[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 82 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3075-S3084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in favor of the Congressional
Review Act resolution regarding the Department of Labor's new fiduciary
rule. This resolution, which provides Congress with an opportunity to
express its disapproval with the administration's regulations, is
important for a number of reasons.
On the substance, DOL's new rule is extremely problematic. As a
number of my colleagues have already attested, the rule, on its face,
would unnecessarily impose a new set of regulations under the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, on a greatly
expanded number of people.
Under current law, brokers and dealers who provide services to
retirement plans are already heavily regulated. They are not
automatically considered labor law fiduciaries, and, therefore, they
are not subject to the increased liability provided under ERISA.
Instead, these service providers are subject to regulations issued by
the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect investors from fraud
and to ensure transparency.
Under the new DOL rule, virtually any broker who provides investment
advice of any kind to individuals regarding their individual retirement
accounts, or IRAs, will be considered a pension plan fiduciary, subject
to higher standards and greater liability.
As my colleagues have aptly noted, this rule will reduce the
availability of investment advice for retirees and make the advice that
is available more expensive, which will have a disproportionately
negative effect on low- and middle-income retirees. Higher costs and a
more burdensome system also mean more expenses for small businesses
trying to sponsor retirement plans for their employees.
A 2014 study found that, as a result of these rules, many affected
retirees--who, once again, are predominantly middle class or lower-
income retirees--will see their lifetime retirement savings drop by
between 20 and 40 percent, which will translate into a reduction of
between $20 billion and $32 billion in systemwide retirement savings
every year.
DOL's own analysis indicates that the rule will have a compliance
cost. That is deadweight loss to the system of between $2.4 billion and
$5.7 billion over the first 10 years, virtually all of which will be
passed onto American retirees. I think it should go without saying that
if anyone has an interest in understanding the cost of the DOL's
regulations, it is the DOL itself.
All of these problems--and they are real problems--with the DOL's
fiduciary rule are within the substance of the rule itself. I wish to
take just a few minutes, however, to talk about the process by which
the rule came into existence because it is no less problematic.
This regulation is an attempt to rewrite ERISA-prohibited transaction
regulations for IRAs that have been in place since 1975. However, the
prohibited transaction rules for IRAs are codified in the Internal
Revenue Code which, generally speaking, would give Treasury regulatory
jurisdiction over the matter.
That was the understanding in 1975 when the current regulations were
first established. However, a 1978 Executive order transferred some of
the Treasury's jurisdiction over prohibited
[[Page S3076]]
transaction rules--rules generally directed at preventing self-dealing
and conflicts of interest--to the Department of Labor. In other words,
the rule that DOL has rewritten with this new fiduciary regulation
predated the Department's grant of jurisdiction.
While this might be a little arcane and in the weeds, this
distinction is important, given the reported disputes between agencies
on this rule. Indeed, according to a report released by the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, career
officials at the SEC and Treasury have expressed concern over DOL's
course of action with regard to this rule. They also offered
suggestions for improvements, most of which were disregarded by DOL in
favor of a quicker resolution to the rulemaking process. Not
surprisingly, this report found that political appointees at the White
House played an outsized role in the rulemaking process.
Given these procedural concerns, not to mention the substantive
concerns with the rule itself, I think that at the very least we should
revisit whether DOL should have jurisdiction in this area in the first
place. Put simply: IRAs, which are at the heart of these regulations,
are creatures of the Tax Code. They should, therefore, be governed by
the agencies responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Tax
Code and not by officials outside of those agencies who, far more often
than not, have agendas that are geared more toward business pension
plans and not tax-deferred savings accounts set up at the individual
level.
Toward that end, I have drafted legislation that would restore
Treasury's rulemaking authority in this area in order to ensure that
the proper expertise is brought to bear on these issues and that future
rules governing financial advice and marketing are, at the very least,
crafted with the broader financial regulatory framework in mind.
As it is, we have a rule that appears to have been drafted by those
who lack expertise about the retail investment industry in order to
achieve a goal that is, to put it kindly, at odds with the purpose of
that industry and the interests of the individual savers who rely on it
in order to obtain a secure retirement.
I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us as it is the
best near-term vehicle we have to putting the administration in check
with regard to this rule. For the long term, I am hoping we can have a
reasonable discussion about DOL's role in regulating IRAs to begin
with. Ultimately, if that discussion takes place, I think more and more
people will realize that the Labor Department should not be responsible
for crafting what is essentially tax policy.
I plan to vote yes on this resolution, and I hope that all of my
colleagues will do the same.
With that, 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. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, as Senator Hatch has mentioned, in April
the Department of Labor just issued its final conflict-of-interest, or
fiduciary, rule, putting in place a framework of meaningful protections
for Americans saving for retirement. The rule helps families save for
retirement at a time when fewer and fewer workers have traditional
pensions. Today my Republican colleagues are trying to block this rule.
I join Ranking Member Murray of the HELP Committee and Ranking Member
Wyden of the Finance Committee--on which the Presiding Officer and I
both sit--to recommend that you vote no on the joint resolution.
It is important to remember why this rule is necessary. Since the
enactment of ERISA and the creation of 401(k) plans and individual
retirement accounts in the 1970s, there has been a dramatic shift from
traditional pension plans run by employers--that is where when you
retire, there is a so-called defined benefit where you can count on a
certain number of dollars a month for the rest of your life and perhaps
for your spouse--to defined contribution plans that workers are left to
manage themselves.
Maximizing retirement savings and avoiding high fees and costs are
more critical than ever. But most American workers need advice on how
to prepare for retirement and navigate these plans, which can be both
complicated and, maybe more importantly, risky.
The DOL's rule--the Labor Department's rule--makes sure brokers and
advisers act ``in the best interest'' of their customers and minimize
the potential for conflicts of interest that could eat away at a
saver's nest egg. This doesn't mean that diligent brokers and advisers
have not been helping their customers, but the rule creates structural
protections to make sure that is always the case.
It is that simple: Customers come first. There is no alternative to
that basic principle. Whether you are visiting your doctor or going to
a lawyer, your interests come first.
Following the rule proposal in 2015, the DOL reviewed hundreds of
comments, held days of hearings, and issued a final rule with extensive
changes that address a variety of concerns that many of us have heard.
