[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 3, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2692-S2715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

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

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 66) disapproving the rule 
     submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings 
     arrangements established by States for non-governmental 
     employees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. The Republicans yield back 4 hours of the majority's 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 1 hour remaining.
  Mr. PORTMAN. We have 1 hour remaining. We will keep our hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). If no one yields time, the time 
will be charged equally.
  The Senator from Maine.


                          Upward Bound Program

  Mr. KING. Madam President, around here we often discuss bureaucracy 
and regulation and overreach and government getting out of the way. I 
want to point out and bring to the attention of the Senate and the 
American people one of the most ridiculous actions of any government at 
any level that I have ever encountered.
  There is a wonderful program that provides support for students going 
on to college, particularly low-income students and particularly in 
rural areas. Every year our colleges and colleges across the country 
file applications for this program called Upward Bound. It is one of 
the most successful programs of the Federal Government that I have 
encountered. I have met the students in Maine and from other parts of 
the country. It is a program that helps these students make the 
transition from their communities to colleges and to gain a college 
education.
  Applications are necessary, and applications have rules about the 
size of the paper and that kind of thing. What has happened in this 
case, on the application of the University of Maine at Presque Isle--
affectionately called UMPI--the University of Maine at Presque filed 
its application, which was 65 pages. They met all the requirements, but 
they made a terrible mistake. The rules of the Department of Education 
say that the application must be double-spaced. Indeed, the application 
is double-spaced, except for

[[Page S2693]]

an exhibit on page 21, which is single-spaced. It is double-spaced in 
the body of the application, and there was one other infographic in the 
application which was a space and a half--1.5 instead of 2--and the 
application was rejected for that reason alone.
  This is preposterous. This isn't a game. This isn't ``gotcha.'' This 
is about real people. At the University of Maine at Presque Isle, it is 
129 real people, and it is about their access to higher education, 
their access to a better life, their ability to achieve success. The 
application of their university was rejected because this little piece 
on one page and a similar piece on another page was 1\1/2\ spaces 
instead of 2. This is nonsense. This is the kind of thing that makes 
people hate government. This is the kind of thing that makes people 
say: What are they thinking down there? What is wrong with Washington? 
Why can't they get something so simple as looking at the substance of 
the application instead of applying what can only be characterized as a 
bureaucratic rule?
  I am not one of these people who attack bureaucrats and Federal 
workers. In my experience, they are good people who are trying to do 
the right thing, and they make enormous contributions to our country. 
In this case, somebody somewhere in the Department of Education made a 
dumb decision, and it is one that is going to impact my people in 
Maine. I can't just keep quiet about it.
  Last week, after letters from the Maine congressional delegation, 
which I will place into the Record, the Department of Education 
announced: Well, it probably wasn't the right thing to do. This wasn't 
a very good policy. I guess we made a mistake.
  The problem is, it doesn't help UMPI; it only helps people in the 
future. I have worked with my colleague Senator Collins on this. She 
has done research. Her office has discovered precedents where indeed 
this kind of thing has happened before and they fixed it. They fixed it 
so that the application could be considered.
  By the way, the decision on these applications around the country has 
not been made yet. We are not prejudicing anybody. We are not making a 
change after the fact. All they have to do is go to page 1 of the UMPI 
application and read it and forget about the fact that it is 1\1/2\ 
spaces in this little exhibit in the middle of the double-spaced 
application. In fact, we can fix it. We will make this double-spaced. I 
feel silly even coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate talking about 
this double-space, 1\1/2\ spaces. What are we doing here?
  Again, the reason I am so passionate about this is that these are 
real people's lives. These are 129 young people who will not be able to 
take part in this program, and very likely their entire lives can be 
compromised by this. This is a big deal for them. It may be a little 
deal for the Department of Education, but it is a big deal for the 
University of Maine at Presque Isle and their students.
  All I am asking is for the Department of Education and the Secretary 
of Education to look at this obvious, ridiculous bureaucratic mistake, 
correct it, and correct it for those who have been prejudiced by it. It 
is not just the University of Maine at Presque Isle; I understand there 
are a number of others across the country whose applications were 
kicked out for similar reasons.
  I understand there has to be some uniformity. It has to be written in 
English. It has to be on reasonable paper that you can read, and it is 
not to be handwritten. To reject an application involving 129 young 
lives in my State because a little piece out of a 65-page application 
has 1\1/2\ spaces instead of 2--give me a break.
  This is something that can and should be fixed, and I assume and 
believe the Secretary of Education and the people in charge at the 
Department of Education will find a way to fix it and prove to the 
people of Maine that the government in Washington is not crazy, that we 
can make reasonable decisions, and that when we make a mistake--and 
they acknowledged last week that it was a mistake, that it was not good 
policy, and they have rectified it going forward. But let's admit the 
mistake and relieve those who have been impacted by that mistake of its 
weight, of the obstacle that it places in the way of young people's 
opportunities.
  I understand that this issue has arisen in Montana, Wisconsin, 
Arkansas, West Virginia, New Jersey, Ohio, Washington, Delaware, 
Alabama, Illinois, California, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and 
Maine. It is time for it to be addressed. It ought to be very simple, 
and it ought to be taken care of in a matter of days--not weeks or 
months, but in a matter of days--so that those young people and our 
university can plan and implement and move forward in their mission to 
enrich and enable the lives of our citizens.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record the letter submitted to the Department of Education by the Maine 
congressional delegation on this subject.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2017.
     Re University of Maine at Presque Isle's Upward Bound Grant 
         Applications #P047A170346 and #P047A170352.

