[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 38 (Monday, March 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1591-S1601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE GENERAL 
    SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, AND THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
                             ADMINISTRATION

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 37, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) disapproving the rule 
     submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services 
     Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 6 p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with a number 
of my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 37. As it has just been announced, 
we will vote on it later today. I am glad to be joined by so many of my 
colleagues to fight against efforts to limit the application of the 
Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I fought to ensure that 
harmful provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2017 seeking to limit the applicability of this Executive order to 
DOD were stripped from the final bill signed into law in December, and 
I continue to feel strongly that we must do everything possible to 
defend American workers. That is what this issue concerns.
  In 2014, President Obama issued a critical Executive order, the Fair 
Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order. Then, last summer, after 
thorough analysis and due diligence by the Department of Defense and 
several other agencies, he implemented what is known as the fair pay 
and safe workplaces rule. That rule requires companies doing business 
with the Federal Government to disclose when they violate any of 14 
laws. The list of laws include some that are very familiar to all of 
us, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical 
Leave Act, and the Civil Rights Act. This list includes some other laws 
that may be somewhat more obscure, but those laws have been around for 
decades. They are well known in the workplace, and they are designed to 
protect

[[Page S1592]]

veterans, women, and people with disabilities from harmful, 
debilitating discrimination.
  There is no requirement that companies disclose trivial allegations; 
rather, the rule requires disclosures of violations that rise to a 
determination by a court or administrative body of an actual violation 
or serious pending administrative proceeding by an agency. Companies 
would know of such violations.
  Most companies play by the rules; all they need to do is check a box 
confirming they are in compliance. For those companies with compliance 
issues, the contracting agency would take information about those 
violations into consideration in the procurement process, and the 
contracting agency would then try to work with the company to make sure 
that it comes into compliance with the law. This Executive order is not 
about exclusion or about blackballing; in fact, it is about including 
and working with companies to bring them into compliance so they obey 
the law, knowing what the rules are, and wanting everybody to play by 
the same rules--not having an unfair advantage.
  This rule is not about blackballing or blacklisting companies. It is 
about ensuring that, if they want to do business with the Federal 
Government, they follow the law and provide a safe and equitable 
workplace, protecting American workers--veterans, women, and people 
with disabilities--who may be victims of harmful, debilitating 
discrimination.
  The rule is an effort to make Federal resources go to companies that 
are complying with the law or that are coming into compliance with 
Federal law. The reason behind it is to protect American workers, but 
it is also about creating a level playing field for all contractors and 
making sure there is a relationship of trust with contractors because 
we need partners who can be trusted to carry out the Federal 
Government's important work, especially in the area of building our 
defense weapons.
  Companies that violate the law are creating an unlevel playing field, 
forcing law-abiding companies into unfair competition, potentially 
raising their costs. They skirt the law, saving dollars, presenting 
low-ball offers, based on noncompliance, cutting corners by, in effect, 
ducking their legal obligations. If they are hired, they are also at 
risk of providing poor performance because a company that violates the 
law and disregards its obligation is much more likely to disregard its 
moral as well as its legal duties in complying with the contract.
  It is not just about saving dollars. It is about workers. Every year, 
tens of thousands of American workers are denied overtime wages, they 
are unlawfully victims of discrimination in hiring and pay, they have 
their health and safety put at risk by Federal contractors when they do 
cut corners, or they are denied basic workplace protections. That is 
another reason we need this rule, this Executive order, protecting 
workers and creating a level playing field.
  Some have called the fair pay rule one of the most important advances 
for workers in years, and it is. According to one assessment, one in 
five Americans are employed by companies that do business with the 
Federal Government. Ensuring that those one in five workers are 
protected helps countless Americans. It helps them in those workplaces, 
and it also sets a model for workplaces elsewhere.
  It is basic, simple transparency that enables the American people to 
know who executive agencies task with the work, using taxpayer dollars. 
So requiring companies to disclose--and this rule is about disclosure--
compliance records is something that many States, including 
Connecticut, already have in place through responsible bidder programs 
that use self-reporting to improve contractor quality by identifying 
companies with records of violating workplace laws, among other things.
  President Trump was rightly praised by many of my colleagues in 
calling for a ``level playing field'' for businesses in his speech 
before us, in Congress, last week, and he has been lauded for saying we 
need to deliver ``better wages for Americans.'' Yet here we are, just 
weeks into the administration and this new Congress, and we are seeing 
what the real priorities unfortunately are. Once we put aside the 
rhetoric, actions are what matter, and these actions truly demoralize 
and destroy law-abiding companies' chances to compete fairly, and they 
decimate rights of workers to safe and fair workplaces.

  I am troubled that rolling back this Executive order which I fought 
to achieve in the NDAA is so high a priority for the new administration 
and my colleagues here. Many organizations opposed this effort, and I 
am proud to join them in trying to forestall this rollback--the 
Easterseals organization, Paralyzed Veterans of America, VetsFirst, 
Vietnam Veterans of America, and many others who rightly fear that this 
course of action will do damaging injustice to our veterans and 
constituents with disabilities. It will also do potential damage to 
countless other workers involved in doing the people's work, such as 
performing contracts for the Federal Government funded with taxpayer 
dollars--our dollars--that can be used in discriminatory and unfair 
ways if this resolution is approved.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.J. Res. 37 later today and 
protect the fair pay and safe workplaces rule. For the sake of our 
constituents--women, veterans, workers with disabilities, and 
businesses of America--we must reject this assault on fairness and 
common sense.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Affordable Housing Tax Credit

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
talk about the affordable housing crisis in the United States of 
America and to talk about the reintroduction of legislation from last 
Congress that is going to be reintroduced by me, Senator Hatch, Senator 
Wyden, Senator Heller, Senator Schumer, Senator Murkowski, and the 
Acting President pro tempore--Senator Young--and several other of our 
colleagues.
  The reason we are introducing this important legislation is to say 
that we need to increase the tax credit for affordable housing in the 
United States. We are saying this because we know from reports and 
statistics that we have a housing crisis in the United States of 
America, and unless we increase the affordable housing tax credit, we 
are not going to see much more new supply. That is because 90 percent 
of the affordable housing that is built in the United States of America 
is built with a tax credit.
  Today, we are also releasing a report that is showing that the demand 
for affordable housing is exploding and construction is definitely not 
keeping pace. We are showing that seniors and veterans are at a greater 
risk for homelessness and that about a 60-percent increase in the need 
for affordable housing is being driven by Americans who are paying more 
than 50 percent of their income in rent, making it an unaffordable 
situation.
  We are introducing this important legislation that, we hope, will 
build 400,000 additional affordable housing units across the United 
States and that will also help create additional jobs.
  This is an issue that we are sending to the Finance Committee before, 
and I would hope my colleagues on the Finance Committee would take 
swift action. I say that because the report found three key factors. 
One is an increase of 9 million renters since 2005. That is a huge 
increase since 2005. How did we get there?
  Over 7 million Americans lost their homes due to foreclosure in the 
economic crisis. As a result, home ownership rates have been at their 
lowest levels since the mid-1960s. Over the last 10 years, we have seen 
the largest gain in the number of renters in any 10-year period of time 
on record. That is right. We increased the number of renters in this 
last 10-year period of time more than at any other time on the books.
  It kind of makes sense if you think about it. If the economic crisis 
caused you to downsize, and you were in a home and you could no longer 
afford it,

