 
commitment to the families they work with. Families today have enough 
to worry about. Questioning the advice they get on their retirement 
accounts should not have to be one of them.
  Unfortunately, instead of standing up for retirement savers across 
the country, my Republican colleagues are dead set on saving the status 
quo. Republicans want to roll back this new protection that would help 
retirees keep more of their retirement savings, and they want to make 
sure the Department of Labor can never again create a

[[Page S3067]]

protection to prevent financial advisers from bilking savers out of 
their hard-earned money. We know what the Republicans will say to 
defend this outrageous position, so let me go ahead and address those 
issues point by point. Contrary to what my Republican colleagues will 
argue, this is a workable solution. The Department of Labor went to 
great lengths to create a deliberate process and took the feedback from 
consumer groups and the financial industry itself to make it easier for 
them to implement this new rule. Many firms and advisers are already, 
by the way, putting families first, so we know working in the client's 
best interest can work. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, the Department of Labor absolutely has the authority to create 
this important protection for families. In 1974, Congress passed the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and that law gives the 
Department of Labor clear authority to define a fiduciary as it relates 
to retirement savings.
  Finally, this rule will help savers regardless of how big their 
retirement savings account is. Some of my Republican colleagues are 
arguing that financial firms will cut off advice for low- and middle-
income savers, but I want to remind my friends across the aisle that 
many firms have already figured out how to help these so-called small 
savers, and these firms are doing it while also adhering to the 
fiduciary standard. Republicans say their opposition to the rule is all 
about helping small savers, but I guarantee these savings are not small 
to these families who rely on that money in their retirement. In fact, 
they have the most to lose through financial advisers' hidden fees and 
complicated financial products with lower returns.
  It is time we protect these so-called small savers from conflicted, 
biased advice. Over the years, millions of families have worked hard. 
They put their money away for retirement and have invested their 
savings to grow their retirement nest eggs. In short, they have tried 
to do everything right. Unfortunately, some financial advisers have not 
always done the right thing because they haven't had to, and that needs 
to change, but the resolution the Republicans are offering today would 
be a major step backward.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. Instead of attacking 
a family's best chance of getting guaranteed, unbiased retirement 
advice, I hope my Republican colleagues will work with Democrats to 
ensure that more seniors can have a secure retirement, expand their 
economic security, and help our economy grow from the middle out, not 
from the top down.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                    Adam Walsh Reauthorization Bill

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in favor 
of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, which I am pleased to say passed 
the Senate yesterday. I thank my colleagues Senator Grassley and 
Senator Schumer for their work on this issue.
  I was proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation which 
reauthorizes key provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and 
Safety Act. This bill was named for Adam Walsh, who was abducted from a 
Sears department store and murdered when he was just 6 years old. We 
need to work harder to prevent horrific crimes like this from happening 
again.
  In this regard, Federal support is vital to State and local law 
enforcement efforts to make sure sex offenders can be tracked and 
monitored. This legislation creates a safer environment for our 
children by providing needed resources for those on the frontlines. In 
particular, this legislation assists State and local law enforcement in 
improving sex offender registries and information sharing and aids them 
in locating and apprehending sex offenders. It also authorizes 
resources for the U.S. Marshals to aid State and local law enforcement.
  We know sex offenders are not afraid to move across State lines, and 
that is why it is critical to provide the resources needed to fight to 
keep our children safe from criminal predators and other influences 
that are dangerous to their safety and well-being.
  As a former prosecutor, I know the importance of sex offender 
registries in equipping our law enforcement officers with every tool 
available to prevent sex crimes.
  When I was county attorney for Minnesota's most populous county, I 
saw firsthand the pain and heartbreak caused by sexual abuse to 
survivors and their families. During that time, I made aggressive 
prosecution of those who victimize children a top priority.
  I wish I could say the tragedy that befell Adam Walsh was an 
isolated, one-time incident, but it is still happening across the 
country. Just earlier this month in St. Paul, MN, a 7-year-old girl was 
abducted within 1 minute of being out of her father's sight. That girl 
was luckier than some. Police found her and arrested her alleged 
abductor within hours of her abduction, but still the scars of the 
traumatic event will haunt her for the rest of her life.
  I am hopeful we can come together to prevent these horrible crimes 
and ensure that the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act becomes law. Now 
that the Senate passed this commonsense legislation on a bipartisan 
basis, the House should do the same.


                           Export-Import Bank

  Mr. President, I now rise to speak on another topic; that is, my 
strong support for the Ex-Im Bank--the Export-Import Bank. With the 
leadership of many in this Chamber, including Senators Cantwell, 
Heitkamp, Brown, Graham, and many others on both sides of the aisle, we 
have worked very hard and were able to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank late 
last year.
  Currently, only two of the five Ex-Im Board seats are filled, and 
that is not functional. As a result, the Ex-Im Board cannot approve 
loan guarantees and other financing tools for medium- and long-term 
transactions valued in excess of $10 million, and the Board cannot put 
the reforms in place that were an important part of the reauthorization 
bill. Some of my colleagues who actually voted for this bill--and some 
who didn't--said it should be reformed and that there should be 
changes. We put those reforms in place and had it reauthorized. It was 
the will of the Senate, Congress, and President to get it reauthorized, 
and it was reauthorized, but it still cannot function for any new 
transactions of any significant size nor can any of the reforms be put 
in place. Why? Because of the dysfunctional situation of only having 
two of the five Board seats filled.
  In January, Mark McWatters was nominated to serve on the Ex-Im Board. 
He is qualified, and by confirming Mr. McWatters, we can give the Ex-Im 
Bank the quorum it needs to support American businesses that want to 
sell products overseas.
  The Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2015, which 
was included in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation bill, or 
the FAST Act, included several changes to the existing structure of the 
Ex-Im Bank, including risk management policies, fraud controls, and 
ethics reforms, as well as promoting exports for small businesses.
  Under these reforms, small business financing would be increased, 
electronic document systems would be modernized, the Bank's fraud 
controls would be reviewed, and the risk to taxpayers would be reduced. 
But without a quorum and Board approval, without having this additional 
person confirmed--the Republican nominee--the Ex-Im Bank is not able to 
adopt the accountability measures or update the loan limits so that 
American businesses have access to the financing they need to compete 
globally.
  The governance measures in the Ex-Im Bank reauthorization strengthen 
the oversight of the Bank's operations and procedures. They would 
establish the Office of Ethics, headed by a chief ethics officer who 
reports directly to the Ex-Im Bank Board. They would also create a 
chief risk officer and a risk management committee which are designed 
to oversee the Bank's operations, conduct stress tests of the Bank's 
portfolio, monitor exposure levels and review Ex-Im Bank's default rate 
reports. These were all issues that were raised by those who wanted 
either to get rid of the Bank or greatly change the Bank--right? So we 
put a number of these reforms in place.
  Why didn't we adopt these reforms? Because my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are not allowing a Republican nominee to get on this 
Board.