     Hon. Betsy DeVos,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Education,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary DeVos: We are writing to support the 
     applications submitted by the University of Maine at Presque 
     Isle (UMPI) for two grants under the fiscal year 2017 Upward 
     Bound Program competition and to express our strong concern 
     that the Department of Education has determined that these 
     applications are ineligible for consideration. As strong 
     supporters of the TRIO programs, we were particularly 
     troubled to learn that UMPI's applications were ruled 
     ineligible due to an unintentional, minor formatting 
     oversight, which UMPI has not been given an opportunity to 
     correct. According to UMPI, the Department's decision risks, 
     over the next five years, denying 960 disadvantaged high 
     school students the chance to fulfill their academic 
     potentials.
       The Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards (Notice) 
     for the Upward Bound Program competition, published in the 
     Federal Register on October 17, 2016, includes formatting 
     criteria not mandated by Congress. They are arbitrarily 
     drawn, entirely unrelated to the substance of the 
     application, and do not provide any recourse for applicants 
     to correct minor, unintentional, non-substantive mistakes.
       UMPI has applied for two Upward Bound Program grants, and 
     both have been deemed ineligible for the same reason. We 
     understand that the Department has relayed to UMPI that a 
     line-spacing error, appearing within two info-graphics on two 
     of the application's 65 pages, is the cause of the 
     ineligibility determination, as these two pages do not comply 
     with the Notice's double-spacing requirement. These info-
     graphics are intended to help the reader review the 
     application efficiently and more easily and contain text that 
     is 1.5 line spaced instead of double spaced. It is obvious 
     that the figures merely supplement a well-prepared narrative. 
     Were they removed, or were UMPI permitted to adjust the line 
     spacing on these two pages, the application would easily 
     warrant the Department's review. Yet unbelievably, the 
     Department refuses to review UMPI's application and has 
     provided no opportunity for UMPI to correct this trivial 
     mistake. We strongly urge the Department to reconsider its 
     decision and to allow UMPI's application to be read and 
     scored.
       We appreciate that the formatting standards issued by the 
     Department are intended to prevent applicants from attempting 
     to gain an unfair advantage by using clever formatting 
     strategies. When the application is reviewed as a whole, it 
     is clear that UMPI is not seeking to mislead the Department 
     or to gain any unfair advantage. In fact, the error was so 
     insignificant that UMPI could not immediately identify it and 
     had to seek additional guidance. Now, the Department's 
     inflexible and bureaucratic decision could result in the 
     elimination of a longstanding, successful, and greatly needed 
     program on the basis of a non-substantive error before the 
     application is even read.
       The Department has not identified for UMPI any other errors 
     in its application. To deny UMPI's application a reading 
     because two figures do not meet an arbitrary typographical 
     format ignores the spirit of the Upward Bound Program, is 
     antithetical to congressional intent, and would seriously 
     jeopardize the future success of hundreds of students in 
     Maine.
       The Upward Bound Program at UMPI serves 129 high school 
     students across Aroostook County, Maine, and has a strong and 
     long record of success in sending local low-income, first-
     generation students to college. Since 1980, it has helped 
     students with great needs access the promise of higher 
     education.
       We strongly urge the Department to apply some common sense 
     to the Upward Bound Program competition and read and score 
     UMPI's applications.
           Sincerely,
     Susan M. Collins,
       U.S. Senator.
     Bruce Poliquin,
       Member of Congress.
     Angus S. King, Jr.