The major changes include extending the implementation period,
simplifying disclosure requirements, and clarifying the difference
between education and advice. The full list of changes is much longer
and resulted in significant improvement. Most of the industry
recognizes that and has said so. Thankfully, banks and brokers are
already working on implementation. The Department of Labor is committed
to helping companies figure out how to make the necessary changes and
adapt to the rule.
Industry and some in Congress have called for the SEC to issue its
own fiduciary rule before the Labor Department. The Wall Street reform
bill required the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, to
consider its own rule. I urge them to move forward as well, but there
is no reason for the Department of Labor to wait for the sometimes-too-
slow SEC.
Congress gave retirement accounts tax-favored status and significant
protections under ERISA. The Labor Department's rules build on the
statutory framework under ERISA, and now the fiduciary rule reflects
the reality of the modern retirement landscape. It is time to move
forward to help protect this generation and future generations of
American savers.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution so the
implementation of this rule can continue to move forward to protect the
interests of millions of hard-working Americans who are saving for
retirement.
Mr. President, 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, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5243
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last week the CDC announced it is
monitoring nearly 300 pregnant women in the United States and
territories for possible Zika infections. That means nearly 300
families across our country are living through a true nightmare for
expecting parents. They are waiting for news about whether their
newborn will be safe and healthy.
Unfortunately, with almost 1,400 cases of Zika already reported, the
number of expecting moms and dads in this awful position is only
expected to grow. As a mother, a grandmother, and a United States
Senator, I strongly believe it is our responsibility to act as quickly
as possible for these families and the families who will unfortunately
be impacted by the Zika virus in the weeks and months ahead.
Just to be clear, mosquito season has already started in some parts
of our country, and we do not have any time to waste. In fact, we
should have been able to act much sooner. President Obama's emergency
funding proposal to support the Zika response has been available for
everyone to see since February. Similar to many of my colleagues, I was
disappointed the Republican leader refused to even consider it
[[Page S3077]]
and that instead they came up with one excuse after another to delay,
even though public health experts and researchers have made it very
clear this is truly an urgent public health crisis.
Some Republicans said Zika wasn't something they were willing to give
the administration a penny more for, others said they would think about
more money to fight Zika but only in return for partisan spending cuts,
and others spent more time thinking about how to get political cover
than actually trying to address this problem, but many of us knew how
important this was and we didn't give up.
So I am very glad that after a lot of pressure from women, families,
Governors, and scientists, and after a lot of pushing Republicans to
get serious about dealing with this emergency, many of our Republican
colleagues in the Senate finally joined us at the table last week to
open a path for an important step forward.
I appreciate the work of Chairman Blunt, who joined me to get this
done, as well as all the Senators on both sides of the aisle who voted
for it. While Democrats didn't get the full amount we had hoped for in
this compromise, I am glad the Senate was able to pass a $1.1 billion
downpayment on the President's proposal as an emergency bill, without
offsets.
Our agreement would accelerate the administration's work, and it
would allow money to start flowing to address this crisis even as we
continue fighting for more as needed. This agreement was supported by
every Democrat and a little less than half of the Republicans in the
Senate. So the Senate has a strong bipartisan first step ready to go.
Unfortunately, House Republicans went in a very different direction.
They released an underfunded, partisan, and, in my opinion, mean-
spirited bill that would provide only $622 million--less than one-third
of what is needed in this emergency--without any funding for preventive
health care, family planning, or outreach even to those who are at risk
of getting Zika. They are still insisting that funding for this public
health emergency be fully offset, and the administration should somehow
siphon money away from their critical Ebola response and other
essential activities in order to fund the Zika efforts. House
Republicans clearly feel this health care crisis is an appropriate
moment to somehow nickel-and-dime and that it is a good opportunity to
prioritize Heritage Action over women and families, but if you are 1 of
nearly 300 mothers the CDC is monitoring for likely Zika infection or
one of the almost 1,400 people infected so far or one of the millions
of expecting mothers nationwide, I bet you would like to know your
government is doing everything it can now to tackle this virus. So I am
continuing to call on Senate Republicans to get our bipartisan Zika
agreement to the House as quickly as possible. Senate Republicans have
already said they would be willing to do this if we exchange it for
Affordable Health Care Act cuts, and I think they should be just as
willing to do it for the sake of women and families who are at risk.
This agreement has strong bipartisan support. It can move through the
House, and it can get to the President to be signed into law so our
researchers, our scientists, and those in the field can get to work.
This Republican-controlled Congress has already waited far too long to
act on Zika. We should not wait any longer.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives
from the House H.R. 5243, that all after the enacting clause be
stricken; that the Blunt-Murray substitute amendment to provide $1.1
billion in funding to enhance the Federal response and preparedness
with respect to the Zika virus be agreed to; that there be up to 1 hour
of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees;
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as amended, be
read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as
amended, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senate majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
I wish our Democratic colleagues would spend as much time working
with us to try to solve problems as they do engaged in political
theater and posturing.
Mrs. Murray, the Senator from Washington, has done good work working
with the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Blunt, in
coming up with a piece of legislation that funds the Zika response at
$1.1 billion. That legislation has already passed the Senate. What
remains to be done is the House and the Senate need to come together in
a conference committee--which is the typical way where differences of
approach are reconciled--to come up with a responsible piece of
legislation.
In the meantime, I am glad the President has taken up our suggestion
initially that until this can happen, they reprogram money--$589
million--from the Ebola response that had not yet been expended and
transfer that to the Zika response. I am confident that money has not
been spent yet and plenty is available to deal with it while Congress
does its business in an orderly sort of way.
I would have to say to my friend from Washington, my State is going
to be directly in the crosshairs because this mosquito is not native to
Washington State but it is to the warmer parts of our country--Texas
and Louisiana. Thank goodness no one so far has gotten the Zika virus
from a mosquito. It is people who have traveled to South America,
Puerto Rico, or elsewhere and come back to the United States, but we
all agree on a bipartisan basis that this is a very serious matter and
we can't waste time. There is $589 million available to deal with it
now.
Secondly, we are working--as we typically do--with the House to try
to reconcile our differences and to do our work in a responsible sort
of way. In the meantime, our Democratic colleagues are blocking
legislation, like the Defense authorization bill. They are throwing
obstacles in the way of our getting the Senate back to work in every
way they possibly can, including this--which, I am sorry to say, is
just political theater and posturing.