[[Page S1593]]

you would put pressure on the rental market. For those already in the 
rental market, it pushed many of them out of market-based rates and 
into solutions that were less affordable. As we all know, in major 
cities and urban areas across our country, it caused an actual 
homelessness crisis, as well, as many people could no longer even 
afford basic rent.
  The affordable housing crisis is exploding all over the country, and 
we face pressures from all sides. Demand for rental housing has 
increased by 21 percent, but we are building units at the lowest rate 
since 1970. It does not take more than basic economics to see that, 
with demand so high and supply so low, we need to do something if we 
are going to make a dent in this problem. If we do not increase the 
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, then, by the year 2025, we are going to 
have 15 million Americans who are spending more than half of their 
income on rent, and this is truly unacceptable.
  Our report shows that in the last decade the total number of 
Americans who have faced this extreme housing problem--that is, paying 
more than half of their incomes in rent--ballooned by 60-percent, and 
that has put a lot of pressure on many of our States. For my home 
State, the affordability crisis is actually getting worse than the 
national average. Since 2000, median rents have risen by 7.6 percent, 
which is 2.5 percent higher than in the rest of the country. As I said, 
it is all of those people coming from the foreclosure market into the 
rental market. On average, there is about a 3.5-percent increase in 
rents across the United States. In addition, there are 16 percent fewer 
affordable rental homes available in Washington State compared to the 
U.S. average. Overall, 400,000 Washingtonians are paying more than half 
of their monthly incomes in rent.
  We saw these numbers, and we saw specifically how seniors and 
veterans and homelessness are also driving the increase in demand. 
Senior unaffordability, which is the term given to people who are 
paying more than half of their incomes in rent, rose by 30 percent. 
With the veteran unaffordability, which is the number of the veterans 
who are returning and being part of the housing market, we will see an 
increase of over 500,000 veterans who need affordable housing.
  I think the Acting President pro tempore knows well that in his home 
State there are people who are trying to provide solutions in small 
towns and urban areas for our veterans so that they can have affordable 
places to live. The report also shows that doing nothing is going to 
continue to exacerbate the problem. We will see another 25-percent 
increase in unaffordability. That is just unacceptable.
  To help solve the problem of affordable housing, my colleague, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, and I are reintroducing the 
bipartisan Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act to strengthen and 
expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.
  Under this provision, the expanded tax credit would help create and 
preserve 1.3 million affordable homes over a 10-year period of time, 
which would be an increase of 400,000 new units nationwide. According 
to the National Association of Home Builders, annual LIHTC 
development--this is the overall appropriation--supports approximately 
95,700 jobs and $9.1 billion in wages. Investing in the low-income 
housing tax credit, which gives our citizens more affordable housing, 
is good for them, but it is also good for our economy. Enacting the 
proposal would create an additional 450,000 jobs over the next 10 years 
and would support the construction of these important units.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter from the National Association of Home Builders that talks 
about the economic benefit of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and 
this particular proposal, with their estimates of increased Federal 
revenue of $11.4 billion, State and local revenue of $5.6 billion, and 
a total of 452,000 jobs being created in that 10-year period of time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                                                Home Builders,

                                Washington, DC, November 11, 2016.
     Hon. Maria Cantwell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cantwell: As requested by your staff, the 
     Economics Group of the National Association of Home Builders 
     (NAHB) has provided the economic impacts of multifamily 
     construction as part of a review of S. 3237, the Affordable 
     Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2016.
       Our estimate relies on both internal NAHB data as well as 
     data provided to us by external sources. Estimates of per-
     unit revenue and employment impacts have been calculated 
     using NAHB's home building and remodeling economic impact 
     model.

        INCREASE IN TAX REVENUE PER MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNIT BUILT
                            [In 2014 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal....................................................       28,375
State and Local............................................       14,008
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................       42,383
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       To complete the estimate, NAHB used the existing estimate 
     that enacting S. 3237 would result in 400,000 additional low-
     income housing tax credit (LIHTC) units developed over ten 
     years.
       In total, NAHB estimates that the new 400,000 units would 
     result in 452,000 jobs as well as a gross increase in federal 
     revenues of $11.4 billion, and state and local revenues of 
     $5.6 billion, over ten years.

                            TEN-YEAR EFFECTS
                   [Revenue expressed in 2014 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Revenue............................................         11.4
                                                                 billion
State and Local Revenue....................................  5.6 billion
                                                            ------------
    Jobs...................................................      452,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       I hope this information is useful for you. For additional 
     information, please contact David Logan, Director of Tax 
     Policy Analysis at DL[email protected] or 202.266.8448.
           Sincerely,

                                          Robert Dietz, Ph.D.,

                                         Chief Economist, National
                                     Association of Home Builders.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I enter that into the Record because it 
is so important for our colleagues not to get stymied over the next 
several months, as we discuss proposals for economic development and 
for infrastructure across the United States, and not take action on 
this issue because we do not know how we can afford it. What we cannot 
afford is the rising number of Americans who no longer can afford rent 
or home ownership. What we need to do is to make sure that there is a 
roof over their heads and that they can be productive parts of our 
economy.
  Since its creation over the last 30 years, this tax credit has 
financed nearly 2.9 million homes across the United States, leveraging 
more than $100 billion in private sector investment. That is what I 
like most--a little bit of the tax credit going a long way to leverage 
the private sector into making investments in affordable housing. 
Between 1986 and 2013, more than 13 million people have lived in homes 
that have been financed by this tax credit.
  I hope my colleagues will take a look at this legislation that we are 
introducing today and help us support it. The crisis is real across 
America. Our report shows the crisis is only going to be exacerbated 
because of demographics and demand. The best way out of this problem is 
for us to make an investment that only we can make, as 90 percent of 
the affordable homes are built with the tax credit. Without increasing 
the tax credit by 50 percent, we are just writing our own statistics 
for a very, very dire situation across the United States of America.
  I see communities in my State that look like and reflect pictures 
that I have seen from the Great Depression. I know the recession hit us 
hard, but we have to climb out of this homelessness problem by making 
an investment in the affordable housing tax credit. It is a bipartisan 
success. I hope we can make its expansion a bipartisan solution that we 
all can get behind.
  I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, this is the 32nd time I have come to 
the

[[Page S1594]]