[[Page S3068]]

That is the definition of dysfunction. These reforms will help the Bank 
function better and protect taxpayer resources, which is what my 
colleagues are wanting to do to protect taxpayer resources, but yet we 
cannot put the reforms in place.
  The Ex-Im reauthorization also modified certain loan terms and 
increased the threshold for midterm and long-term financing and for 
small business working capital loans and guarantees. The increased 
financing amounts will help U.S. businesses access international 
markets.
  When our companies are competing against overseas companies for 
contracts, they need the Ex-Im Bank. In 2015, the Ex-Im Bank provided 
support for $17 billion in U.S. exports--not million, but $17 billion 
in U.S. exports. That is a lot of jobs. That means $17 billion of 
products from our country, made in the United States and made by 
American workers.
  It sounds like a lot. The cap that we have in place now is $135 
billion for total outstanding financing. But a recent article in the 
Financial Times shows that the China Development Bank and the Export-
Import Bank of China combined had an estimated $684 billion in total 
development financing. We are out there at $17 billion with a cap of 
$135 billion.
  We need to make Ex-Im fully functioning so that it can approve all 
deals just like its counterpart in China, just like our counterparts in 
other developed nations. We also want to put these important reforms in 
place that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle want to 
see in place. If we don't, countries like China are going to eat our 
lunch.
  It is not just China. There are 85 credit export agencies in over 60 
other countries, including all major exporting countries. Our companies 
are competing against foreign businesses that are backed by their own 
countries' credit export programs and often receive other government 
subsidies. Why would we want to make it harder for our own companies--
American companies--to create jobs right here at home? That is what we 
are doing.
  We, the Congress, and certainly the President realized that we needed 
to reauthorize the Bank. But now we are not able to function and to put 
on simply one more Board member, and we don't have a quorum to make 
decisions. That Board member is a Republican nominee. If we want a 
level playing field for our businesses, we need to have our Export-
Import Bank open and running.
  This is about jobs. In 2015, the Ex-Im Bank provided $17 billion in 
financing that supported 109,000 U.S. jobs. This is despite the fact 
that the charter lapsed between July and December of last year, meaning 
that they literally could only do their work for half the year.
  We need to make sure that the Ex-Im Bank is able to make small 
businesses and American businesses grow and reach markets all over the 
world.
  The Ex-Im Bank offers loans, loan guarantees, and export credit 
insurance. Increased accountability and oversight are needed to make 
sure these programs are strong.
  Since we reauthorized the Ex-Im Bank, 649 transactions worth $1.8 
billion have been approved, supporting hundreds of U.S. small 
businesses. These small business owners, such as the many I have met 
with in Minnesota, told me that the Ex-Im Bank is essential for their 
ability to access new and emerging markets all over the world.
  Balzer is an example of an agricultural equipment manufacturer with 
75 employees and based in Mountain Lake, MN, a town of 2,000 people. 
They now export 15 percent of the total sales with the help of the Ex-
Im Bank. Over the past 5 years Ex-Im financing has supported $1.7 
million in exports. But guess what. What if Balzer got bigger and 
became a medium-size company wanting to do something over $10 million. 
What if they wanted to do something new and get a new bigger loan, but 
they can't get it approved because we only have two of the five members 
on the Ex-Im Bank Board. So we cannot get the new financing approved. 
Do we think they are doing that in China? Do we think they are doing 
that in any other developed nation where they say: Well, we are just 
going to have two of the five people on this Board to do some of the 
work with some of the smaller companies, which are important, but we 
are not going to be able to do anything when they are competing for a 
major contract. That is what we are doing right now.
  Take Ralco, a small animal feed manufacturer in Marshall, a town of 
13,500. Ralco is a third-generation family business that just 
celebrated its 45th anniversary. Ralco exports to over 20 countries. 
Over the last 5 years, Ex-Im has provided financing that supports 
nearly $11.7 million in exports for Ralco. If that was just in one 
contract that was over $10 million in new financing, they wouldn't be 
able to get it approved because of the fact that the Banking Committee 
and this Congress has decided to stall out and approve the Ex-Im Bank 
but cut off its ability for any major new financing. That is what is 
happening right now.
  How about Superior Industries in Morris, MN? Superior manufactures 
bulk-material processing and handling systems. There are 5,000 people 
in this town, and 500 people in Morris work at that company. That is 10 
percent of the population. Ex-Im has provided financing that supports 
nearly $3.1 million in exports for Superior over the last 5 years.
  The list goes on. These are not large corporations. These are family 
businesses and smaller companies that are essential to the economic 
well-being of the towns and counties. The Ex-Im Bank helps these small 
businesses from all over my State compete and export globally. These 
are success stories, and we need more of them.
  These are the stories we are hearing from every State. These are the 
stories we want to hear--not the stories that we are now hearing about 
companies that are closing down operations or that are laying off 
employees because they are not able to access the new financing they 
need to make major deals. They are going to foreign companies whose 
countries have the foresight and have their act together in their 
governments or in their congresses so they don't leave three of five 
positions open on their financing authority boards.
  Ex-Im has many transactions waiting for Board approval. There are 
about $10 billion of deals waiting in this pipeline. So when my 
colleagues talk about creating jobs, there are $10 billion in private 
deals in the pipeline simply waiting to have one Board member confirmed 
so that we can get this done.
  The Ex-Im Bank reauthorization passed with broad bipartisan support. 
We need to confirm J. Mark McWatters and put in place these important 
reforms to start approving transactions so our businesses can export to 
the world.
  Usually, people sometimes stall on a confirmation because someone is 
viewed as too extreme or there is some problem with their record. This 
is a Republican nominee to fill a Republican slot on the Board. We need 
to get this done. Our workers, our businesses, and our country are 
counting on us to get this done.
  I ask my colleagues to urge the Banking Committee to get this nominee 
through or somehow through some other procedural genius way bring this 
to the floor so that we can get this done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Congressional Review Act resolution 
of disapproval is about protecting the right of ordinary Americans to 
retire. That is what this is about.
  We are trying to stop the Labor Department's so-called fiduciary 
rule, which will restrict access to basic retirement planning advice 
for all but the wealthiest Americans and will force ordinary Americans 
to go it alone and to try to make the best guess they can about how to 
manage their money for retirement. Here is how. The administration's 
new rule updates the rules and requirements for retirement advisers, 
now requiring them to act as ``fiduciaries.'' That, like many of the 
administration's rules, sounds good and sounds helpful, but in practice 
it is going to cause great harm.
  The administration has created new legal liability, and that 
liability is so risky that advisers will only take on that liability 
and risk if they are advising individuals with big assets, so that the 
potential return outweighs the risk. In other words, good retirement 
advice will be available only to the rich under this rule.