[[Page S2694]]

       U.S. Senator.
     Chellie Pingree,
       Member of Congress.

  Mr. KING. Madam President, I believe this is a simple case that could 
be easily rectified, and I am confident--I am almost confident that it 
will be. I trust that common sense will prevail and the well-being of 
our students will be put above minor technical issues in an application 
that is so important.

  Thank you, Madam President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Law Day

  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today in honor of Law Day earlier 
this week, May 1. Law Day is an annual tradition that is celebrated 
around the United States, usually at local bar association luncheons. 
It has been a tradition for over 40 years as a day to recognize the 
rule of law. The 2017 theme for Law Day was the 14th Amendment--a post-
Civil War amendment, which for the first time in the Constitution 
defined what an American citizen was, the definition of citizenship, 
but it also provided a protection for all citizens as an entitlement to 
the privileges and immunities of all the laws in all the States, and 
all persons were entitled to equal protection of the laws, as well as 
no deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process. It 
is a powerful and important amendment to the Constitution.
  I want to talk about Law Day because there is a matter that is soon 
to be pending before the body: a proposal in President Trump's fiscal 
year 2018 budget to eliminate funding for the Legal Services 
Corporation, the effort that was begun more than four decades ago to 
try to provide free legal services for indigent people on matters in 
the civil courts that could affect their lives, liberty or property.
  I will say, I am standing here as an attorney who practiced for 17 
years and practiced with Central Virginia Legal Aid and saw the value 
of their work. I am familiar with their work across the Commonwealth 
and country, and I also have a bit of a personal bias that I have to 
disclose. My wife Anne was a Legal Aid lawyer from 1984 until 1998--14 
years' worth of Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, trying cases, big 
and small, but also doing something I will use as a theme in my 
comments. She helped start an award-winning program at Central Virginia 
Legal Aid to get private lawyers to do voluntary work for indigent 
clients.
  Legal Aid operates like small law firms in all these communities, but 
much of what they do is not just represent people in court. They bring 
private attorneys in who are willing to volunteer and provide them the 
training in cases like housing cases and others that might not normally 
be part of their practice. The Legal Services Corporation is very 
critical to the vindication of rights. There is an engraving over the 
Supreme Court Building across the street: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' 
That is supposed to mean equal justice regardless of who you are, your 
gender, your race, your national origin but also whether or not you can 
pay. The article III branch, just like the article I or article II 
branches, is supposed to be open to all. So Legal Services Corporation 
is critical to providing legal services to people who otherwise 
wouldn't be able to pay it: elderly, veterans, low-income families, 
disabled Americans, victims of domestic violence. It does so on a 
fairly miniscule Federal budget.
  The entire funding for legal services is less than one ten-
thousandths of the Federal budget. Yet President Trump is proposing to 
eliminate it. Legal Services Corporation maintains 133 independent 
nonprofit programs in every State. My colleague from Maine was an 
attorney with one of those programs and is on the floor today. It funds 
the operation for 903 separate offices in the country. They served 1.8 
million people in 2015. Of the nearly 756,000 cases that they 
successfully worked on and closed that year, 129,000 of the clients 
were people over age 60. More than 500,000 of the clients were females. 
Women comprised 70 percent of the Legal Services Corporation client 
base and 116,000 of the cases were cases about domestic violence. The 