With that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just say this. This Zika virus is
an emergency now, and though my constituents don't live in Texas, we
have people in Washington State who have traveled to infected
countries, gotten Zika transmitted through mosquito, have come home,
and now they need to have tests to determine whether they have been
infected. Those tests will not be available until we provide this
money. The Ebola response money that was just referred to needs to be
there because Ebola is not eradicated and can come back at any minute,
and we are doing everything we can as a nation to protect American
citizens.
What we are trying to do is move the bipartisan bill that has been
approved in the Senate quickly to the House. Yes, it has been attached
to an appropriations bill, but for us to sit back and wait until a
conference committee is appointed on that and does the long
negotiations over the summer into the fall is too late. We can deal
with this now. That is what I ask to do today, and we will continue to
push until we can assure people in our States across the country that
we are doing everything we can as a nation to help protect our citizens
from the Zika virus, particularly expectant mothers or possibly
expectant mothers and families.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. BOOZMAN. 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. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
USDA Catfish Inspection Rule
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the bait-and-
switch being pulled on the American people in this Congress regarding
catfish inspection. We have all been told by lobbyists for fish
importers and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that the catfish
inspection program is ``duplicative and trade distorting,'' but that
simply isn't true. This rule is not duplicative, this
[[Page S3078]]
rule is not distorting, and the program is working to keep food safe
for Americans. There is nothing duplicative about this rule. The FDA no
longer inspects any catfish. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service
is the only agency inspecting catfish. Additionally, the USDA and the
FDA operate under a memorandum of understanding to prevent duplication.
For decades, USDA and FDA coordinated to prevent duplicative
inspections with regard to seafood, beef, pork, and poultry.
The fact is that the FDA did not adequately inspect catfish. The FDA
inspected less than 2 percent of catfish, and it lab tested an even
smaller percentage. It would not be a stretch to argue that we had very
little inspection at all. In contrast, the USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service inspects all catfish, as they do with other farmed-
raised meat.
This rule is not a WTO violation. Equivalent standards are applied to
imported and domestic fish.
The USDA has been inspecting beef, pork, and poultry with this system
for decades. Is that too much to ask for? Why should American consumers
be subjected to harmful contaminants that we can prevent?
Contrary to what you may hear, this program is not costly. I have
heard many different numbers thrown around, but the bottom line is that
the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this resolution
would not save the taxpayer a single penny.
If Congress votes to disapprove the USDA's catfish inspection rule,
the food safety of the American people will be significantly
undermined. This is a health and safety issue, pure and simple. With
only a few weeks of inspection under its belt, the USDA has already
denied entry of two shipments of imported catfish because they found
crystal violet in one shipment and malachite green in another. Both are
dangerous carcinogens.
Earlier today the American Cancer Society said they support keeping
farm-raised fish inspection at USDA.
Overturning the USDA's catfish inspection rule would set a bad
precedent. Congress has never used the Congressional Review Act to
overturn a rule that Congress explicitly directed by law. Additionally,
if the rule is overturned, the law requiring USDA catfish inspection
would remain in place. USDA simply would not have a rule to implement
the law, which would lead to significant trade disruption.
Catfish farming is an important industry to Arkansas. Arkansas
producers are proud to supply a safe product for American consumers.
The bottom line is that our farmers aren't afraid of competition. They
just want the security of knowing the domestic industry and imports are
all safe.
Voting to disprove this rule would put consumers at risk. I strongly
urge my colleagues who share my concerns about the security of our food
system to let this important food safety program continue to operate
and continue to keep harmful carcinogens out of the food supply of
Americans.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the resolution
of disapproval of the Department of Agriculture's catfish inspection
program on several grounds. This has become a rather heated issue. I
think there are some issues we need to clear up, especially speaking
from the privilege of being the chairman of the Senate Committee on
Agriculture.
The amendment seeks to make changes to food safety inspection by
eliminating the Department of Agriculture's inspection program of
domestic and foreign-raised catfish. This program just started in
March. Some of the comments about the expense of this program have been
made as if they were on an annual basis. Most of the costs that were
cited in the General Accounting Office report did not mention the fact
that these were startup costs.
The program was created due to concerns related to food safety. The
USDA has a very strong record of requiring meat that is imported to the
United States to be processed in foreign facilities that are
``equivalent'' to U.S. meat processing facilities. The Department of
Agriculture visits these facilities and conducts audits to ensure that
their practices are in line with what we require in the United States.
This is done to ensure that food coming into the United States is safe.
That product is also inspected once it arrives at U.S. ports of entry.
Simply put, what we have here is a program that requires the same
equivalency determination for foreign raised and processed catfish as
we require for beef, chicken, lamb, pork, and all the other commodities
or all the other animal products that you could imagine.
Just last week I was notified by the Department of Agriculture that
their inspections of Vietnamese catfish found illegal drug residues in
two shipments destined for the United States. I am sure that others who
have spoken to this issue, especially Senator Boozman and Senator
Cochran, have repeated this. Had this program not been in place, this
violation would not have been caught and the product would have been
allowed to enter into commerce.
I am very surprised. I know this is an easy issue to bring up with
regard to a GAO report for 10 years that said this duplicating what the
Food and Drug Administration does. It is, but it is no longer because
the Department of Agriculture is taking it over because they have a
much more robust program. The Food and Drug Administration really only
inspects 2 percent of the catfish. We are talking about a much higher
percentage by the Department of Agriculture.
I hope those in the Senate who are trying to remove this important
safeguard just 2 months into the program being enforced and on the
tails of it paying off and preventing adulterated catfish from entering
commerce--I remind my colleagues that this program was authorized in
the 2008 and 2014 farm bills. That was delayed for a while. Startup
costs started last year. Again, those costs that are mentioned in the
General Accounting Office are not pertinent to what is happening today.
I want to say one other thing. Farm bills are developed through 5
years of thoughtful discussions and also negotiations. When a farm bill
is passed, any producer of any product, including any animal product,
expects--almost as if it is a contract--to be able to depend on it. If
you have a burgeoning industry of domestic catfish, you want to make
doggone sure that it is safe and that there are no imports that
represent a health hazard, and that is exactly what happened in this
particular instance. You do not want to open up farm bills willy-nilly
on a specific issue that may make a headline or may make a good TV
spot--to quote the General Accountability Office--which has not taken
into consideration that this is just a startup kind of situation in
terms of the money.
It is interesting to me that this was scored at zero. The
Congressional Budget Office has scored it at zero. I think I understand
all of this talk about wasting money. I don't know anybody in the
Congress--House or Senate--who is for wasting money. One person's
wasteful spending of money is another person's viable investment. So we
have to look pretty close.