[[Page S3069]]

  We know this because a similar rule was implemented in the United 
Kingdom in 2013. The result was that people with smaller savings 
accounts lost access to retirement advice. Many firms quit providing 
face-to-face advice for small accounts. A quarter of all small firms 
were forced to close shop altogether. The United Kingdom's four largest 
banks have all raised the minimum levels of assets for clients to 
receive advice--$80,000 at one bank, $160,000 at another, $355,000 at a 
third, and $800,000 at a fourth--due to the new rules. So to access 
retirement accounts at the United Kingdom's biggest banks, you have to 
have at least $80,000 in your account.
  So what would that look like here in the United States? Well, 77 
percent of 401(k) balances in the United States are below $80,000, the 
lowest threshold, and 99.2 percent of the 401(k) balances in the United 
States are below the $800,000 threshold. So if the banks of the United 
States respond like the United Kingdom's banks did to this rule, we 
might find that less than 1 percent of Americans will be rich enough to 
receive retirement advice at one of our Nation's largest banks.
  We should call this ``Only the Rich Retire'' rule.
  Americans with smaller retirement savings or Americans who are just 
getting started saving for retirement are at the greatest risk for 
losing access to affordable retirement advice. Unless you have at least 
$80,000, you may not be able to get advice. Your small amount may not 
be worth the liability to the adviser. This will force middle- and low-
income Americans to invest on their own without advice. This means they 
may not save at all or may make poor decisions at critical times like 
market downturns. Younger Americans, minorities, and women are the most 
likely to be hurt. Ninety-five percent of Americans between the ages of 
25 and 34 with 401(k) plans have balances under $80,000. Seventy-five 
percent of Black households and 80 percent of Latino households age 25 
to 64 have less than $10,000 in retirement savings, compared with 50 
percent of White households. The median IRA balance is $25,969 for 
American women compared to $81,700 for men. Even left-leaning 
economists estimate that this rule would cost middle-class Americans as 
much as $80 billion in lost savings.
  The late Chet Atkins, the prominent guitarist from Nashville, said: 
``In life you have to be mighty careful where you aim because you are 
likely to get there.'' Well, retirement is all about planning. If you 
don't know how to plan, it is going to be pretty hard to retire. In 
Chet Atkins' terms, if you are not able to make a plan, it is hard to 
retire.
  Retirement planning is complicated. Our tax system is a mess. Most 
working Americans don't have time to learn about all the financial 
vehicles available for them to save and to understand exactly what 
steps they must take to have enough money to enjoy life when they end 
their careers. This rule comes at a time when many Americans are 
beginning to save money again after surviving the worst recession since 
the Great Depression and the slowest recovery since the Great 
Depression. This rule is allegedly to protect individuals from 
misleading investment advice, but in practice the new rule will make 
retirement planning unaffordable for lower to middle-income Americans 
whose accounts are not valuable enough for advisers to take on the new 
legal liability created by this rule.
  One of the most radical and out-of-touch aspects of the Obama 
administration's agenda has been its labor policies. Take the overtime 
rule. At colleges, this rule could force students to pay more tuition. 
One Tennessee college estimates $850 more per student. The President is 
running around talking about keeping college costs down. Why is it that 
this administration is coming out with a rule that would raise tuition 
$850 per student?
  At workplaces, this overtime rule could result in workers having 
their hours and benefits cut, fewer opportunities for advancement, less 
flexibility, and less control over their work arrangements.
  Then there is the joint employer decision. Through this National 
Labor Relations Board decision, the administration is trying to steal 
the American dream from owners of the Nation's 780,000 franchise 
businesses and from millions of contractors by destroying the franchise 
model that has helped so many Americans go from cashier to business 
owner.
  Then there is ObamaCare. The health care law defines full-time work 
as only 30 hours. That really sounds more like France than the United 
States. It has forced employers to cut their workers' hours or reduce 
hiring altogether in order to escape ObamaCare's mandate and its 
unaffordable penalties.
  Then there are micro-unions. This National Labor Relations Board 
decision will allow collective bargaining units made up of subsets of 
employees within the same company. It will divide workplaces. It will 
make it harder and more expensive for employers to manage their 
workplace and do business.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted recently:

       ``The overtime regulation joins the recently finalized 
     fiduciary rule which will reduce the ability of small 
     business to provide retirement benefits; the EEOC's proposed 
     revised EEO-1 form that will explode the burden on employers 
     for reporting compensation by micro-demographics; OSHA's 
     just-released injury reporting regulation that will result in 
     sensitive employer data being posted on the Internet for use 
     by unions and trial lawyers; and the Department of Labor's 
     recently issued `persuader' regulation that is intended to 
     chill the ability of employers to retain competent labor 
     counsel during union organizing campaigns.''

  This retirement rule is only the most recent in a series of actions 
that make it much harder for employers to add jobs and much harder for 
workers to climb the economic ladder of opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Mosaic Life Care Investigation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to address an important 
investigation that has produced significant results for low-income 
people and that the Republican majority in the Senate helped bring 
about.
  In late December 2014, news reports indicated that a nonprofit 
hospital chain in Missouri and Kansas, Mosaic Life Care, had been 
aggressively suing low-income patients. These news reports further 
indicated that many of these patients qualified for financial 
assistance and were wrongly placed in collection.
  Let me be clear. Nonprofit hospitals should not be in the business of 
aggressively suing their patients. As recipients of a tax-exempt 
status, these hospitals have a heightened duty to assist patients in 
qualifying for financial assistance. That means these hospitals must 
implement a financial-assistance policy where low-income persons 
receive free- or reduced-cost care. Further, these types of hospitals 
must assist low-income persons in ensuring that the proper paperwork 
for government assistance or private insurance is properly filed. In 
essence, because of the favorable tax treatment these hospitals 
receive, they have a duty to help our Nation's most vulnerable.
  For these reasons, I began my investigation into Mosaic to determine 
what, if anything, went wrong. On January 16 of last year, I sent a 
letter to Mosaic to begin my inquiry. Over the past year, my staff has 
met with Mosaic representatives, exchanged numerous emails, and had 
many phone calls to get a better idea of the process at issue. It 
became clear that Mosaic was lacking the right number of personnel to 
manage financial assistance intake.
  Common sense tells me that when anyone visits a hospital, it is often 
a scary event under any condition. When we go to hospitals, it is 
generally because something has gone wrong. In that moment of need, we 
put our lives in the hands of professionals to help us get healthy. In 
those moments of pain and fear, we put our trust in medical 
professionals to give us the right care. In other words, we place our 
trust in the hospital to have hired the right