offices around the country did as my wife's office did--they relied on 
these private attorneys, bringing in and training more than 91,000 
private sector attorneys who volunteered during 2015 to help a Legal 
Aid client working with a local office, and they continue to do more.
  They partnered recently with Microsoft to develop Pro Bono Net, a 
statewide legal portal for individuals to obtain direct legal 
assistance specific to their needs. They established the Leaders 
Council, comprised of leaders, not necessarily leaders in the legal 
community but others to promote the value of what they do. LSC in 2016 
launched the Rural Summer Legal Corps--30 law students working in rural 
areas to address challenges these communities encounter.
  It goes about its mission in an apolitical manner. Legal Services 
Corporation is not allowed to lobby. It works in blue and red States, 
works in urban and rural communities. It works everywhere and for 
everybody. The legal community is strongly in support of the 
continuance of the Legal Services Corporation--the American Bar 
Association and most State bars. In Virginia, just in Virginia, seven 
statewide bar associations have pledged their support for the 
continuation of Legal Aid. Many of them visited me in my office last 
week: Virginia State Bar, Virginia Bar Association, Virginia Trial 
Lawyers Association, Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys, Old 
Dominion Bar Association, Virginia Women's Attorneys Association, and 
the Virginia Hispanic Bar Association. And 160 of the Nation's top law 
firms have urged this body and urged the White House not to defund 
Legal Aid, and 185 general counsel's offices from preeminent American 
companies--Disney, HP, American Express, and GE--have weighed in and 
said we need Legal Aid.
  Many of Legal Aid's clients in Virginia are veterans because we are 
home to such a huge number of Active-Duty servicemembers, their 
families, and veterans. LSC helps veterans, Active-Duty military and 
their families access housing, deal with consumer financial challenges, 
or deceptive trade practices. Central Virginia Legal Aid recently dealt 
with a client, an elderly disabled veteran, who received a notice of 
involuntary transfer or discharge because an insurance company 
determined that his health had stabilized, despite the fact he was not 
even ambulatory and incontinent as well. Central Virginia Legal Aid 
worked with his insurance company to demonstrate this veteran had 
continuing physical needs, and he needed to have in-home care without 
further burdening his family, and were able to find a resolution. This 
is the kind of case that Legal Aid works on every day.
  In conclusion, I want to say this. The budget proposal that we will 
grapple with--my colleague from Maine, who is here, is on the Budget 
Committee, as well--proposes to eliminate funding for Legal Aid. That 
would be a very bad idea. It would not help the economy. It would hurt 
vulnerable people who have nowhere else to turn. I was in the 
Shenandoah Valley at a senior center about 10 days ago. This was the 
story that a local Legal Aid lawyer put on the table, as I conclude. A 
90-year-old woman in Waynesboro, VA, was ripped off by a traveling 
salesmen who sold her $10,000 of frozen meat she could not afford--
virtually all of her savings. She realized very quickly she had been 
bamboozled by a fast-talking salesman: Why did I do this? I can't 
afford it, but I have given him my money. What do I do? This is the 
kind of case no private lawyer will take. You are not going to be able 
to get a legal fee for this. This is the kind of case that involves 
knowledge of particular consumer protection statutes that Legal Aid is 
well trained to do. And the Legal Aid lawyer who was representing this 
90-year-old woman who had been ripped off by somebody said: Look, if I 
wasn't here for this person, nobody would be here. And that is what you 
get when you get Legal Aid. That is what you would lose if the Legal 
Aid was defunded.
  I just put it on the table to my colleagues. Many in this Chamber are 
attorneys. Many have worked directly with Legal Aid offices in their 
States around this country and know the value of the program. We need 
to make