floor in the last year to talk about an issue that unfortunately is 
getting worse--not better--and that is the epidemic of opioids; that 
would be heroin, prescription drugs, and now, more recently, synthetic 
heroin, also known as fentanyl or U-4 or carfentanil.
  Every single day we are now losing 144 Americans to drug overdoses. 
Think about that, every single day, 144 people. By the way, that means, 
during the time it takes to give these remarks, which will be about 12 
minutes, on average, we are losing another American to this opioid 
epidemic.
  It is an issue that is now so serious that it has overtaken car 
accidents or even homicides from gun violence as the No. 1 accidental 
cause of death in our country.
  It is easy to get discouraged because we see these statistics. We 
hear about the overdoses. We hear about the deaths. We hear about the 
difficulty for people to get out of the grips of this addiction. The 
relapse rate is high. It is an issue that is affecting every single 
community in this Chamber. By the way, it is affecting our inner 
cities, it is affecting our suburbs, it is affecting our rural areas 
and every group of Americans out there. No one is immune from this, and 
it knows no ZIP Code.
  Yet today I want to talk a little about some of the reasons for hope 
and some of the models of success out there because this Congress, to 
its credit in the last year, has actually gotten much more serious 
about this issue. We passed two pieces of legislation to help; 
particularly, to provide better prevention and education to keep people 
from getting into the funnel of addiction and then, second, to help in 
terms of providing the resources: the treatment, the recovery. The 
longer term recovery, in particular, it is the first time Congress has 
stepped up on that.
  We also need to do a better job ensuring that our law enforcement and 
our other first responders have what they need to save lives and to be 
able to reverse the effects of overdoses through this miracle drug 
called naloxone or Narcan. It is part of the legislation that has not 
just been passed but is beginning to be implemented.
  Fortunately, in my own State of Ohio--although we have one of the 
worst addiction problems in the country--we also have a lot of really 
compassionate people who have stepped forward and are taking advantage 
of these resources, including not only resources from Washington now 
but also from State and local governments and from so many nonprofits 
out there. They are taking advantage of that to provide better 
treatment, better recovery, and better prevention. As a result, they 
are saving lives.
  On Saturday, I visited a group called Clean Acres in Wilmington, OH. 
It is a farm that provides recovery housing for men. These are men who 
are struggling with addiction. They work on the farm. They provide each 
other support, and it has been very successful for a lot of them.
  I met a guy named Dan, who told me how Clean Acres is helping him get 
his life back. For over a decade, he was a heroin addict. He shot up 
every morning until one day, he was actually at work, and he passed 
out. He was digging a ditch, and he passed out.
  He was rushed to the hospital. The doctors discovered he had a very 
serious infection related to his intravenous drug use. He required 
emergency, lifesaving surgery right then.
  The doctors told him he might not wake up. He did wake up after that 
surgery, and there before him were his three kids. He hadn't seen them 
in 5 years because--in so many cases you hear this and as Dan said 
this--the drugs became everything. He said, not his family, not his 
relationships, not his friends, not his work--the drugs became 
everything. These three kids had come to his bedside because they 
thought it might have been his deathbed, he said.
  He saw these three kids, whom he hadn't seen in 5 years. He said that 
even after having experienced this near-death operation and having his 
three kids there, the first thought that came to his mind was: Where 
can I get another hit? Where can I get another hit? But then, in the 
situation he was in, he prayed, and he said his prayer was: ``Lord, 
help me get out of here.'' ``Help me get out of here,'' meaning, ``help 
me get out of this situation.''
  He made a decision. He was going to try treatment again. He had tried 
treatment before. So many recovering addicts and addicts I talk to 
around my State have been in and out of treatment programs, detox 
treatment. It hasn't worked.
  He decided this time he was not just going to get into treatment, but 
he was going to try something different, which was not to go back to 
the old neighborhood, not to go back to his old friends, but instead to 
try longer term recovery. That is how he ended up at Clean Acres. That 
is this farm where he and other men live together. They work, but they 
support each other to try to keep their lives on track after their 
treatment is over. It doesn't provide the treatment, but it does 
provide them with the meetings they need to be able to have that 
support around them in order to keep clean.
  As one of the men at Clean Acres told me, it is hard to go through 
treatment. It is much harder to stay clean after treatment.
  So Dan is healing himself. He is working at the farm. He plans to go 
into construction. He has big plans now. That is the hope. That is the 
opportunity for people to get their lives back on track whom I see 
every day when I talk to the people in my home State of Ohio.
  Last week, I was also at Racing for Recovery, outside of Toledo, OH. 
I met with Todd Crandell. He has been in recovery from addiction for 
about 20 years. He is now giving back in a huge way.
  I met with parents who had lost children to addiction. They come to 
Todd's organization, Racing for Recovery. They find support there, and 
they help other parents to work through this.
  I met law enforcement officers there who are working with this 
recovery facility to try to ensure that the people whom they are 
locking up aren't going to just get right back into the revolving door 
again, back in and out of prison, back committing crimes. The No. 1 
cause of crime in the State of Ohio is this addiction; people who, 
again, put the drug first ahead of everything, including their own 
sense and their own conscience, their own sense of what is moral and 
right, and instead they are committing burglaries and fraud and 
shoplifting--anything they can do to get the funds they need to 
continue their addiction.
  I met Jessica at Racing for Recovery. She has been clean for 9 
months. Before she sought help, she overdosed for 3 days in a row. She 
said her life was saved by the police; specifically, a program by the 
Lucas County Police Department called the Drug Abuse Response Team, 
DART. I am really impressed with DART and what they are doing. It is 
now being copied in other communities around Ohio and around the 
country. DART is being proactive. They got her engaged in treatment and 
recovery. She is now in sober housing. Todd, Jessica, and others there 
told me this: Look, you have to have this longer term recovery because 
that is what works.

  A couple of weeks ago, during the State work period, I held a 
roundtable discussion in Fremont, OH, where I met Matt Bell. Matt is an 
amazing guy--a charismatic, young guy. He said that for him the gateway 
drug was marijuana and alcohol in high school. He ended up overdosing 
on heroin three times. He was convicted of 13 felonies, and he went to 
detox 28 times. Now he is clean and preventing new addictions from 
taking place by working nonstop to raise public awareness about the 
dangers of drug use. He goes around to the schools, and he doesn't just 
talk to kids who are juniors and seniors. He talks to middle schoolers 
because he knows he has to go younger and younger to get kids to think 
about their own futures, about the fact that addiction can happen in 
one use sometimes, and it is something that can ruin their lives. Thank 
God for Todd and thank God for Matt, because guys like that are out 
there every day giving back and they are saving lives.
  So I want to thank all these compassionate people I have met--Clean 
Acres, Racing for Recovery, the Lucas County DART team, and Team 
Recovery. They are doing the hard work. They are in the trenches trying 
to actually turn the tide on this growing addiction problem we have. 
Again, I want to tell them that help is on the way.
  Last year Congress did pass the 21st Century Cures Act and authorized

[[Page S1595]]

funding for States--$500 million this year and $500 million for next 
year--to fight this epidemic. Another step we took, which I think was 
probably the biggest step we have taken in a couple of decades in this 
area, was the passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, 
or the CARA Act. Those who know about CARA know that it is a new 
approach on treatment, recovery, and prevention. If you don't know 
about it, look it up and check it out. Be sure that the groups in your 
town, wherever you live, know about the fact that they can apply for 
grant money to be able to help on these recovery services that I am 
talking about, many of which do not have the funding to be able to be 
successful without the increases in rehab. Be sure they know about the 
fact that if you have a fire department in your community that is 
strapped for cash and cannot afford the Narcan to provide the Narcan 
treatments, there is an opportunity to apply for grants there, too, to 
be able to save lives from overdoses. Narcan is not the answer. The 
answer is to get into treatment. But Narcan is saving lives, and, 
therefore, it is necessary today. So let people know that is around and 
is available now.
  Sadly, the situation is not getting better, even with these new 
efforts that are finally being implemented by the new administration. 
They started at the end of the Obama administration with a couple of 
programs, and now we have a couple more programs coming on line. Within 
the next few months, we expect the rest of the programs to be fully 
implemented. They are absolutely necessary, but they are pushing up 
against something new, which is, I hate to say, even more dangerous 
than heroin, and that is this synthetic heroin that is coming into our 
communities. It is like a poison coming into our communities by the 
U.S. mail system, if you can believe it.
  The experts tell us that most of this fentanyl or carfentanil is 
being made in laboratories overseas, mostly in China, and it has been 
coming through the mail system. Why? Because the traffickers don't want 
to use other private carriers--UPS or FedEx or others--because they 
require that there be advanced digital information on where the package 
is from, what is in it, and where it is going. Guess what. We don't 
require that in the mail system. So the bad guys choose to send it 
through the mail system instead. That certainly is something the 
Federal Government should address.
  So we have introduced legislation called the STOP Act. It is very 
simple. It says that if you want to send something to the United States 
of America, it has to say where it is from--what place in China--what 
is in the package, where it is going, and it can only go to the place 
they say it is going. That gives our law enforcement a new tool they 
are desperate to have because they are not able to look at millions of 
packages. But they can look at hundreds and this helps them to ferret 
out those packages that look most suspicious.
  By the way, this new stuff, fentanyl and carfentanil, is incredibly 
powerful and incredibly dangerous. It is believed to be 30 to 50 times 
more powerful than heroin. Think about that. I was in Dayton, OH, a 
week before last and was meeting with the law enforcement task force 
there. They told me the sad story about a little girl, 14 years old, 
who was told by her friends: You ought to snort this stuff; it is 
called heroin. She did. It was fentanyl, and she dropped dead. She 
overdosed and died immediately because it was so powerful. Even a few 
flakes of it, they say, can kill you.
  According to the Cleveland medical examiner of Cleveland, OH, this 
past month of February, which is the shortest month in the year, was 
also the deadliest month in Northeast Ohio for fentanyl and heroin. In 
other words, what they are seeing is not just more overdoses but more 
deaths because of fentanyl being mixed with heroin or sometimes 
fentanyl in its pure form. In just 28 days this February, 60 
Clevelanders died from overdoses in one month. This is one city in 
America. There are another seven cases that are undergoing tests, but 
they are suspected to be the result of heroin and fentanyl overdoses.
  What is driving the growth of this epidemic is the increasing use of 
fentanyl. Drug traffickers are lacing other drugs with it. I was told 
by the DART task force in Toledo that they are actually putting 
fentanyl in marijuana now, and people are showing up in the emergency 
room and overdosing on marijuana because it is sprinkled with fentanyl. 
It is more addictive. So the traffickers like it. It is more deadly. So 
we need to fight back. The Drug Enforcement Administration says it 
takes 2 milligrams of fentanyl to kill you. That is about the same as a 
pinch of salt. Many heroin users don't realize that the heroin they buy 
on the street may contain these new incredibly powerful synthetic 
drugs. So part of the message has to be what one father told me, which 
is: You are playing Russian roulette every time you use these drugs 
because you don't know what is in it. If there is fentanyl in it, there 
is a good chance you won't just overdose, but you will end up as one of 
these statistics we talked about earlier.
  In Lorain, OH, last Monday, a 29-year-old man drove off the road and 
nearly hit a tree. When police arrived they found him unconscious from 
an overdose, with a baby in the backseat--a baby in the backseat. It 
took several doses of this Narcan and naloxone to reverse the effects 
of the overdose. Ordinarily, it would take only one dose, but with 
fentanyl-laced heroin it takes more. When police went to his home, a 
child answered the door and said: Mommy is sleeping, and we can't wake 
her up. Again, this is the guy that overdosed in the car. They take the 
kid home and another kid says: Mommy won't wake up. They find out the 
mother is also unconscious from a heroin overdose that she had in front 
of her four children. According to police, the couple thought they were 
using heroin, but tests confirm that it was laced with fentanyl.