[[Page S3070]]

people. And, as normally happens, after treatment is provided, here 
comes the bill.
  Again, common sense tells me nothing in life is free. Someone, not 
always the patient, will always have to pay the bill. It is common 
sense; there is no free lunch. But when it involves low-income persons 
and a nonprofit charity hospital has provided the treatment, that 
hospital should provide some type of financial assistance or help to 
get financial assistance if it is available. That obligation exists 
simply because of the tax-exempt status.
  If you want that status of tax exemption, you are supposed to help 
those who are less fortunate. So when that bill comes, the hospital 
must ensure that it has people in place to assist the patient in filing 
for financial assistance if it is available. If the patient doesn't 
have any coverage, but his or her income is so low that they qualify 
for free- or reduced-cost care, the hospital should ensure that 
patients know help is available.
  It is common sense. Employees should explain the process and 
patients' rights. Tax-exempt hospitals cannot be in business to profit 
from poor people who may not know what form to file. That is not what 
Congress intended to happen when we created the tax exemption.
  During the course of my investigation into Mosaic, I made clear that 
they must have adequate personnel. In response to my overtures, Mosaic 
has hired seven resource advocates to assist with Medicaid, 
supplemental assistance, and Social Security disability applications. 
Two additional financial counselors were reassigned to focus solely on 
assisting patients navigate the financial assistance process. 
Importantly, Mosaic will hire an additional financial counselor 
dedicated to its outpatient clinic. Finally, five patient financial 
service representatives have been assigned with the duty of ensuring 
the timely processing of financial assistance applications.
  These are very important as well as productive steps to take. It just 
makes sense for a charitable health care institution to help its low-
income patients rather than sending debt collectors after them and 
suing them. It is common sense. You cannot get blood out of a turnip.
  Further, during the course of my investigation, I made clear that 
charging interest on accounts prior to final judgment would further 
burden the poor. Nonprofits need to take steps to reduce debt burdens, 
not increase that debt.
  In response, Mosaic will no longer charge interest on accounts until 
a final court judgment. Further, to provide even more opportunity for 
patients to receive financial assistance, Mosaic has extended its four-
statement bill cycle to six. That will allow more opportunities for 
patients to receive notice of their ability to receive financial 
assistance. These steps will help patients in the long run.
  Again, common sense tells me it is important, and it is important to 
note that there is a certain amount of self-responsibility to be 
accepted when someone incurs a bill for services rendered. But that 
doesn't mean hospitals shouldn't lend a helping hand. Just look at any 
Medicare and/or health insurance bill that you get. You know then how 
intimidating that document can be.
  The changes I just mentioned are not the end of this, however. I wish 
to note a much more profound result. I repeatedly urged Mosaic to look 
at low-income patients already in the collection system or the court 
system. Over the course of several months, I urged them to consider 
forgiving their debt when it was obvious that people didn't have the 
income to pay.
  In response, Mosaic instituted a 3-month debt-forgiveness period 
running from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015. Importantly, during 
this forgiveness period, Mosaic lowered the threshold by which a 
patient could qualify for financial assistance. When a patient was 
already in collection or already subject to a court judgment, they 
could apply for debt forgiveness.
  Mosaic recently informed me of the results of their change of policy. 
The debt forgiveness program resulted in 5,542 financial assistance 
applications, of which 5,070 were approved. A total of $16.9 million in 
debt, interest, and legal fees were forgiven. Over 5,000 people no 
longer have to worry about their debt burden; 5,000 people are free 
from the vice grip of almost $17 million.
  Medical debt is vicious. It is a mental and emotional drain that can 
bring the strongest among us to our knees. For some patients, they will 
never be able to pay off their debt.
  Mosaic eventually did the right thing. It deserves credit for that. 
Considering where I started in this investigation, it probably shocks 
Mosaic that I would compliment them. But I speak from the heart that 
when they make these changes, they ought to be complimented.
  Now, thousands of people have a new lease on life, thanks to Mosaic's 
meeting nonprofit tax-exempt responsibilities. That is where we are 
coming from. If it hadn't been for the tax exemption and accepting the 
responsibilities of tax exemption, there would be no way we could 
complain about Mosaic.
  I wish to point out a lesson to all 535 Members of Congress. That is 
why oversight is so important. That is why I take my responsibilities 
as chairman of the Judiciary Committee so seriously. Results matter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time spent in quorum 
calls be charged equally to both sides during debate in relation to 
H.J. Res. 88.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
supporting the conflict-of-interest rule that was recently finalized by 
the Department of Labor. This is a fair and balanced rule that protects 
our Nation's retirees and savers. In fact, it is a rule that makes sure 
that in the midst of a retirement crisis in this country, where people 
are having a harder and harder time making sure that after working a 
lifetime they have the money they need to retire--it is bringing common 
sense back to that process.
  I firmly believe that the conflict-of-interest rule should not be a 
partisan issue. That is because this rule comes down to those 
fundamental ideas that really know no party bounds. Again, the idea for 
me is about honor and common sense.
  By honor, I mean the idea that we are a country that believes every 
American deserves a fair opportunity to succeed. Fairness is at the 
core of our Nation's ideals--this idea that we are all bound to do what 
we can to identify and change systems that stack the deck against hard-
working families that play by the rules.
  This body and its history have done so much to level the playing 
field and make sure that we have a free market and a fair market. It is 
because we as a nation value dignity and stand against those who seek 
to exploit or take advantage of others. In fact, we understand that we 
have an obligation to our country men and women. We have an obligation 
to each other to ensure that there is a level playing field that no one 
can take advantage of or exploit.
  We participate in, abide by, and are meant to benefit from this 
social contract and understand that a social contract and a vibrant 
economy are not mutually exclusive. Actually, they reinforce one 
another.
  These principles make America exceptional. They empower and embolden 
our free-market economy. They generate strength and security for more 
families. They ensure abundance and allow us to strive for ideals of 
life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. So I believe we are 
honor bound to uphold these principles, to ensure fairness and 
opportunity for all. We also must understand that fairness is a key 
ingredient in broad-based economic growth and strength.

  When I talk about common sense, I mean people have a reasonable 
expectation, in a free market, to be treated fairly and justly, 
especially in those areas that are most critical to their lives. It is 
rational, therefore, and just common sense, for us to insist that when 
we are treated by a doctor, that the doctor is going to place the 
interest of our health over their own financial interests. It is 
understandable that when we go to see a doctor, what is paramount is 
what is in our best interest. It is also understandable that we

[[Page S3071]]