I ask that my colleagues vote no on the resolution and to maintain
these important food safety protections and the carefully crafted 2014
farm bill. This is not the time to open up the farm bill. We will
certainly begin discussions on that in the next year, and we will take
up these matters in the following year and go over it with a fine-tooth
comb.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I strongly urge the Senate to reject
the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 28. This resolution would overturn a
catfish inspection rule that is working to protect American consumers.
Congress directed the Department of Agriculture
[[Page S3079]]
to write this rule in both the 2008 and 2014 farm bills. It did so
based on evidence that the inspection regime then in place was
inadequate.
Almost all catfish consumed in the United States is raised on farms
in controlled environments. The Department of Agriculture, or the USDA,
is the most experienced and well-equipped agency to ensure that farm-
raised meat products, including catfish, are as safe as possible.
Since assuming responsibility of catfish inspection just a few week
ago, the Department of Agriculture has intercepted and impounded two
large shipments of foreign catfish contaminated with cancer-causing
chemicals banned for use in the United States. Prior to the
implementation of the rule, less than 2 in 1,000 catfish products
entering the United States was laboratory tested. If it were not for
the rule that S.J. Res. 28 seeks to nullify, this dangerous foreign
fish would be in the U.S. food supply today.
Sponsors of this resolution have said that the catfish rule is
costly. This is not true. The Congressional Budget Office has said that
this resolution won't save a dime. Sponsors of this resolution have
said that the catfish rule is duplicative. This is untrue. The Food and
Drug Administration ceased all catfish inspections on March 1 of this
year. The Department of Agriculture is the only agency charged with
inspecting catfish. Sponsors of this resolution have said that the
catfish rule creates an artificial trade barrier. This is untrue. The
Department has stated that the rule is compliant with the World Trade
Organization's equivalency standard and would not violate its
principles.
Adoption of this resolution would not change the law. It would only
call into question and potentially halt the ability of the U.S.
Government to carry on important activities authorized by law to keep
American consumers safe.
It is clear that the inspection rule is working as intended to
protect U.S. consumers. Congress was right in twice mandating these
inspections, and reconsidering that decision would be a poor use of the
Senate's time.
I hope Senators will reject the motion to proceed to this resolution.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5243
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I have been on this floor many times
talking about Zika. I think some people believe in the old adage ``out
of sight out of mind.'' It is equally as much, if not more, of a
crisis--an international crisis--as was the Ebola crisis. Yet do you
remember how everyone became so suddenly concerned about Ebola when
there were only a couple of cases that showed up in the United States?
Remember how we in this body suddenly rushed in and appropriated on an
emergency basis several multiples of billions of dollars to address the
Ebola crisis? I remember how successful that was even though Ebola is
still raging in parts of western Africa. We are continuing to try to
help out those African nations so it will not spread across the world
and especially to keep it from coming here to our shores.
The same thing is happening with the Zika virus, but people are not
recognizing it. That is why this Senator continues to talk about it--
because we need the resources necessary to stop the spread of Zika. It
is only a matter of time before there is a local transmission in the
continental United States. What is a local transmission? Well, we know
they put a fancy name on it. It is called vector. What is vector? The
vector is a strain of mosquito called the aegypti. And, by the way, it
is math. What happens across a lot of the coastal United States and
southern United States in June? It gets hot, the rains come, and what
comes along with that? Swarms of mosquitoes.
Since this particular strain, the aegypti, is prevalent across the
United States, up the west coast, the Pacific coast, up the Atlantic
seaboard--much further than what you consider to be southern States--lo
and behold, this strain of mosquito carries the Zika virus, and when it
sticks its sticker into a human being and starts drawing blood, the
virus is transmitted into the blood of the human being. Now you have a
human carrier of the Zika virus that can be transmitted through sexual
contact. But, lo and behold, if the carrier is a pregnant female, then
that Zika virus--and the virus itself sometimes doesn't manifest itself
in many ways; it might be like a mild form of the flu. But if it is a
pregnant female, then there are some disastrous consequences coming
ahead. Those are the horrible pictures we have seen--the microcephaly.
The virus gets in and attacks the fetus and does not allow the fetus to
develop, particularly with regard to the structure of the head and the
brain, and that is what causes these terrible family tragedies.
Last week we voted for $1.1 billion as part of an appropriations
bill. We turned down Senator Rubio's and my proposal of $1.9 billion.
By the way, did you notice a Republican and a Democrat coming
together, saying: This is tough in our State. In our State there are
well over 120 cases. There are also multiple pregnant women in Florida
who are infected.
Nationwide there are 1,200 Americans in 48 States that we know of who
have been infected with the virus. We know that in Puerto Rico--the
Centers for Disease Control tells us that 25 percent of that island's
population of our fellow American citizens is going to be infected.
That is in Puerto Rico alone--800,000 people. As a result of that
infection in Puerto Rico, we saw the first case of microcephaly linked
to the Zika virus reported in Puerto Rico. That was determined because
of a miscarriage, and the fetus had all the markings of microcephaly.
Prior to that, the CDC had confirmed the first Zika-related death in
the United States that had also occurred in Puerto Rico.
While we here in the Senate last week turned down $1.9 billion, which
was the administration's request, we appropriated $1.1 billion. But
guess what they did down at the other end of the hallway in the U.S.
Capitol Building. They did only $622 million. And they want this to go
to a conference committee to be worked out over time? Folks, it is late
May and summer is upon us. These cases are going to become increasingly
apparent.
Now why don't we add Brazil into the mix? It is hot and humid. By the
way, there is something happening in a few months in Brazil: People
from all over the world are going to Brazil for the Olympics, and right
now Brazil has more than 100,000 cases of Zika virus this year alone.
This is a very dangerous emergency, and we are playing around and
delaying. Congress has not stepped up and is failing the American
people by not treating it as an emergency. It ought to be clear that it
is up to us to protect our constituents, to stop the spread of the
virus, and to do everything the administration has requested, including
replacing the multiple hundreds of millions they raided out of the
Ebola fund to try to get a jump-start on this because the Congress was
sitting around on its hands, not willing to give the money. They
borrowed from the Ebola fund, and we need to replenish that fund. That
is a part of the $1.9 billion request.