  This is an opportunity for us in the Congress to pass legislation 
that will help to be able to stop some of this poison from coming into 
our communities. At a minimum, it will raise the price, because some of 
this fentanyl, I am told, is less expensive than even the things that 
are less powerful, like heroin.
  Fentanyl took the life of Erin Jarvis of Troy, OH. Erin was a prom 
queen. Erin was very popular. She was active in student government. She 
was captain of her soccer team. She got good grades. She got into Ohio 
University, a great school.
  She had multiple knee injuries from playing soccer, which required 
surgery. She was prescribed Percocet. She became addicted. At Ohio 
University, her friend introduced her to a drug that was stronger and 
cheaper and easier to get. Of course, that was heroin. This story I 
have heard so many times. There is the overprescribing, sometimes 
because of an accident and an injury, and, then, somebody becomes 
addicted and turns to heroin because it is cheaper and easier to get. 
Erin began disappearing for days at a time, stealing from her family. 
Her mom Kelly started missing jewelry, credit cards, and even a TV set. 
When her sister got her wisdom teeth taken out, she stole her sister's 
Percocet. By the way, she never should have gotten Percocet for her 
wisdom teeth, in my view.
  Erin finally got help. She went to rehab. She decided she wanted to 
become a nurse and help others struggling with addiction. After 
receiving treatment, she moved back in with her mom. But she relapsed, 
and she died. She died at the age of 24 with this promising life ahead 
of her. Her last words to her mom were these: I love you. The next day 
Kelly watched her daughter get taken out of their home in a body bag.
  Tests showed that Erin died of an overdose of heroin laced with 
fentanyl. According to the coroner, she hadn't used the full injection. 
There was a lot left in the needle. He said: I suspect that what was in 
that syringe was not what she thought it was--exactly.
  Families who have loved ones struggling with addiction are worried 
about the poison pouring into the streets, and you can see why. As 
deadly as heroin is, this stuff is even worse.
  To keep this poison off the streets, Senator Klobuchar, Senator 
Rubio, Senator Hassan, and I have introduced bipartisan legislation, 
the Synthetic Trafficking and Overdose Prevention Act, or the STOP Act, 
which would require the Postal Service to require this simple 
information that would give our law enforcement the ability to target 
these packages of fentanyl.

[[Page S1596]]

  Based on expert testimony in hearings we have had hearings before the 
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, it would 
make it easier for them to detect those packages. That is what law 
enforcement is asking for. We should provide it to them. There is a 
bill in the House that is identical to ours, introduced by Congressman 
Pat Tiberi of Ohio and Congressman Richard Neal of Massachusetts.
  This is not the silver bullet, as I said. It is not the solution. No 
one has that silver bullet, but it would take away a key tool of drug 
traffickers and restrict the supply of these drugs, raising their price 
and making it harder to get. With the threat of this synthetic heroin 
and this poison coming into our communities every day, we need to act 
and act now.
  So I would urge my colleagues to let their constituents know about 
the help that is on the way. Tell them about what is going on with the 
Cures Act and CARA legislation. Put it on your website so they know 
they can get help with treatment and recovery that was not previously 
out there. Our law enforcement, first responders, and firefighters can 
get the help they need to be able to get the training and have the 
funds for Narcan to save lives. We can do much better in terms of 
prevention and education. Some of this grant money is directed toward 
letting people know the connection between prescription drugs and 
heroin and between fentanyl and heroin.
  Finally, to my colleagues, please join us in pushing back against 
these new poisons coming into our communities by cosponsoring the STOP 
Act and by requiring that this basic information be provided. With more 
cosponsors, I think our leadership will be much more likely to take 
this to the floor. Once it gets to the floor, it can be passed because 
people know that in their communities all over this country this 
epidemic must be stopped.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Madam President, the 115th Congress has now been in 
session for 2 months. Republicans control the House of Representatives, 
the Senate, and the White House. So what have they done so far with 
that power? Have they passed legislation to create jobs or increase 
wages for middle-class families? No. Have they proposed any plan to put 
Americans back to work fixing our roads, bridges, and other crumbling 
infrastructure? No. Have they done anything at all to help seniors who 
are struggling with high drug prices and other expenses? Not even 
close.
  During his campaign, President Trump said over and over that he would 
stand up for workers. But so far, Republicans haven't voted on a single 
piece of legislation to help working families put food on the table, 
send their kids to college, or save a little money for retirement. No, 
they haven't helped families, but they have been busy.
  With no hearings and barely any debate, Republicans have found a new 
tool, one that has been used successfully only once before in history, 
under the Congressional Review Act. They have used it to kill basic 
protections for workers. No wonder they haven't wanted any headlines 
about the actual work they are getting done.
  Senate Republicans want to repeal the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces 
Executive order. So instead of creating jobs or raising wages, they are 
trying to make it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer-
funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees and 
injure their workers without admitting responsibility.
  The American people spend around $500 billion every year on private 
companies that provide goods and services to the government. Those 
companies do everything from building battleships and fighter jets to 
serving snacks at national parks. It is big business. It is estimated 
that as many as one in five American workers works for a company with 
at least one Federal contract.