have that standard when it comes to the law; and, when we seek legal 
counsel, we are right to expect our lawyers to act in our best 
interest. That is the standard for doctors and for lawyers, for our 
health and well-being and for those legal decisions that will affect 
our lives profoundly.
  When we seek advice on an issue as serious as our health, our 
livelihoods, and our finances, we expect to be treated with the highest 
standards of care, and those professionals--those lawyers or doctors--
shouldn't in any way be inhibited in their ability to make a 
livelihood. Indeed, in many cases, they should flourish.
  While the vast majority in the financial industry are strong advisers 
who put the interests of their clients first, the challenge we have 
right now is that unlike doctors and lawyers, those financial advisers 
are not required to put the interest of their clients at the high level 
of a fiduciary standard. As a result of not having that same high 
standard of care as doctors and lawyers, there are some within that 
industry who actually take advantage of families trying to plan for 
their retirement.
  A large money market manager recently said: ``As active equity 
managers we have all been on the hook lately to justify our value 
proposition. And we should be, since the facts clearly show that as an 
industry, we have not consistently provided the performance that 
investors deserve.''
  Here are folks who have incredible financial knowledge, 
sophistication, and acumen talking to everyday Americans and putting 
forth this idea that they are going to help them retire with security, 
but they have no obligation to do what is in their best interest, to 
uphold the highest standard of care. That is problematic, and industry 
leaders understand that. They understand we cannot allow space for 
those who might seek to exploit families, struggling to retire, for 
their own financial interest.
  It is this idea that is at the root of the conflict-of-interest 
rule--the idea that hard-working Americans saving for retirement 
deserve to be treated with fairness, with honor, and with a mutual 
obligation Americans should have toward each other, so that if they 
seek advice from a financial adviser, they deserve to get advice that 
prioritizes their needs above all others. This is about fairness. This 
is about common sense.
  I was proud to stand with the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Perez, 
and my colleagues Senator Warren and Senator Murray when this final 
rule was announced. I am proud that prior to that, the rule went 
through a very lengthy and diligent process that allowed for robust 
feedback from all types of stakeholders. Throughout the rulemaking 
process, the Department of Labor demonstrated patience and 
inclusiveness of all perspectives, and, most of all, an unyielding 
commitment to protecting our Nation's workers and retirees--protecting 
the bedrock of our country and the very idea of the middle class; that 
if you work hard and play by the rules, you can retire with security 
and dignity.
  The result of all the work of the Department of Labor and their 
commitment to this ideal is a fair and balanced rule based on the ideas 
of common sense and honor. The fact is, for so many Americans, it could 
not come at a more important time. In fact, it could not come at a more 
urgent time. We have a retirement crisis in our country. So many people 
are working harder and harder but are finding themselves with more 
month at the end of their money than money at the end of their month.
  Many people are finding it harder and harder to save for retirement. 
In fact, right now one in three aren't saving for retirement. The 
Federal Reserve found that a whopping 47 percent of Americans don't 
have the savings to even cover a $400 emergency expense. Since the 
financial crisis, retirement readiness for the average American has 
actually decreased.
  Families are seeing greater challenges now in securing their own 
future. They are seeing greater difficulties securing the American 
dream of being able to work hard, play by the rules, and retire with 
dignity and security. I know this personally, and my office does 
because we hear from constituents all the time about their real 
stories, not just of the difficulties of planning for retirement but in 
dealing with a financial industry that often takes advantage of their 
clients.
  Last year I heard from one of my constituents in Lakewood who wrote 
to tell me about his mother. After losing her husband, she went to seek 
advice from a financial adviser to help her sort out her finances and 
plan for her retirement. She put her trust and her livelihood in the 
hands of this adviser, but the conflicted advice she received ended up 
costing her tens of thousands of dollars.
  Saving for retirement is stressful. At kitchen tables in every town, 
every city across the country, families are struggling to figure out 
how best to save for retirement, and here was an adviser who provided 
conflicted advice, costing my resident in Lakewood tens of thousands of 
dollars because they trusted and relied on the fact that the advice the 
financial retirement adviser was giving them was in their best 
interest. This is wrong, and it is unfair.
  Especially for those Americans who don't have much to begin with, the 
way they manage their retirement savings means so much. Huge gulfs 
continue to persist in retirement savings between men and women, the 
poor and the wealthy, and minority families and their White peers. This 
is a problem for all Americans, from all different backgrounds. It is a 
crisis in our country.

  For so many Americans, in regard to this rule, there is so much at 
stake. Good advice from a retirement adviser can make a world of 
difference. In fact, it can be the difference between security and 
financial crisis. It can be the difference between retiring with ease 
versus retiring with stress and dependence. That is why the advice of a 
trusted retirement professional is so important.
  There are many good actors in this space who know that increased 
transparency, increased accountability, and the idea of profitability 
don't need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, there are people making 
extraordinary livings in this space by doing the right thing for their 
clients. Honest, hard-working brokers know that updating the standards 
expected of retirement advisers is common sense, fair, and it actually 
helps America as a whole become stronger.
  That is why industry leaders are already making changes to prepare 
for this rule's implementation and why the CEO of a major money 
management firm recently implored his industry colleagues by saying: 
Let's not lose sight of why clients engage us in the first place: to 
help them save the money they need to buy a house, send their kids to 
college, retire comfortably and meet any other long-term financial 
goals they have.
  This CEO is 100 percent right, and I am happy many companies are 
beginning to ensure their retirement plans make the most of their 
employees' savings. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, 
the administrative cost of retirement plans fell to their lowest level 
in a decade in 2015 and with this rule, they will continue to fall.
  The needle is moving in the right direction. To attempt to block this 
rule now would be a step backward, and it would send a message to hard-
working Americans and retirees that they simply don't matter enough to 
this body; that this body cares more about special interests than hard-
working families. It cares more about financial advisers on Wall Street 
and their ability to exploit middle-class Americans than it does those 
middle-class Americans who believe in the American dream that is being 
put at risk. To not support this rule would be to roll back what we all 
know; that we can create a win-win and a fair economy that doesn't 
exploit people who are vulnerable but uplifts them, where both 
financial adviser and middle-class retirees can have success. I know 
men and women in our country--and many who serve here--who know and 
understand the challenges of planning for retirement.
  Look, on the day this rule was announced earlier this year, I 
understood some people would try to fight this, and I turned to the 
folks listening and said: Look, this fight is not over. We are going to 
have to continue. Let us as a nation fight for what is right, not for 
the special interests of the wealthy few. Let's not allow people to 
feast upon the retirement savings from the hard work of others, but 
let's fight to affirm the middle-class dream in America. Let's fight to 
make sure we are

[[Page S3072]]

doing right by folks. Let's create a level playing field.
  This is a fight for people like the constituent of mine who not only 
lost her husband but too much of her savings and now is trying to pick 
up the pieces. This fight is not over for hard-working families across 
this country who are diligently saving for retirement and for whom 
these hidden fees, unfortunately, threaten to undermine decades of hard 
work. These hidden fees are insidious. These hidden fees allow some 
advisers to exploit people for their own enrichment. These hidden fees 
are un-American.
  We must continue to make sure those hard-working advisers who provide 
exemplary levels of service, who prioritize their clients' interests, 
are the ones being elevated in this fairer system and not being 
maligned by those few bad actors who feast upon the savings of other 
people.
  This fight has to be about what it means to be an American. That is 
what this body did when it passed the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act 40 years ago. We believed in the idea that America is a 
place where if you work hard and you play by the rules, you can retire 
with dignity and don't have to worry that your doctor or your lawyer or 
your financial adviser will exploit you and thrust you into insecurity 
or worse.
  This is what we must do in this body now. In the spirit of past 
actions, we must put the interest of our middle-class constituents 
first, plain and simple. This rule is fair. This rule is balanced. This 
rule helps our free market economy. This rule ensures that the highest 
standard will be applied to something as precious and fundamental as 
our retirement savings. It preserves honor in this business. It 
preserves honor for America. The needle has already moved forward. We 
cannot afford to go back.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.


                  National Defense Authorization Bill

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we will be voting on something known 
around here as the fiduciary rule, which the Senator from New Jersey 
just spoke on, and later we will be voting on inspection of catfish.
  Now, people might wonder, as significant as those two issues are, why 
we are not dealing with the Defense authorization bill that Senator 
McCain has been pressing our Democratic friends to allow us to get 
started with. For my money, there is simply nothing more important for 
the Congress to do than to make sure our men and women in uniform have 
the support and the resources and the training they need in order to 
fight our Nation's fights and win our Nation's wars. But because of the 
objection of the Democratic leader yesterday, here we are.