So, Madam President, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we
proceed to a vote on this emergency. We ought to be trying to do the
right thing. We ought to give the President and the public health
experts the resources they need, that they tell us they have to have to
stop the spread of this virus.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
receives from the House H.R. 5243, that all after the enacting clause
be stricken; that the Nelson-Rubio substitute amendment to provide the
$1.9 billion in funding to enhance the Federal response and
preparedness with respect to the Zika virus be agreed to; that there be
up to 1 hour of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as
amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the
bill, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this was
debated extensively and considerably for
[[Page S3080]]
more than 1 hour, equally divided, just last week, and was resolved by
a vote in this body.
I don't think there is anyone in this body who isn't worried about
the Zika virus and who doesn't want to do everything that can be done
in the quickest way possible. It was determined to be an emergency and
was put into the bill that way. There was Senator Nelson's bill for
$1.9 billion, but it lacked specificity on how that was to be spent, so
the $1.1 billion was the one that got the vote.
I was hoping it would be the Cornyn vote that was passed because it
was offset with health prevention money we already have. Those funds
can be used for just this kind of need. I don't know why there would be
an objection to using that for the Zika virus, but there was. Even so,
we resolved it. We resolved it without offsetting it, adding another
$1.1 billion to the deficit, and were able to move that project
forward. So in light of that, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, the Senator from Wyoming knows my
affection for him as a friend. The Senator from Wyoming is a great
Senator from the State of Wyoming, and Wyoming does not have the threat
as the southern States do in the United States as the summer comes upon
us.
The Senator has referred to the Cornyn amendment. The Cornyn
amendment allowed for $1.1 billion, which was voted down. It was paid
for by raiding the Affordable Care Act, and that is just not going to
happen.
Whenever an emergency happens, the tradition of the U.S. Congress is,
in fact, to provide for that emergency on a basis that you don't have
to go and rob some other piece of funding in order to pay for it. When
a hurricane hits and if it hits Florida, I certainly hope you all are
going to appropriate emergency funds. If there is an earthquake or the
eruption of a volcano, fires--whatever the natural or manmade disaster
that occurs--that is what a government does. One of the functions of
government is to protect the health and welfare of the people, and
sometimes that calls for the funding of an emergency.
We don't have a lot of children with microcephaly that have been born
from pregnant women here, but that is coming. We have already seen it.
Wait until all of the Americans, including in the northern tier of
States and the western United States, go to Rio for the Olympics. Wait
until there is a further migration out of Puerto Rico, which is causing
a brain drain because of the financial condition of that island and
which we are not helping them with as we continue to dither about their
financial distress. Wait until that migration of American citizens
comes more and more from Puerto Rico to the continental United States
and brings with them those infected with the Zika virus. All of this is
about to happen, and it is about to explode. This Senator suspects that
a lot of the people who are objecting to moving on this on an emergency
basis are going to rue the day when they see the consequences.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have a fondness for the Senator from
Florida, as well, and recognize that he is further south and that they,
perhaps, have more mosquitoes than we do, although even Alaska would
have a competition with that.
But we did pass emergency money for this. We did declare it an
emergency and pass $1.1 billion. That is $1,100 million to work on this
problem.
Before, we had the Ebola problem. That was the crisis of the year,
and we allocated money to that. We allocated more money to that than it
needed. That is why some of that money was brought over as an emergency
into solving the Zika problem.
I have been doing some research as the Budget Chairman, and I found
that we have about $6 billion worth of emergencies every year. We ought
to budget for what we know is consistent. Unfortunately, I had them
look it up, and I found that we actually spend $26 billion in
emergencies every year. That ought to be a part of the budget and not
just passed on to future generations. They are going to have their own
emergencies that they are going to need to solve. Somehow we are going
to have to get control of this. I am pleased we have a bipartisan
effort going to see if there aren't some solutions that can be built
into the budget process. But that is not what I came over here for to
begin with.
Madam President, we have the right, when a government rule is
finalized, if we don't agree with it, we can get a petition. If we can
get enough Senators on a petition, we can get a guaranteed 10 hours of
debate and an up-or-down vote on that rule. In America, we are trying
to get people to save more for retirement, to invest more--and now this
administration makes it harder to do so.
I rise to speak in support of H.J. Res. 88, expressing congressional
disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor with
respect to investment advice. How many people do you think are going to
be willing to seek investment advice if they have to sign a contract
before they can even see if that is the person they want to work with?
It is called the fiduciary and conflict of interest rule. We are all
against conflict of interest. There aren't even a lot of people who
know how to spell ``fiduciary.'' That is to confuse people about what
this is about.
We do have a retirement coverage gap in America. There are tens of
millions of Americans who are not prepared for retirement. The
regulation put forward by the Obama administration that we are debating
today will limit the advice that individuals seeking access to
retirement plans can receive. That will increase the size of this
retirement gap.
This regulation will significantly impede the ability of low- and
middle-income Americans to save for retirement. They will simply not
have anyone to answer their questions and provide advice.
For many years, I have heard the goal of this regulation is to force
financial advisers to work in the best interest of their clients. I am
completely in favor of financial advisers doing so. I have cosponsored
legislation requiring that practice in law. I have cosponsored it and
tried to pass it. In fact, in my almost 20 years of working on
retirement policy in the U.S. Senate, I have never met anyone who
doesn't agree that financial advisers should act in the best interests
of their customers.
The problem with this rule is, it goes far beyond requiring a best
interest standard. It goes so far as to effectively prohibit the means
by which low- and middle-income Americans receive retirement advice. A
massive regulatory regime has been created by this rule. It will
undoubtedly raise the costs in a $24 trillion--or to put it in numbers
that are easier to understand, a $24 thousand billion industry. Sure,
large companies and retirement savers with large assets will probably
be able to deal with the increased costs, but what about the small
investors, the small advisers, the people interested in retirement
savings, the ones who have modest assets--like most of the cities and
towns in Wyoming. This rule will negatively impact the services and
choices available to investors. I can't imagine why limiting options,
limiting choices, and limiting services is being touted as a victory
for anyone.
My home State of Wyoming is hurting. Our energy-based economy is
declining significantly, largely due to regulations added by the Obama
administration. Now that same administration is issuing a regulation
that will hurt the future savings of my constituents.
Wealthy Americans across America will not be affected by this rule.
Yes, wealthy Americans will not be affected. They can go about
receiving their retirement advice the same way they always have.
However, many of my constituents will be affected by this rule. Their
retirement savings will suffer. It is as simple as that.