  With so much taxpayer money on the line, it really matters that 
contractors are using it responsibly. While many contractors are good 
employers, others cut corners on safety or squeeze their workers on 
wages and benefits just to keep their corporate profits going up, and 
they break Federal labor laws to do so. Here are just two examples.
  VT Halter Marine is a company that builds ships for the Navy. They 
have received $680 million in Federal contracts since 2009--taxpayer 
dollars that were supposed to be used to create good, safe jobs. 
Instead, VT Halter took a lot of shortcuts on worker safety, and now 
they have killed or injured multiple workers at their shipyards in 
Mississippi.
  In 2012, a worker died after the lid of a 20-pound cast iron pot 
containing abrasive ship-cleaning liquid came loose and sheared away 
his face. Investigations showed that VT Halter had ignored safety 
requirements to show employees how to safely handle these pots.
  In 2014, a crane collapsed at VT Halter, injuring five workers, 
including a crane operator, who lost part of his skull, is now blind, 
and requires 24-hour nursing care. That employee had repeatedly told 
his supervisors that the sensors on his crane were broken, but VT 
Halter kept him working, and now he is blind and needs full-time 
nursing care.
  The list goes on and on. Each time, VT Halter ignored the law, 
workers got hurt or killed, and the company got a slap on the wrist and 
another top-dollar defense contract courtesy of the American taxpayer.
  Contractors that cannot meet basic safety standards should not get a 
single dollar of taxpayer money, and the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces 
Executive order was the first step in making sure that this was the 
case.
  Other Federal contractors have found other ways to take advantage of 
their workers and to boost profits. Federal contractors have been 
caught stealing wages from hundreds of thousands of workers. Right here 
in the Senate, the men and women who prepare the food in the cafeteria 
have had their wages stolen by the contractor that employs them. The 
Department of Labor just found out that hundreds of these hard-working 
employees together were owed more than $1 million in back wages. This 
case was right under our noses. There are countless more all across the 
country where the very companies that receive taxpayer money from the 
government are taking shortcuts, breaking the law, cheating their 
employees out of hard-earned wages, and driving working families into 
poverty.
  Republicans in the House of Representatives have called this rule ``a 
solution in search of a problem,'' saying it would ``only hurt workers 
and small businesses,'' as if the deaths of those working for Federal 
contractors or the thefts of their wages was just business as usual and 
they didn't care. That position is parroted by the chamber of commerce, 
which calls the rule ``burdensome'' and ``unwarranted.''
  My Republican colleagues and their buddies in the giant corporations 
that rely on huge Federal contracts to keep profits high want the 
American people to believe that by making it easier for companies that 
mistreat their workers to profit off of taxpayer dollars, somehow they 
are helping workers. That is just nuts.
  Here is what the rule does: When a company wants a contract from the 
government that is worth more than $500,000, it has to disclose any 
judgments against it for violating labor laws for the preceding 3 
years. The order also asks the Secretary of Labor to work with other 
agencies to come up with standards for assessing whether labor 
violations are serious, repeated, or willful.
  If you are a company that does right by your workers, this rule will 
not affect you--not one bit. If you pay your workers fairly and keep 
them safe on the job, you won't even notice the new rule. It also does 
not stop companies from getting contracts if they have had just a few 
violations but have taken steps to remedy the problem, and it does not 
add one bit to the burden on smaller companies that bid on smaller 
contracts--again, not one bit.
  So who gets hit by this rule? Who is it who is complaining? Who are 
the Republicans trying to protect? Massive corporations that repeatedly 
cut corners that put their employees' lives at risk or that steal their 
wages. This rule keeps the big corporations that are the biggest labor 
violators from getting the biggest contracts.

[[Page S1597]]

  Once again, this debate is about whom Congress actually works for. 
Does Washington work for the taxpayers, who want to see their hard-
earned money spent responsibly? Do we work for the hard-working 
Americans, who want to be paid what they are promised and not have to 
put their lives at risk for a paycheck? Do we work for giant 
contractors that rake in enormous tax dollars and cannot even follow 
basic safety rules for American workers?
  I came to Washington to stand with the men and women who go to work 
every day to build roads and bridges, to help communities recover from 
natural disasters, and to provide healthcare to our veterans. I think 
that is what we are here for. But the Republican majority wants to 
stand up for giant corporations that put workers at risk. They want to 
stand up against good, safe, well-paying jobs. That is their priority 
in the new Congress. If they succeed, it will be the American taxpayers 
and the American workers who quite literally pay the price.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, yesterday the New York Times published a 
story about the nearly 100 Federal protections this administration has 
attacked. The article highlighted a few of the outcomes of these 
attacks. For example, telecommunication companies are no longer 
required to take reasonable measures to protect the Social Security 
numbers of their customers, and people with severe, disabling mental 
health issues are now able to buy guns--but do not worry because 
refugees from war-torn countries like Sudan won't be coming into our 
country anytime soon. Today, in about an hour, Republicans are going 
after yet another protection. This time, it is one that protects 
Americans who work for Federal contractors.
  Up until a few years ago, companies that cut corners and saved money 
by treating their employees badly held a competitive advantage over 
law-abiding companies in competing for Federal contracts, so President 
Obama put a policy in place to take away that advantage. In 2015, he 
put a new protection in place so that the companies that had histories 
of unsafe working conditions would have to report those histories when 
they applied for Federal contracts. The idea here is pretty simple: If 
you want to work for the Federal Government, you need to follow the 
law, and if you do not, the government has a right to know so that the 
companies that cut corners do not have a competitive advantage by being 
able to bid more cheaply over those who play by the rules.
  Republicans often claim to be in favor of leveling the playing field 
for businesses. After all, that was the rationale that was used last 
month when they voted so that coal companies were no longer responsible 
for cleaning up their own messes and oil companies could hide payments 
to foreign governments. Both of those actions were taken in the 
supposed spirit of caring about the ability of companies to compete. 
Business competition was placed above the rights of communities to 
clean air and clean water or the right of American consumers to know 
they are not supporting a dictator when they fill up at the fuel tank.
  But now, when it comes to safe workplaces and pay discrimination, 
suddenly, having companies compete on a level playing field is not the 
priority. This just does not make sense to me. This policy was good for 
workers, good for taxpayers, and good for companies that play by the 
rules. We should all agree that companies that have good safety and 
wage records should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage, but 
the Republicans are giving Federal contractors a green light for pay 
discrimination and unsafe working conditions. That is the only signal 
we send by taking away this policy from the previous administration. 
This is yet another example of the empty words of an administration 
that claims to care about empowering women in the workplace.
  Last week, the President signed two Executive orders that were 
designed to appear to promote women in the workplace, but when you look 
beyond the photo-op and the actual orders, they do not do a thing for 
women in the workplace. They do not put one Federal dollar toward 
advancing gender equality and gender equity. Now the Republicans are 
putting a bill on the floor and eventually on the President's desk that 
will make it easier for companies that discriminate against women in 
the workplace to get Federal dollars.
  If this administration and if this Congress really care about making 
sure women do not face bias and discrimination, if they really care 
about businesses being able to compete on a level playing field, then 
why attack this protection?
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote to keep the fair 
pay and safe workplaces protection in place.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, over the years, Congress has enacted 
laws to make workplaces safer and fairer and to raise wages for 
American workers. These laws protect American workers. These laws make 
America more productive. And these laws help to preserve good, safe, 
middle-class jobs.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act introduced the 40-hour workweek, 
established a national minimum wage, and guaranteed time-and-a-half for 
overtime. The Occupational Safety and Health Act ensures that employers 
keep the workplace free from hazards like toxic chemicals, excessive 
noise levels, mechanical dangers, or unsanitary conditions. The Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by employers because of 
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The American with 
Disabilities Act prohibits unjustified discrimination based on 
disability. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires affirmative action 
to employ qualified individuals With disabilities. The Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act forbids employment discrimination 
against older workers. The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment 
Assistance Act requires equal opportunity and affirmative action for 
veterans. The Equal Pay Act addressed wage disparities based on gender. 
The Family and Medical Leave Act requires covered employers to provide 
employees job-protected unpaid leave for qualified medical and family 
reasons. The Davis-Bacon Act requires paying the local prevailing wages 
on public works projects. And the National Labor Relations Act protects 
the rights of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, 
engage in collective bargaining for better terms and work conditions, 
and take collective action including strike if necessary. These laws 
are already on the books. It is already against the law for Federal 
contractors to violate them. The obligation to comply with basic 
workplace protections applies to employers, whether they are government 
contractors or not and that obligation will remain in force regardless 
of what Congress does on the rule today.
  At issue today is a rule that simply requires contractors to share 
information about their history of compliance with workplace 
protections in the last 3 years before getting a Federal contract. The 
rule does not impose any new compliance obligations on government 
contractors.
  It has long been a tenet of Federal Government contracting that it is 
better to contract with responsible contractors that abide by the law, 
including labor laws. It also furthers economy and efficiency. Many 
studies find a strong correlation between labor law compliance and 
performance. One study found that from 2005 to 2009, one quarter of the 
companies that committed the top workplace violations and later 
received Federal contracts had significant performance problems on 
their contracts. It is not surprising that employers that abide by the 
law also do a better job on their contracts.
  In the mid-1990s, however, the Government Accountability Office, then 
known as the General Accounting Office, found that the Government had 
awarded Federal contracts worth more than $60 billion to companies that 
had violated the National Labor Relations Act or the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act. More than 10 years later, the GAO found that the 
pattern continued. GAO found that almost two-thirds of the largest 
wage-and-hour violations and almost 40 percent of the largest workplace 
health-and-safety penalties issued between 2005 and 2009 were made 
against companies that went on to receive new Government contracts. 
Between 2007 and 2012, 49 Federal contractors responsible for large 
violations of