  I have to say to my friend, the Senator from New Jersey, talking in 
support of this fiduciary rule that was created by Dodd-Frank, to me, 
this just exemplifies this paternalism which has typified this 
administration when dealing with the economy. They don't actually 
believe consumers know how to make good choices for themselves, so they 
are going to force a Federal regulation and rule and a one-size-fits-
all standard on the financial services industry.
  I have to say that I don't think it is any coincidence that our 
economy grew at one half of 1 percent last quarter. That is pathetic 
economic growth, and it is simply not fast enough for our economy to 
create jobs in order to allow people to work full time instead of part 
time and for those who have left the labor force to join the labor 
force and to provide for their families and pursue their dreams. But it 
is unfortunately typical of the regulatory approach of the Obama 
administration, which I think helps strangle the economy and economic 
recovery.
  Economists and many people much more knowledgeable than I have said 
that after the 2008 fiscal crisis, we should have seen a bounce, a V-
shaped bounce. We hit bottom; we should have bounced back up. 
Unfortunately, we have been at a very flat recovery--if you can call it 
much of a recovery--since 2008, primarily because people are in doubt 
whether their plans for small business, medium-sized business, or large 
business, for that matter, will be put in political peril because of 
the uncertainty of the regulatory approach of the Obama administration. 
That is why we need to disapprove this fiduciary rule and to get the 
government out of the way, particularly when it comes to people who 
choose their own financial advisers. It is just another example of the 
wet blanket the regulatory approach of the Obama administration has 
been on the economy in general--just one small example.
  As I said at the outset, we should be talking about the national 
defense authorization bill, which passed out of the Armed Services 
Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. Only three members of 
the Armed Services Committee voted against it. But rather than be 
debating that, here we are.
  We should be talking about and voting on the Defense authorization 
bill because of obviously how important it is to our country's safety 
and security. As I mentioned, it provides our military the funding and 
authorities they need in order to protect and defend us, and it ensures 
that our warfighters are equipped for success on the battlefield.
  The President's senior adviser, Ms. Valerie Jarrett, claimed recently 
that President Obama had ended two wars and that this was part of his 
legacy. I am wondering which wars she was referring to because, 
frankly, the world is on fire. The Director of National Intelligence, 
James Clapper, has said that never in his long career--and I think it 
goes back 50 years or more--in the intelligence community has he seen a 
more diverse and a more threatening environment. We know we have 
conventional threats like a newly emboldened Vladimir Putin threatening 
Europe and the NATO alliance there. Then we have terrorist groups like 
ISIS, the Islamic State, which has morphed from Al Qaeda--the radical 
religious ideology which has told them that in the name of their 
religion, they can murder innocent men, women, and children.
  A few weeks ago I had the chance to travel with some of my colleagues 
from the House side to visit some of our troops stationed in the Middle 
East. It was obviously an honor to visit with those serving our country 
so selflessly in remote parts of the world, where they are separated 
from their families and putting service to country above self. We had a 
chance to visit the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain and the 
Multinational Force & Observers, the MFO, an international peacekeeping 
group at the North Camp in the Sinai Peninsula. Quite a few members of 
the Texas National Guard served there until they ended their tour just 
recently. In meeting with those folks on the ground and learning more 
about the situation, one thing is clear: The Middle East continues to 
be a region racked by instability and violence at every turn.
  I have previously spoken about how the imprudent drawdown of U.S. 
troops in Iraq without getting a status of forces agreement, which 
would have allowed a larger U.S. presence there, much as we had after 
the war in Germany, in Japan, and elsewhere, where we frankly have seen 
thriving economies and stable countries spring up after the wake of 
terrible wars--unfortunately, President Obama did not see that as a 
priority. And because of the precipitous drawdown in Iraq, a power 
vacuum was left.
  If there is one thing we should have learned on 9/11, it is that 
power vacuums are breeding grounds for terrorists, and that is as true 
today as it was back then.
  So now the Islamic State--the latest iteration of Islamic extremism--
has carved out a safe haven in Iraq and Syria, virtually wiping off the 
map the border between those two countries, and it continues to grow in 
north Africa and the Middle East. The terrorist group's influence in 
the region couldn't be clearer.
  As I mentioned, on the Sinai Peninsula, I had a chance to visit with 
some of our soldiers about the threats they face from ISIS-affiliated 
groups every day, including the use of improvised explosive devices by 
some of the groups who have now pledged allegiance to the Islamic 
State.
  Back in March, it was reported that an ISIS-linked group killed more 
than a dozen of Egypt's security forces in the Sinai, and unfortunately 
that carnage continues.
  There is no doubt that ISIS is continuing to work against U.S. 
interests and against our allies, targeting not

[[Page S3073]]