There are approximately 28.8 million small businesses in America.
Those businesses create two out of every three new private sector jobs
and employ nearly half of America's workforce. I am a former small
business owner. I know well what it takes to run a small business. This
rule will hurt retirement coverage among small businesses. It will
create burdens, limits, and options for small businesses trying to
offer retirement plans. In my experience, that will result in one of
two
[[Page S3081]]
things--either increased costs or no access to retirement advice.
The Obama administration is going to force small businesses to choose
between paying increased fees, which could jeopardize the success of
the business and therefore the jobs of the employees, or not providing
access to retirement savings for their employees, which jeopardizes the
lifelong income of those employees. It is a no-win situation for small
employers that are trying to take care of their employees and grow
their business.
I always say to learn from the mistakes of others as there is not
time enough to make them all yourself. This regulation has been tried
before. We have precedent to look to when examining the impact this
rule will have on our economy. A very similar change was made in the
United Kingdom just a few years ago, but this March the United Kingdom
released a study which confirmed that there is a very disturbing
retirement advice gap for low- and middle-income individuals, the very
ones I am talking about that will be affected here in America.
I have read how this administration--as well as some of my friends on
the other side of the aisle--has said that rule is different than that
issued by the United Kingdom. Here is the thing: it is not all that
different. The impact will be the same, and this is what has happened:
Wealthy individuals are getting access to retirement advice while
middle- and lower income individuals are not. I have not understood,
nor will I understand, why this regulation was put forward and
finalized.
The Department of Labor itself admitted on February 29 that
relatively little is known about how people make planning and financial
decisions before and during retirement, but that didn't stop them. The
Department of Labor, which is the proponent of this rule, does not know
how people make financial and planning decisions before and during
retirement. Why would they go ahead with such a disastrous regulation?
Why should such a seemingly disastrous regulation be put forward when
it is unknown how many people it will affect? Perhaps they should start
by finding out how average people make investment and retirement
savings decisions.
The regulation we are debating today has been lauded as one that will
help low- and middle-income individuals save for retirement. I refute
that claim with two main points. First, an analysis of a very similar
change to a retirement system has proven that the opposite has
occurred. Second, the authors of this regulation know little or nothing
about how many people this will impact or even in what ways. People who
give investment advice give it just fine right now, but they can see
what is coming. That is why they have been to my office and visited
with me about what they are going to have to do with the people who
come to them for investment advice--or the people they want to provide
services to.
There will likely be unintended consequences of this new regulation,
and as we have seen those will likely be painful consequences. As I
stated in the beginning of my remarks, we have a retirement coverage
gap in America. I have been working for almost 20 years in the Senate
to help close that gap. All this new regulation will do is limit
retirement advice for the people who need it the most. I urge my
colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Zika Virus
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, on Monday I hosted a roundtable
discussion at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore to
review, with experts from my community, the strategy we need to employ
with regard to the Zika virus.
I pointed out at the beginning of that roundtable discussion that the
World Health Organization has labeled the Zika virus as a public health
urgency of international concern. The World Health Organization has
estimated that as many as 4 million will be affected in the Americas.
We know the current numbers of reported cases in the United States. As
of last week, we had over 1,300 cases in the United States and our
territories. Almost all of those that we have in the United States, in
the Continental United States, are travel related.
We have 17 confirmed cases in Maryland. Those cases are going to go
up dramatically. We know that. As the summer months and the warm, wet
weather occurs, with the mosquito population occurring, we know the
number of people affected by the Zika virus is going to go up
dramatically.
This is the challenge. We know it is transmitted primarily through
mosquito bites, through mosquitoes. For example, we know that in Puerto
Rico, it is going to be very active. We also know in the United States
the mosquito population could very well act as a major transmitter of
the Zika virus, but the Zika virus is also transmitted through sexual
intercourse. Therefore, people who have the Zika virus and who may not
know they have the Zika virus--because many individuals who are
infected don't know they have the virus--this could become a major
problem in the United States.
What is at stake? We do know the Zika virus is directly linked to the
birth defect microcephaly. That is a tragic circumstance affecting
fetuses that could present a lifetime challenge for the child who is
born with microcephaly. We know it from the small skull. What I learned
at this roundtable discussion is that the complications from
microcephaly include lifetime disabilities. The brain is much smaller.
It is not capable. In many cases, it leads to blindness and death. It
is not unusual to have not only the human cost involved in this birth
defect, but the actual lifetime cost is estimated as high as $10
million for each child born with microcephaly. This is a huge challenge
to our country with the spread of the Zika virus.
There are also other conditions that have been associated with the
Zika virus, including Guillain-Barre syndrome. That is a nervous
condition, a nerve damage condition that can lead to death.
What is the answer? In this roundtable discussion, we had the public
health officers from Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County, Howard
Country, and Frederick County. We had experts dealing with mosquito
control. We had experts who were dealing with the development of
vaccines and treatments. We had a robust discussion as to what can be
done.
First and foremost, there was strong understanding that public
awareness is going to be critically important to dealing with the Zika
virus. The public needs to know. If you are pregnant or intend to start
a family, you need to know the risk factors.
It would be nice if you could have a test done to know whether you
have the Zika virus, but the problem is the current state of
development for the tests has produced two tests that the FDA has made
available upon an emergency basis. One looks at the person's immune
system that shows certain signs that person has the Zika virus. As I
said before, it is not clear whether you will have any symptoms, even
though you may have the virus. This one test looks at your immune
system and is not 100 percent reliable by any stretch of the
imagination, but it at least gives some indication. In many cases, you
have to take the test more than once.
There is another test that can be given that if you actually have the
virus in your system, it will show that, but there is a problem. The
virus does not stay long in your system, but you still have the impact
of the virus. So that could come back negative, but you still have the
effects of the Zika virus.
Also, we are not sure as to how long the Zika virus can be
transmitted through sexual contact. That issue is still being studied.
So it is very possible that a person may have been infected by the Zika
virus, does not realize they have been infected, and several months
later, through sexual intercourse, transmits the Zika virus to his or
her partner.
So these are all areas we want the public to know more about, and we
are developing more and more scientific information on tests that can
help us identify those who have the Zika virus, and hopefully we will
develop some
[[Page S3082]]
way of dealing with those who are infected.
Obviously, we want people who want to start a family to recognize
they should try to avoid areas where there is a large vulnerability to
the Zika virus. That will be particularly important this summer.