[[Page S1598]]

Federal labor laws were forced to pay more than $91 million in back 
wages.
  To help address this problem, in August of last year, the Department 
of Defense, the General Services Administration, and NASA jointly 
issued the rule that we are talking about today. The rule amended the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement Executive Order 13,673 on 
Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces. That Executive order was designed to 
increase efficiency and cost savings in Federal contracting by 
increasing contractor compliance with labor laws. At the same time last 
August, the Department of Labor issued guidance to help Federal 
agencies implement the Executive Order and the rule.
  The rule also prohibited companies with contracts larger than $1 
million from denying employees who are the victims of sexual assault, 
sexual harassment, or discrimination their day in court by forcing them 
to arbitrate these claims.
  The rule helps to provide a level playing field for businesses that 
play by the rules. By requiring disclosure of violations, it encourages 
contractors to pay fair wages and provide safe workplaces. The rule 
helps to ensure that the government awards Federal contracts and the 
taxpayer dollars that fund them to responsible employers that comply 
with workplace safety laws, antidiscrimination laws, sexual harassment 
laws, and minimum wage and overtime laws. Without the rule, millions of 
taxpayer dollars would go to businesses that break these laws.
  After my home State of Maryland implemented a living wage standard 
for contractors, the average number of bids for State contracts 
actually increased by nearly 30 percent. Nearly half of contractors 
interviewed by the State government said that the new standards 
encouraged them to bid, because the standards leveled the playing 
field.
  Under the Federal rule, prospective contractors report the 
information themselves. The vast majority of contractors adhere to 
labor laws. If a prospective contractor does not have any violations, 
it simply checks a box.
  Companies that do business with the government employ one in five 
Americans, so this rule improves the lives of millions of workers.
  In September of last year, Donald Trump delivered a speech on jobs at 
the New York Economic Club. In that speech, Mr. Trump advocated what he 
called ``a new policy of Americanism.'' ``Under this American System,'' 
Mr. Trump said, ``every policy decision we make must pass a simple 
test: Does it create more jobs and better wages for Americans?'' The 
rule at issue today passes that test. It helps to create better wages 
for Americans. And repealing the rule would flunk the test that Mr. 
Trump laid out last year. Nonetheless, once again the Republican 
majority seeks to employ the blunt instrument of the Congressional 
Review Act to repeal that rule today.
  Some critics label the Fair Pay rule as a ``blacklisting'' rule. But 
the rule does not require a contracting officer to deny any contract 
based on a history of labor violations. The rule simply provides 
information to contracting officers to help them make decisions that 
about whether a contractor is responsible. The goal of the rule is to 
encourage companies to come into compliance--not to bar them.
  Enacting this Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution could 
effectively stop any new rules on the disclosure of labor law 
violations or the consideration of labor law violations as a 
requirement for Federal procurement contracts. Enacting this resolution 
will send the wrong message to companies who are tempted to skirt the 
law. And enacting this resolution will make it more likely that Federal 
dollars once again go to law-breaking contractors.
  This resolution goes in the wrong direction, and thus I oppose it.
  Mr. SCHATZ. 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. FRANKEN. 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. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes or 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the effort by my 
Republican colleagues, including the President, to dismantle the Fair 
Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order and roll back protections for 
workers.
  For too long, many workers in this country have been subject to 
dangerous working conditions, wage theft, discrimination, and 
harassment. While most companies follow the law and play by the rules, 
a few have cut corners at the expense of workers' rights and safety and 
have factored in paying penalties as just another cost of doing 
business. That is not fair for workers, and it is not fair for the 
businesses that play by the rules. It is time we put a stop to it.
  We certainly should not be spending taxpayers' dollars to pay Federal 
contractors who violate--and sometimes repeatedly violate--Federal 
labor laws. Repeated violations by Federal contractors is a serious 
problem.
  According to a 2013 HELP Committee staff report, 49 government 
contractors accounted for 1,776 Federal labor law violations. We are 
talking about things like an unsafe workplace, discriminating against 
workers, or failing to pay workers what they earned. Understand when I 
talk about unsafe workplaces, I am talking about fatalities. But 
despite these widespread violations, these companies continue to 
receive taxpayer-funded Federal contracts worth $81 billion a year.
  My colleagues may have seen a recent Politico Magazine report on VT 
Halter. VT Halter is a major Navy shipbuilder, but its safety track 
record is deeply concerning. In 2009, two workers were killed and five 
others injured--some severely--when an explosion occurred at a VT 
Halter shipyard. A month later, they received an $87 million Federal 
contract. About 6 months after the explosion, VT Halter settled charges 
relating to the explosion, admitting that they had willfully violated 
at least 12 Occupational Safety and Health Administration--or OSHA--
workplace safety rules to prevent incidents like this from occurring--
an incident in which two workers died. They willfully violated--
willfully; that is willfully violated.
  That explosion wasn't VT Halter's only incident. In 2009, a worker 
fell to his death at another VT Halter shipyard where there were no 
handrails or fall protections. In 2012, the company was fined by OSHA 
after a worker at a VT Halter shipyard was killed when the lid on a 
pressurized pot exploded. They were fined again in 2014 for violating 
crane safety rules after two cranes tipped over, injuring five workers, 
including one 63-year-old worker who now has the mental capacity of a 
child.
  It doesn't make sense to keep rewarding companies like this with 
lucrative contracts when they repeatedly--and, again, willfully--
disregard basic safety protections.
  To address this problem, in 2014 President Obama issued an Executive 
order that essentially says that if you have repeatedly broken our 
labor laws, the Federal Government will need to examine a company's 
compliance record on labor law violations before awarding large 
taxpayer-funded government contracts. Companies with poor track records 
will need to prove they are taking action to make sure that these types 
of egregious labor law violations don't happen again.
  In addition to cracking down on repeat violators who bid for Federal 
contracts, the President's Executive order also includes two other 
important provisions that I support: a requirement that companies give 
workers a pay stub each pay period and a provision to make sure workers 
are able to access justice if they have been wronged.
  As the Presiding Officer may know, employers are required, under the 
Fair Labor Standards Act, to accurately report the number of hours an 
employee works and their pay. But, surprisingly, employers are not 
always required to give this information to an employee on a pay stub 
each pay period. This matters. This matters because when a bad actor 
cheats its employees by undercounting hours or underpaying wages, it is 
a lot harder for an employee to recover damages if they don't get a pay 
stub.
  It is often low-income workers who work variable shifts who are most 
easily exploited in these cases. For example, last year, a group of 
janitors in the