only Egyptian forces in this instance but, at times, U.S. forces on the 
ground as well.
  Unfortunately, ISIS has taken advantage of a power vacuum left in 
Libya after the President led a coalition to topple Libyan strongman 
Muammar Qadhafi and unfortunately created another power vacuum there 
which continues to this day. We would have thought we would have 
learned something from our experience in Iraq, but apparently President 
Obama did not because he had no real plan for a post-Qadhafi Libya, no 
plan and no strategy in place on how to move forward afterward. As I 
said, now Libya is a failed state and a breeding ground for ISIS.
  In Tunisia, we actually had the chance to visit with the U.S. 
Ambassador to Libya. Unfortunately, as the Ambassador and his country 
team said, we haven't actually been to Libya. They are literally an 
embassy in exile in Tunisia but doing the best they can to try to 
figure a way forward in Libya.
  One thing we know for sure is that Libya plays host to an increasing 
number of ISIS fighters. Some even estimate that the ranks of ISIS have 
doubled in Libya in the past year alone. Left unchecked, this ISIS safe 
haven in Libya, a country which is obviously strategically located 
across the Mediterranean from Europe, where it is pretty easy passage 
up into the EU, movement around the EU and then in countries--38 
countries in total have visa waiver agreements with the United States, 
and people can travel to the United States from those countries without 
a visa. But this jumping-off point in Libya to Europe and then to other 
places is a real threat and provides another base from which ISIS can 
continue to terrorize and target the United States and our friends and 
partners.
  As I mentioned, we were able to travel to Tunisia and visit with the 
relatively newly democratically elected President there. Tunisia touts 
itself as one of the rare success stories of the Arab spring--maybe the 
only success story--but their hold on the country is enormously 
fragile, primarily because the terrorist threat has killed the tourist 
activity that has been part of the economic lifeblood of that beautiful 
country right on the Mediterranean Sea in north Africa. Unfortunately, 
Tunisia is seeing an influx of its own citizens traveling to Libya to 
join ISIS, and today Tunisia remains one of the major sources of 
foreign fighters for this terrorist army.
  After its campaign of rape and genocide against the Yazidis, 
Christians, and Shia Muslims, ISIS continues to expand across north 
Africa and the Middle East, all the while working against U.S. 
interests, not only in the region by inciting violence and terrorist 
attacks but also in Europe and in places like San Bernardino, CA.
  Of course, our military serves in dangerous places all over the 
world, as do other people who bravely serve in a civilian capacity with 
our intelligence community and others. Today the threats extend all the 
way from an aggressive Russia, as I mentioned earlier, to NATO's 
doorstep, to an increasingly belligerent China in the South China Sea--
a topic the President, no doubt, is discussing during his visit in 
Hanoi--and then there are the repeated unchecked provocations of North 
Korea. These are all areas marked by volatility and unpredictability.
  Given these threats, given this danger, given this need, we would 
think there would be bipartisan support for doing our work here and 
actually debating and voting on the Defense authorization bill.
  The bottom line is that our military men and women must be prepared 
for all potential contingencies, and the Defense authorization bill is 
our chance here in Congress to make sure they have the training and 
equipment to do just that.
  It is pretty clear that the administration's disengagement around the 
world over the last 7 years has not been working, and I have been 
saying that for some time. But the Defense authorization bill we will 
move to tomorrow is an opportunity for Congress to provide for our 
troops to the greatest extent possible and ensure that they are ready 
to face all of these threats. The Defense authorization bill would 
authorize resources to fight ISIS and to counter Russian aggression and 
shore up U.S. and NATO capabilities.
  As we begin this debate and discussion, let's keep at the forefront 
of the conversation the men and women who are out there in harm's way 
facing these myriad of threats, separated many times from their family 
and their community and their friends, and let's work in good faith to 
get this bipartisan bill passed as soon as we can.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, last month the Department of Labor laid 
out new safeguards that will help middle-class savers in a rule 
pertaining to advice given by financial advisers. Today the Senate has 
taken up a resolution of disapproval that will undo that progress. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose it. The Senate ought to be doing 
everything it can to help middle-class workers save for retirement. 
Instead, this resolution would go in the opposite direction.
  Workers from Oregon and across the Nation are facing a savings 
crisis. Fewer and fewer people have access to the type of simple, 
reliable pensions that were once commonplace. The ``Leave it to 
Beaver'' ideal of getting a family-wage job, working your way up in a 
company, and retiring with a pension and a gold watch is not the 
prospect in front of many American workers today.
  For most Americans, the road to retirement now takes many more twists 
and turns. The burden of figuring out how to save, which seems to get 
tougher all the time, often falls directly on the workers themselves. 
First come the tough questions, and they come right up front: when to 
start saving, how much to set aside, when to retire, and how much to 
draw down each month. What happens if you outlive your savings? You 
have to study the markets, stocks and bonds, mutual funds, exchange-
traded funds, index funds. You have to decide what kind of risks you 
can afford to take on. It is even complicated for employers who have to 
pick from a long list of different kinds of retirement plans: 401(k)s, 
SIMPLE IRAs, SEPs, employee stock ownership plans, stock bonus plans--
to name just a few.
  It should come as no surprise to anybody that Americans frequently 
turn to financial planners to help figure out these issues. It is my 
view that the overwhelming majority of these advisers are honest 
individuals who act in the best interest of their clients, but without 
modern protections in place, some bad actors, unfortunately, choose to 
push their clients toward products with higher fees and lower returns. 
It could mean the loss of tens of thousands of dollars from a 
retirement account over a lifetime of savings.
  To be clear, this is not some kind of esoteric issue that hardly 
anybody faces. It is a very substantial drain on middle-class savings. 
One estimate by the Council of Economic Advisers said that conflicts of 
interest in retirement advice cost Americans $17 billion every single 
year. That is where the Labor Department's new rule comes in. The rules 
pertaining to fiduciary investment advisers who act solely in the 
interest of their clients date back to 1975. Obviously, in the more 
than 40 years since then, there have been very large changes in the 
retirement world. Many more 401(k)s, fewer professionally managed 
pension funds, and many more individuals and employers--especially 
small employers--lean on advisers for help determining how to invest 
their funds.
  It seems to me the law ought to be modernized to reflect those 
changes. The new rule seeks to lay out modern safeguards that are going 
to help protect middle-class savers and small business owners. What it 
says is that going forward, all retirement savers will be able to get 
advice that is in their best interest. It is a simple principle. My 
hope is, policymakers on both sides of the aisle will give it strong 
support.
  It is important to recognize that the Labor Department made a number 
of changes based on legitimate concerns

[[Page S3074]]

that were raised as this rule came together. For example, last summer I 
wrote a letter to Secretary Perez with a number of my colleagues from 
the Senate Finance Committee that flagged a number of issues, asking 
the Secretary to ensure that any final rule would work effectively. As 
I said--a group of us Democratic members on the Senate Finance 
Committee--there were a number of issues that we thought needed a bit 
more work.
  I am pleased to see that the Secretary took many of our suggestions. 
For example, our Senate Finance Committee letter highlighted the 
importance of a smooth transition to the new rule, and the Secretary 
actually took steps that included an extended implementation period. 
Instead of finding fresh approaches to help Americans prepare for 
retirement, colleagues on the other side have brought forward a 
resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that 
would, in effect, block these new protections. In the 20 years since it 
became law, there has only been one successful disapproval resolution 
under the Congressional Review Act. Under no circumstances should this 
extreme tool be used to make it harder for middle-class Americans to 
get sound retirement advice.
  We have a situation where the rules of the road date back for more 
than 40 years. The bottom line is that we ought to come together and 
update those rules so we can protect our small businesses, the middle 
class, and build a stronger ethic of saving in America. That is what 
this is all about.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution of 
disapproval.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         IHS Accountability Act