Lastly, we want to develop a vaccine. I must tell you that I was very
encouraged by the individuals involved in actual vaccine development
who were at the roundtable discussion I had--I was encouraged about the
fact that later this summer they will start clinical trials on vaccines
that they hope will produce a way to immunize a population from being
subject to the Zika virus.
That is very exciting, but before we get too excited, I was sobered
by the discussion in which I was told that the first rounds of these
vaccines are going to be rather difficult, that you may have to take it
several times, that it may be of a very short duration, and that it
will take more time before we can develop the types of vaccines that
are efficient and where it will be perhaps once in a lifetime that you
would need to take them to protect you from the Zika virus
indefinitely.
And this is also the challenge: The experts who were there on Monday
said this is not just a one-time-only situation; we can expect that the
Zika virus will be with us in the future.
So let me give you some of the takeaways from this discussion that
took place at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Dr. Wen, who is the health
commissioner for Baltimore City, made this point when we were talking
about the money. I went through the $1.9 billion the administration has
requested. I went through the different agencies, both domestic and
international, that would benefit from that $1.9 billion. I then
compared it to the $1.1 billion which has been acted on by the Senate
and showed the differences.
For example, if my math is correct, NIH would receive $77 million
less under the $1.1 billion than the $1.9 billion. We had people from
NIH at that roundtable talking about the research being done right now
to develop medicines and treatments that we hope will minimize the risk
of a birth defect for those who have been affected. No, we don't know
how to cure it. We don't have a treatment that can cure the Zika virus,
but we are hopeful that we will be able to develop the medical
protocols to minimize for those who are infected the risk of having a
child with a birth defect or developing the neurological damage. We
certainly don't want to slow that down, and so what I take away from
that discussion is that we want to make sure they have all the tools
they need in order to deal with this crisis.
Dr. Wen pointed out that if you take a look at some of the action in
the House of Representatives where they are taking additional monies
away from the funds that go to our local health departments, that is
counterproductive. Dr. Wen pointed out that the money she receives from
the public health emergency preparedness funding has been cut--cut--in
order to pay for the Zika funds. Well, it is the emergency preparedness
funds that are used by our local health departments to reach out and
deal with the vulnerable populations, to make sure they understand the
risk factors and do what they can to prevent the risk factors.
I must also tell you that I was talking to our representative from
Maryland at the Department of Agriculture, which does mosquito control.
Several people talked to me about mosquito control. One of the things
you want to do is have a comprehensive plan to eradicate mosquitoes
during the season. That is very effective. The problem is that these
budgets are capped. They do not have the resources to do what they need
to do. And they were telling me that we were better prepared a couple
of years ago than we are today in dealing with mosquito control. So we
need to coordinate that effort and do a better job on mosquito control.
We can't take money away from these programs.
Mr. President, they made this point very clearly: The crisis is now.
It is here. It is here in America today, and it is going to get worse
every month. We know that. We need to act now on the funding in an
emergency supplemental appropriations bill that can get to the
President's desk today, not in an appropriations bill that has to go
through the process, and that usually takes until the fall before we
can make those funds available.
I want to just go over a point that was made to me by one of the
individuals who was at this roundtable and who is an expert on cost
issues. He was explaining the mathematics to me. Dr. Bruce Lee, a Johns
Hopkins University associate professor of international health, modeled
the cost issues. He used the most conservative estimates and said that
our delay in dealing with the Zika virus will add an additional $2
billion in cost. As I said, for every child born with a birth defect,
we estimate the cost to be about $10 million. If we can avoid 100 of
these children born with a birth defect, that is $1 billion. The first
issue, of course, is the human cost of the Zika virus and the impact it
has on families and on those who are directly affected.
This, as Dr. Lee said, is an investment. The money we are making
available is an investment. What do we need to do? We need to make sure
money is available for mosquito control. That is one way we can stop
the spread of the Zika virus. We have to make sure money is available
for our local health departments because they are reaching out to
pregnant women.
Dr. Wen made a very important point to me: In many cases, we are
dealing with low-income families. They do not have air-conditioners. In
some cases, they do not even have screens. And they are going to be
more susceptible to the Zika virus because of mosquitoes. So they have
to reach out and do the things local health departments can do. And the
Baltimore City Health Department has a leader on all of this, but they
need their resources. So we need to make certain we fund our local
health departments. We certainly can't cut the funds being made
available.
We are also proud of the work done at NIH and the Centers for Disease
Control. We have to make sure they have the funds they need so they can
develop the ways we can test to make sure we know who has the Zika
virus and hopefully develop protocols for people who have the virus and
develop a vaccine as quickly as possible that is efficient and can be
widely used to prevent the Zika virus from moving forward.
All that is possible. I left the discussion in Baltimore with hope.
There is a way of dealing with it, but we have to express the urgency
this crisis demands. And, yes, we need to be an international leader.
Part of this is U.S. leadership globally. This is not the last crisis
we are going to have. U.S. leadership helped avoid a worse
international crisis than we saw with Ebola. As a result, we have now
developed health capacities in many countries around the world to deal
with the next pandemic. We know there will be another episode in the
future. We need to prepare today for this.
There is no more fundamental responsibility of the government than to
keep our people safe. We have the opportunity to respond in the right
way to the Zika virus, but it requires Congress to provide the tools so
that the experts in this area can do their work and develop the medical
protocols that deal with this, get the information out to the public so
they can protect themselves in the best way possible using pesticides,
using insect repellants, using common sense, and not traveling to areas
that are high-risk areas, particularly if they are pregnant or
intending to start a family. They can take the right precautions, and
we can develop a vaccine that will protect people not only in this
country but globally from this health care crisis. I am convinced we
can get it done. Let's start today by passing the funding necessary so
our agencies can do the work.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Department
of Labor's fiduciary rule.
Over the past year Nebraska's small business owners, retirees,
insurance and financial professionals, and individuals in a wide range
of other industries have expressed their concerns regarding this
fiduciary rule. Unfortunately, the negative feedback I hear has only
grown since the final version of this rule was published last month.
[[Page S3083]]
This dense and complicated rule would change the definition of a
fiduciary and what constitutes investment advice. In short, the rule
could make it more difficult for many individuals to open and to
maintain IRAs. It could also lead to fewer companies offering 401(k)
plans for their employees.