[[Page S1599]]

Twin Cities won hundreds of thousands of dollars of back pay because 
their employer had miscounted their hours. And because most of them 
weren't given pay stubs, it took them much longer to discover that they 
had been underpaid. One of their key demands, in addition to being paid 
fairly, was that they start getting pay stubs to ensure they don't get 
cheated again. This seems to me like a sensible thing to ask.
  Let's be clear. Most employers already give their employees pay 
stubs, so this requirement isn't a big change for them, but it makes a 
big difference for the workers who are most vulnerable to wage theft. 
And because this provision has already been implemented, repealing it 
will have real and obvious consequences for working families.
  The fair pay and safe workplaces rule also took an important step 
toward protecting workers' fundamental rights by banning the use of 
forced arbitration in cases of discrimination or sexual assault and 
harassment. As we have seen in a multitude of contexts in recent years, 
corporate America is increasingly preventing its employees or customers 
from accessing the court, relying instead on forced arbitration to 
avoid accountability when people seek justice for being cheated or 
mistreated. And some of the most egregious cases we have heard are from 
workers whose rights have been viciously violated and whose cases were 
forced into the dark.
  I have made it a priority during my time in the Senate to combat the 
widespread and harmful use of forced arbitration. In fact, the forced 
arbitration regulations within the fair pay and safe workplaces rule 
build on an effort that I successfully championed 8 years ago.
  I first became interested in the issue after learning that major 
Department of Defense contractors charged with performing vital 
national security functions were using arbitration to sweep cases of 
sexual assault and harassment under the rug. I heard stories of women 
who were assaulted or subjected to hostile working conditions while 
employed by a DOD contractor. And when those women sought justice for 
the actions--or inactions--of their employers, they were forced into 
secret arbitration where none of the traditional safeguards of a public 
court of law apply. As a result, countless other victims were left in 
the dark about the women's cases, and the contractors were shielded 
from accountability, both from the courts and from the public eye.
  So in 2009, I introduced an amendment to the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act that prevented certain DOD contractors from forcing 
their employees to arbitrate claims of discrimination or sexual assault 
and harassment. The amendment passed with bipartisan support. In the 
years since, it continues to be passed on a bipartisan basis as a part 
of the Defense appropriations process each year, most recently in 
December of 2014.
  Now, it is unclear to me what has changed in the years since we 
passed my amendment that would make my Republican colleagues shift 
course. But what is clear is that now is not the time to roll back 
these critical protections for our workers.
  According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, at least 25 
percent of American women say they have experienced sexual harassment 
in the workplace. And recent high profile revelations about abuse--for 
example, former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes' abuse of his employees, 
as well as the allegations of sex bias at Kay and Sterling Jewelers--
demonstrate that we are far from addressing this issue on a broader 
scale. So I urge my Republican colleagues to reconsider their support 
for this resolution. I urge them to not force vulnerable women who have 
been wronged into the dark and into forced arbitration.
  Blocking the fair pay and safe workplaces rule is just wrongheaded. A 
vote to repeal this rule is a vote to support giving taxpayer dollars 
to companies that break the law, it is a vote to help employers who 
cheat their employees out of fair pay, and it is a vote to take away 
workers' fundamental rights to access to the court.

  I urge a ``no'' vote, and I thank the Presiding Officer for the 
generous window of 10 to 15 minutes.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has been recognized for 13\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Wow, I kind of hit it right on the nail. Am I out of 
order now saying that? No? Good. That means I have another minute and a 
half.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes on this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Americans are working longer and Americans 
are working harder than ever before, with less and less to show for it.
  Over the last 40 years, GDP has gone up, corporate profits have gone 
up, executive salaries have gone up--all because American workers are 
more productive. Again, GDP is up, corporate salaries are up, corporate 
profits are up, executive salaries are up--all because of the 
productivity of American workers. Unfortunately--tragically--a big 
problem in our society is that workers don't share in the economic 
growth they have created for their companies.

  On Friday, at the John Glenn School in Columbus, I rolled out a plan 
to do something about it. Instead of working to raise wages, the Senate 
is debating a measure to give large corporations even more ability, 
more leeway, more opportunity to shortchange American workers. It is as 
simple as that. One in five Americans works in a company that does some 
business with the American Government. We are talking about a rule that 
affects companies employing as much as one-fifth of the workforce. 
These workers deserve to be paid what they earn. They deserve safe 
workplaces, just as all American workers do.
  Before this worker protection rule was put in place, nearly one-third 
of the companies in the United States with the worst safety and health 
violations were receiving taxpayer dollars in the form of Federal 
contracts. Federal dollars are going to these companies. They then turn 
around and hire workers in contract with the government and hire 
workers and cheat them and shortchange them. These corporations broke 
the law. They didn't pay their employees what they were owed or they 
broke health and safety rules. Yet they continue to rake in Federal 
dollars. That is unfair to workers. It is unfair to the good companies 
that play by the rules. It is unfair to those who are undercut, 
competitors that willfully and constantly follow the law. The good 
companies often are losing out. They are playing by the rules, yet lose 
out to the companies that aren't.
  That is why the Obama administration put in place the Fair Pay and 
Safe Workplaces Executive order. If you want the privilege of doing 
business with American taxpayers, if you want a contract with the 
Federal government paid for by taxpayers, you must follow the law. It 
is as simple as that. That was yesterday. Also, yesterday the rule 
ensured that workers have accurate information about the hours they 
work, the overtime pay they can earn, the wages they are being paid--
basic things that above-board companies are already doing anyway. That 
was yesterday.
  Today this body is voting to undo that. Why would we want to roll 
back commonsense worker protections? Why would we reward companies that 
cheat their workers by giving them more taxpayer dollars? There is only 
one possible explanation: to make it easier for some big companies to 
cheat both their own workers and their competitors. When voters reject 
Washington, it is maneuvers like this they have in mind: Congress 
watering down rules that protect workers, that protect taxpayers, that 
let corporations that break the law off the hook.
  The President came to Ohio a lot last year. He made a lot of big 
promises during his campaign. He is already facing a choice on issues 
like this one. Is he going to keep his promises to working families in 
Trumbull County, OH, Warren, Mansfield, Toledo, Springfield

[[Page S1600]]

or is he going to sell them out in favor of the same old corporate 
billionaire agenda?
  The President has come to a fork in the road. He can go down the fork 
where workers will do better in this administration--make better wages, 
have a safer workplace--or he can take the other fork in the road that 
undercuts wages, that shortchanges workers, that makes the workplace 
less safe. Unfortunately, the President and, I am afraid, this Senate 
have chosen that fork in the road, the one that undercuts workers and 
makes the workplace less safe.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this attempt to 
undercut American workers.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 for 7 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Travel Ban