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, if you asked Native Americans in my home 
State of South Dakota how they felt about the Indian Health Service, 
you would be hard pressed to find a positive review. Indian Health 
Service patients in the Great Plains area, which encompasses North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa, have been receiving 
substandard medical care for years. Too often, clean exam rooms appear 
to be a luxury for South Dakota's Native American patients. Dirty 
facilities and dirty, unsanitized equipment are common, and patient 
care is often slipshod at best.
  One health service facility was in such disarray that a pregnant 
mother gave birth on a bathroom floor without a single medical 
professional nearby, which shockingly wasn't the first time this had 
happened at this facility. Another patient at the same facility who had 
suffered a severe head injury was discharged from the hospital mere 
hours after checking in, only to be called back later the same day once 
his test results arrived. The patient's condition was so serious that 
he was immediately flown to another facility for care.
  A patient at Pine Ridge Hospital in Pine Ridge, SD, was discharged 
from the emergency department and died from cardiac arrest 2 hours 
later. An investigation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services found that the patient had failed to receive an adequate 
evaluation before his discharge.
  The situation in South Dakota has gotten so bad that there is a real 
chance the Federal Government will terminate its Medicare provider 
agreements with--as of yesterday--three Indian Health Service 
facilities in my State.
  Yesterday, my office was notified that yet a third IHS emergency 
department in the Great Plains area had been found in violation of 
Medicare's conditions of participation. In other words, these three 
emergency departments have been delivering such a poor level of care 
that the government isn't sure it can trust them to care for Medicare 
patients. The associate regional administrator for the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services noted that the problems at this third 
hospital are ``so serious that they constitute an immediate and serious 
threat to the health and safety of any individual who comes to your 
hospital to receive services.'' To describe the level of care at Indian 
Health Service facilities as substandard is an understatement. The 
government is failing in its treaty responsibility to our tribes.
  I have been working on legislation to increase accountability and 
improve patient care at the Indian Health Service. Last week, my friend 
and colleague from Wyoming, who chairs the Indian Affairs Committee 
here in the Senate, and I introduced our bill, the IHS Accountability 
Act. Our bill takes a number of important steps to start the process of 
reforming the Indian Health Service.
  First, we create an expedited procedure for firing senior leaders at 
the agency who aren't doing their jobs. The Indian Health Service has 
suffered from mismanagement problems for years. To name just one 
example, the Indian Health Service settled an $80 million lawsuit with 
unions that came about because IHS could not manage the basic 
administrative task of dealing with overtime pay. The money that IHS 
used to settle this lawsuit was, in part, from funds that should have 
been used for patients. Some $6.2 million alone came from money 
originally destined for IHS facilities in the Great Plains area.
  Unfortunately, the Indian Health Service frequently responded to 
mismanagement by shifting staff between positions and offices instead 
of simply firing incompetent staff. We are not going to clean up the 
agency's problems that way.
  If a member of the Indian Health Service's leadership is standing in 
the way of providing quality care to patients, then that person needs 
to find another line of work. The bill I drafted with my colleague from 
Wyoming will help make sure that happens. Our bill also streamlines the 
hiring process at IHS and ensures that tribes will be consulted when 
the agency is hiring for important positions. This will help IHS get 
dedicated, high-quality employees on the job faster.
  Our bill also addresses the problem IHS has had in retaining quality 
employees. A provision in our bill gives the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Indian 
Health Service, increased flexibility to reward employees for good 
performance and to set the kinds of salaries that will keep good 
employees on the job longer.
  Finally, our bill directs the Government Accountability Office to 
review the whistleblower protections that are currently in place at IHS 
and determine whether we need to add any additional layers of 
protection.
  One of the obstacles to improving care for our tribes has been less-
than-honest reporting from the Indian Health Service. Time and again we 
found that conditions on the ground have not matched up to information 
reported to Congress.

  On December 4, 2015, for example, officials from the Indian Health 
Service stated that a majority of the concerns at the floundering 
Rosebud Hospital in Rosebud, SD, had been addressed or abated. Yet mere 
hours later, I was informed that the Rosebud Hospital emergency 
department was functioning so poorly that emergency patients would be 
diverted to other hospitals beginning the next day. As of today, it has 
been 171 days since that emergency department was placed on diverted 
status--171 days. Clearly, the issues at Rosebud had not been addressed 
or abated on December 4.
  In 2014, I requested a status update on the Great Plains area from 
the then-Acting Director of the Indian Health Service. In her response, 
she stated: ``The Great Plains Area has shown marked improvement in all 
categories,'' and ``significant improvements in health care delivery 
and program accountability have also been demonstrated.'' Yet we 
continue to receive frequent reports of abysmal patient care.
  I am pretty sure that sending a man home with bleeding in his brain 
and having a mother give birth prematurely on a bathroom floor are not 
signs of significant improvement. Having a realistic picture of what is 
going on in Indian Health Service facilities is absolutely essential if 
we hope to start improving the standard of care that our tribes 
receive, and that is why

[[Page S3075]]

whistleblower protections are so important.
  Our bill will help make sure that the system protects those who come 
forward to expose the problems facing patients.
  I am proud of the bill that my colleague and I have introduced, and I 
hope the Senate will take it up in the near future. While this is an 
important step, it is still just the first step. I will continue to 
consult with the nine tribes in South Dakota and with others to see 
what additional steps we need to take to fix the problems at the Indian 
Health Service once and for all. Our tribes deserve better than what 
they have been receiving, and I am not going to rest until all of our 
tribes are getting the quality care they deserve.


                      Aviation Safety and Security

  Madam President, before I conclude, I wish to take a minute to talk 
about some aviation security issues that were brought into sharp relief 
by the recent crash of an Egyptair flight.
  Last week, 66 people died when Egyptair flight 804 from Paris, 
France, to Cairo, Egypt, crashed into the Mediterranean Sea off the 
Egyptian coast. With investigators still recovering evidence, it is too 
soon to come to any conclusions as to the cause of this tragic 
accident, but with the absence of evidence indicating an obvious 
technical failure, U.S. and Egyptian officials have suggested terrorism 
as a potential cause of the crash even without a credible claim of 
responsibility from any group.
  Given the global risk environment and previous acts of terror, 
investigators are focusing their attention on anyone who may have had 
access to the Egyptair aircraft while it was sitting on the ground, 
including baggage handlers, caterers, cleaners, and fuel-truck workers.
  At the Senate Commerce Committee, we have been very focused on this 
type of aviation safety and security issue over the last year.
  In December of 2015, the committee advanced legislation to address 
insider threats posed by airport workers and enhanced vetting of 
airline passengers. As the Senate took up the FAA Reauthorization Act 
of 2016, we engaged in a constructive and open process to consider 
amendments. Ultimately, the Senate adopted a number of aviation 
security amendments, including a security amendment that I cosponsored 
with Commerce Committee Ranking Member Nelson, Senator Ayotte, and 
Senator Cantwell that would strengthen security at international 
airports with direct flights into the United States.
  The amendment added a security title to the FAA bill that included 
legislation marked up in the Commerce Committee, as well as other 
initiatives. Among other things, the amendment requires TSA to conduct 
a comprehensive risk assessment of all foreign last-point-of-departure 
airports--foreign airports with direct flights to the United States. 
The amendment also requires TSA to develop a security coordination 
enhancement plan with domestic and foreign partners, including foreign 
governments and airlines, and to conduct a comprehensive assessment of 
TSA's workforce abroad. It also authorizes TSA to help foreign partners 
by donating security screening equipment to foreign last-point-of-
departure airports and to assist in evaluating foreign countries' air 
cargo security programs to prevent any shipment of nefarious materials 
via air cargo. These provisions are similar to those of H.R. 4698, the 
SAFE GATES Act of 2016, and, together with the other security 
provisions adopted, take concrete steps to confront the real terrorist 
threat that we are facing.

  I believe these provisions in the FAA reauthorization bill will help 
make air travel from foreign countries to the United States safer and 
more secure. The Senate passed this legislation in April, and now it is 
time for the House of Representatives to act. The House of 
Representatives should take up our FAA bill without delay so that we 
can get a final bill with timely security and safety reforms onto the 
President's desk before the summer State work period.
  Every day countless terrorists are plotting their next attack against 
the United States. There are measures we can take today that will help 
make Americans safer at home and while traveling from destinations 
abroad. Several of those measures are included in the FAA bill that we 
passed with over 90 votes in the U.S. Senate.
  I call again on the House of Representatives to take up this bill so 
that we can continue our work to keep Americans safe.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________