If the rule is implemented, lower income savers may face a
disadvantage compared to wealthier consumers with higher account
balances. It is often convenient for regulators in Washington to claim
they are protecting the middle class, but that is the very segment
which stands to lose the most from this new rule. Wealthier consumers
and larger businesses often have the resources to comply with costly
regulations, but small businesses are already struggling to stay
afloat. This rule could further hamper their operations by pricing them
out of the market.
Because of these and other concerns, I joined my colleagues to
cosponsor the Senate version of the joint resolution of disapproval of
this rule. An identical resolution passed the House on April 28 by a
wide margin, and later today the Senate will vote to pass the House
resolution and send it to President Obama's desk.
Congress has already offered responsible solutions to the problems
this rule is trying to address. For example, I am a cosponsor of
legislation introduced by Senator Mark Kirk, the Strengthening Access
to Valuable Education and Retirement Support--or SAVERS--Act, as well
as legislation introduced by Senator Isakson, the Affordable Retirement
Advice Protection Act. Both of these bills would protect Americans who
are saving for retirement without forcing them into the fixed-fee
arrangements the fiduciary rule would, in many circumstances, mandate.
These arrangements could create new roadblocks, making it harder--it
will make it harder for consumers to receive financial advice.
Nebraskans depend on this financial guidance to plan their futures
and also to provide for their families. Washington bureaucrats should
not be dictating whom you can hire and what investments you can make.
It is time to draw the line and to stop this injection of government
into the free market.
I am proud to fight on behalf of Nebraskans and their families for
their freedom to make the best financial decisions for their own
future, and I urge my colleagues to vote with me in support of this
resolution of disapproval.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
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. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Zika Virus
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, a poll last month found that 4 in 10
Americans had heard little or nothing about the Zika virus, and many
others were unaware that it was a risk to the United States. The likely
reason for this is that the virus isn't yet being transmitted locally
here in the United States.
But for all of us in Congress, this is not an excuse for inaction.
Our job is to anticipate threats, not just to respond to them. We have
all the information we need to know that the Zika virus is bad and is
potentially about to get worse.
In fact, I believe it won't be long before virtually all of our
people have heard of this virus, are concerned about it, and want to
know why their leaders aren't doing more to fight it. They want to know
what we are doing now. Sadly, the answer is not enough. Even though the
problem has been steadily getting worse, Congress has refused to treat
it with the urgency I believe it deserves.
There was a time when Zika was considered a foreign virus, but that
is no longer the case. As of today, there are now 544 cases in the
mainland United States, with more being confirmed almost daily. All of
those so far are travel related, but there are also 832 cases locally
transmitted in American territories, mostly in Puerto Rico. If the
problem is there, it won't be long before it is here on the mainland.
Just this week, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, which is the government's top authority on these issues,
warned that mosquitoes carrying Zika will begin infecting Americans in
the next ``month or so.'' Once those mosquitoes are here, they are
going to reproduce. As soon as we have one case of Zika transmitted
locally by a mosquito, there will be others that will follow shortly
thereafter.
Just a few days ago, the Centers for Disease Control announced that
157 pregnant women in the United States and another 122 in U.S.
territories have shown signs of infection from the Zika virus. This
should be another wake-up call for the Congress. Knowing that there are
at least 279 pregnant women in the United States with likely Zika virus
infections means we also potentially have at least 279 unborn children
at risk of microcephaly, and we should be doing all we can to save
these human beings.
So we have a limited amount of time to brace ourselves and get a
headstart on confronting this threat. Keep in mind that there is not
yet a vaccine for Zika. There is no cure for the conditions and for the
birth defects it causes. So for all of us as Americans but especially
for all of us as elected leaders, it is long past due to take this
virus seriously, because the virus is not just serious; this virus is
deadly serious, and so far the Congress is failing this test.
I am proud of the work done here in the Senate to pass a funding
measure. It may not have been as much as we may ultimately need, but at
least at $1.1 billion, a significant amount of money is going to go
toward fighting this threat.
To date, in the House, the story is different. Last week, the House
passed a $622 million package. This is about a third of what was
originally requested. The funds were secured by redirecting money
approved to respond to the Ebola outbreak in 2014. I want to be wrong
about this, but I fear that $622 million is simply not going to be
enough to deal with this problem if it heads in the direction that the
doctors and the experts are telling us it is headed.
So I come here on the floor of the Senate today to urge our
colleagues in the House and its leadership to realize that this threat
is knocking on our door and the opportunity to get out ahead of this
problem is quickly slipping away. Within a month, we are likely to have
a very different situation on our hands with regards to Zika. Not only
have we delayed action for far too long already, but we are not
expecting any action this week before Congress goes into recess next
week. In other words, it is likely Congress will let at least--at
least--another 2 weeks go by on this issue without any action.
So I urge the American people to make next week a tough one on those
who are home from Congress who have refused to take meaningful action
to confront Zika because they need to hear from you.
To any Members of Congress who don't receive pressure at home next
week, you should know that you soon enough will. While only a portion
of our constituents are currently concerned about Zika, that will
change the moment the first case locally transmitted by a mosquito is
confirmed in the mainland United States. Then we are going to have to
answer to those who want to know why we didn't act, and, quite frankly,
we are not going to have a satisfying answer. Waiting to act until we
have a panic on our hands is not leadership.
So I encourage the House to act on the scale the American people need
it to act, and I urge Congress to send a bill to the President as soon
as possible regarding this matter. I hope we will properly fund this
fight so we can win it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
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. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:45
p.m., all time be expired on H.J. Res. 88.
[[Page S3084]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. For the information of all of our colleagues, we
expect two votes at 4:45 this afternoon. The first vote will be on the
passage of H.J. Res. 88, and the second vote will be on the motion to
proceed to S.J. Res. 28.
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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today Americans have enough to worry
about. Questioning the advice they get for their retirement savings
accounts should not have to be one of them.
We finally have a new protection on the books that would help protect
seniors' retirement savings from biased retirement advice. It is called
the fiduciary rule, and it is pretty simple. It says if financial
advisers are giving people advice on their retirement accounts, they
should put their clients' best interests ahead of their own. But with
the resolution that is before us, Republicans want to prevent that rule
from ever helping people to save up for retirement. Instead, they are
dead set on saving the status quo that has allowed financial advisers
to line their own pockets at the expense of people trying to save for
their retirement. 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.
Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote no.
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. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, all time has expired on H.J. Res. 88.
The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper)
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--41
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Carper
Cruz
Sanders
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
____________________