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before I talk about the Republican's 
reckless move tonight to roll back important worker protections, I do 
want to address the President's revised immigration Executive order 
that he signed just hours ago. He may have rearranged some words, but 
make no mistake, this is still a ban on Muslims. It still flies in the 
face of everything this country is about and what we stand for.
  Slamming the door shut on refugees and immigrants, no questions 
asked, is un-American. Just like we saw in January, people across this 
country are already standing up and saying once again this is wrong, 
and we will not tolerate broad orders that target some of the most 
vulnerable people in the world.
  I urge the President, if you truly want to keep our country safe, 
work with us, but we will not sit idly by as you continue to push a 
hateful agenda that betrays our American values.
  Mr. President, I want to turn to the vote that is going to occur 
shortly here on the floor. I thank all of my colleagues who will be 
joining me this evening. When President Trump was running for office, 
he claimed he was going to be a President who fought for the middle 
class. He made a promise that he wasn't going to do what most 
Republicans have done in recent years and simply work for millionaires 
and billionaires. He was going to be different. He would be someone 
workers could count on.
  We are just over a month into this Presidency, and it couldn't be 
clearer; President Trump is breaking that promise, whether it is his 
Cabinet picks or billionaires and Wall Street bankers and corporate 
CEOs or his rush to destroy our healthcare system and create chaos for 
families across our country or what Republicans have chosen to bring to 
the floor tonight: another effort that would hurt our workers, hurt the 
middle class, and hurt our economy.
  Here is what I think we should be doing in Congress. We should be 
working on ways to boost economic security for more working families, 
and we should be helping our economy grow in the way that we know is 
strongest: from the middle out, not from the top down.
  We have made some important progress over the last several years, but 
I think all of us on either side of the aisle agree there is a lot of 
work left to be done. That is certainly what has been clear to me as I 
have traveled across my home State of Washington, listening and meeting 
with workers and their families. Families are working hard. They are 
meeting their responsibilities, but far too many are still unable to 
get ahead.
  Again, that is the topic we should be discussing tonight: how to 
support and empower more workers. Instead, we are here today because 
President Trump and my Republican colleagues either simply are not 
getting that message or they are too busy focusing on what is best for 
the folks already at the top, because today Republicans are poised to 
roll back a rule which helps protect our workers from wage theft, from 
discrimination, from unsafe workplaces, and more.
  I want to take just a few minutes to make very clear what is at stake 
for millions of working families if Republicans roll back this rule. 
Each year, far too many workers are deprived of overtime wages or they 
are denied basic workplace protections. They have endured illegal 
discrimination, and they face unwarranted health or safety risks. That 
is unacceptable, and it has to come to an end.
  Last year, Democrats, working with the previous administration, 
pushed to finalize what is now known as the fair pay and safe 
workplaces rule. For far too long, the government has awarded billions 
of taxpayer dollars to companies that rob workers of their paychecks 
and fail to maintain safe working conditions. This rule helps to right 
that wrong. Under this rule, when a company applies for a Federal 
contract, they will need to be upfront about their safety, health, and 
labor violations over the past 3 years. That way, government agencies 
can consider an employer's record of providing workers with a safe 
workplace and paying workers what they have earned before they grant or 
renew a Federal contract. To be clear, this does not prevent companies 
from winning Federal contracts. It does not single out companies. It 
does not deny companies the right to be heard. It simply improves 
transparency and coordination so government agencies are aware of 
companies' violations and can work with them to make sure they come 
into compliance with essential labor laws.
  Again, the emphasis on this is not punishment but on helping bring 
more and more companies into compliance with the law and zeroing in on 
violations that are, and I quote from the rule: ``Serious, repeated, 
willful, or pervasive.'' Not only are these measures common sense, but 
they would have major benefits for our workers, our businesses and, by 
the way, our taxpayers. It would help hold the worst violators 
accountable.
  American taxpayers should have the basic guarantee that their dollars 
are going to responsible contractors that will not steal from their 
workers or expose their workers to safety hazards. It would protect 
basic worker rights, and that, in turn, will help expand economic 
security for all working families, and it will level the playing field 
for businesses that do follow the law.
  I think we can all agree that businesses shouldn't have to compete 
with bad actors that cut corners and put their workers' safety at risk 
or cheat their workers on their paychecks.
  All of this, frankly, is pretty simple. When workers arrive on the 
job, they deserve to know they will be treated fairly, that they will 
be provided with a safe and healthy workplace, that their right to 
collective bargaining will be respected, and they will be paid all the 
wages they earned. Businesses that contract with the government should 
set an example when it comes to each of these concerns, and taxpayer 
dollars should only go to businesses that respect these fundamental 
worker protections.
  As I said, time and again, families nationwide are sending a very 
clear message at marches, with phone calls and letters, online, and in 
their communities. They expect and are demanding that their 
representatives are truly committed to working for them. I, for one, am 
committed to standing with them. I know my colleagues are committed, 
and we are prepared to fight back.
  Let's be clear, in rolling back these protections, President Trump 
and his party are yet again breaking their campaign promise to put our 
workers first. Workers will be hurt, wages will go down, rights will be 
undermined, lives will be put at risk. Tonight I am here to urge my 
Republican colleagues to drop this deeply harmful effort, reverse 
course, and stand with working families once and for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from 
Washington State who has been such a leader on issues like this, 
throughout this session of Congress and throughout her entire career.
  I want to add a few comments on H.J. Res. 37, which I strongly 
oppose. More

[[Page S1601]]

than one in five Americans is employed by a company that has at least 
one Federal contract. Unfortunately, every year tens of thousands of 
workers are denied overtime wages, not paid fairly because of their 
gender or age, or have health and safety put at risk by corner-cutting 
contractors. Those contractors who obey the rules are put at a 
disadvantage by those who cut corners, and that is what this proposal 
that President Obama put into effect was supposed to curb. That was the 
rule.
  What do we find President Trump and our Republican colleagues doing? 
Once again, favoring the special interests, Big Business, over the 
working people. As my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Warren, 
just said: ``This is a debate about whom Congress actually works for.'' 
The President tries to present himself as a populist favoring working 
people. That is in his speeches, but in all of his actions, just about 
every single one, when there is a special interest, a business interest 
at stake versus a worker interest, he sides with the special Big 
Business interests.
  The President promised to be a champion for working people in his 
inaugural address. An hour later, he signed an Executive order making 
it harder for working people to get a mortgage. Last week, the 
President made a whole host of claims about what his government would 
do only 24 hours after releasing a budget blueprint that would take a 
meat ax to the Federal agencies he was talking about. He had this 
beautifully sympathetic moment about medical research, and his budget 
is going to slash it. He talked about education as a major issue in 
America. His budget will slash that.
  Again, less than a week after another populist speech to Congress, 
the President is doing exactly the opposite of what he said he was 
going to do--stick up for working men and women--by signing this 
resolution. President Trump promised: I will deliver better wages for 
the working class. Well, President Trump, more than 300,000 workers 
have been victims of wage-related labor violations while working under 
Federal contracts during the last decade. Are you now going to sign a 
bill, President Trump, that would make it easier for recidivist Federal 
contractors to skirt wage standards and hurt their workers? It sounds 
like it to me. This administration's hypocrisy knows no end. It is not 
populist. It is not for the working people, not in what they do.

  In his joint address to Congress, the President said, he would 
``ensure new parents have paid family leave.'' Now is he going to sign 
a bill that makes it easier for companies that violate family leave 
laws to win contracts from the Federal Government? If the President was 
true to his populist rhetoric, he would say this resolution is dead on 
arrival because it hurts the working people. But if past is prologue, 
he will not. He will think that his tough talk about standing up for 
the working class is enough to cloak a hard-right, pro-corporate, pro-
elite agenda.
  So I challenge the President: If Republicans pass this resolution, 
show some courage and veto it because you are not going to get away 
with constantly, constantly saying that you are in favor of working 
people and signing legislation that hurts them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). All time is expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  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?
  The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Georgia, (Mr. 
Isakson), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote:
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Flake
     Isakson
     Sullivan
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 37) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________