[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.
____________________