[[Page S2695]]

sure this program continues. In honor of Law Day this week, I just want 
to say, I hope my colleagues will join me in my effort.
  Mr. KING. Will the Senator yield for discussion?
  Mr. KAINE. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. KING. I say to the Senator from Virginia, 48 years ago this 
summer I joined the national legal services program and went to the 
State of Maine, where I served people in a very rural area with a whole 
range of problems. What I came to realize during that time was that the 
promises of our democracy, the promises inherent in the American idea, 
are not self-executed.
  Every morning we pledge allegiance to this flag, and the last phrase 
is critical: ``with liberty and justice for all.'' That is a promise 
made to the people of this country. But the U.S. Supreme Court has 
found repeatedly, as the Senator knows, that you can't achieve justice 
if you don't have representation, particularly in an age of an 
overlapping and complex legal system.
  So I believe this is not just another government program. This is 
part of the essence of the American idea. I remember being up in Maine 
in this small town of Skowhegan, ME. I met a woman who was visiting 
from England. She said: What do you do?
  I said: Well, I work for this group that provides legal services to 
low-income people in this region.
  She said: How is it funded?
  I said: By the government.
  She said: Do you ever have to sue the government?
  I said: Yes, of course. That is one of the things that you 
occasionally have to do in order to protect the rights of your client.
  She was amazed that in this country we would fund the legal support 
of people who might actually occasionally bring cases against the 
government itself. She thought that was wonderful and really epitomized 
the idealism of this country. So I commend the Senator for raising this 
issue during Law Day to talk about the importance of this in terms of 
its relationship to the overall idea of America.
  We talk a lot about justice. As you point out, across the street it 
says: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' But that often means you have to 
have competent and professional advocacy and representation. The Legal 
Services Corporation is not a big part of the budget. It has not grown 
exponentially over the years. In fact, I suspect in real dollars, it is 
smaller today than when I entered the service 48 years ago.
  But I know it is important. It is important in Maine, with the Pine 
Tree Legal Assistance, the Volunteer Lawyers Project, and the 
volunteers from law firms around our State who volunteer to give their 
time for pro bono legal assistance. But the hub of it is the National 
Legal Services Program. To me, it epitomizes our commitment to 
effectuate the promises of American life, not just to talk about them 
but to make them real. So I commend the Senator for his comments.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, might I respond to my colleague?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. I honor his service at Pine Tree Legal Assistance in 
Maine. We take a little bit of pride in it because he probably got a 
good orientation to be a great public servant by going to the 
University of Virginia Law School. None of the Virginia Senators were 
smart enough to get into the University of Virginia, but our Maine 
Senator was.
  The Senator talks about it as related to our constitutional system. 
We have three branches. There is an article I branch, the legislative 
branch. People can participate in the article I branch by voting for 
Members of Congress or Senators. The article II branch is the executive 
branch. People can participate in the executive branch by voting. There 
used to be poll taxes. You could not participate if you could not pay 
something. Those were stricken down so everyone can participate.
  The article III branch is supposed to be coequal, the judiciary. If 
you are on trial for a criminal offense, under many circumstances, you 
are entitled, constitutionally, to have an appointed attorney. But what 
about a civil case? What if you are threatened with the termination of 
your rights as a parent to ever see your child again? That is a civil 
case.
  You are not entitled constitutionally to have an appointed attorney. 
But it is those kinds of cases where legal services comes in and 
provides an opportunity for people to participate in the article III 
branch.
  We should not have a branch of government and block people from 
participating in it, without the ability to receive assistance of 
counsel on matters dear to your life. You are essentially blocked from 
participation in one of the three branches of government. That is why 
this is so important.
  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. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, for the second time in an administration 
that has just crossed the 100-day threshold, Republicans in the 
Congress have teed up legislation that is going to make it harder for 
working Americans to save. This time, there is a proposal in front of 
us that goes after a brandnew program that my home State of Oregon is 
just now getting ready to launch.
  Let me make my views on this proposal clear, quickly. This 
legislation puts the special interests before working people, and it is 
just that simple.
  We all understand there is a savings crisis in the country. The 
typical American who works hard and brings home a paycheck every week 
or two is struggling to get money set aside for their retirement.
  Just think of the economic challenges these families are up against 
every day. Millions of young people are buried under student debt, so 
the prospect of saving for retirement feels like a dream and will 
remain so for years and years.
  Parents raising kids are faced with steep home loans and everyday 
bills. At the same time, it can seem as if the sticker price of a 4-
year college education can match the GDP of a small island nation.
  The numbers on the savings crisis are just alarming. More than half 
of workers approaching retirement have nothing. That means zero set 
aside in retirement accounts like IRAs or 401(k) plans. Tens of 
millions of Americans do not have access to retirement plans at work. 
In my view, addressing these kinds of challenges ought to be a 
bipartisan priority, a priority where both sides of the aisle get 
together and respond.
  In response to this crisis, my home State, along with a few others, 
has looked to find a fresh approach to deal with retirement savings. We 
want working people and middle-income families--particularly those who 
don't have access to a savings plan today--to have more opportunities 
in the future to set money aside.
  My home State found a way to do it. Oregon found a way to do it in a 
kind of Oregon tradition that eliminates a lot of hassle. We are one of 
a handful of States that has passed what is called an auto-IRA law. At 
home, we call it OregonSaves, and we are going to be launching it in 
just a few months. What it means for Oregon workers is that when you 
get a job, you are going to get a retirement account, so that is not 
really complicated. When you get a job in Oregon, you are going to get 
a retirement account. You can start setting aside a little bit with 
every paycheck.
  By the way--and I want to emphasize this--it is not mandatory. People 
have the right to opt out. So when people say: Oh, government is going 
to force people to do this and that and something else, the Oregon plan 
is just the opposite. It is voluntary in all particulars.
  What it means for business owners--particularly small business 
owners--is that they can offer a savings plan without crippling fees or 
the hassle of dealing with redtape.
  OregonSaves, what we are about to bring out of the starting gate, is 
simple. It is easy to understand. In my view, it is exactly the kind of 
innovative program we need to combat the savings crisis that has hit 
all parts of the country.
  Over the years, I have often heard Members come to the floor and 
glowingly describe the States as the place

[[Page S2696]]

where the action is. They call them the laboratories of democracy. The 
theory, of course, is that States ought to be empowered to come up with 
new ways to tackle challenges.
  I have to tell you, it is a head-scratcher why the majority here in 
the Senate would want to make it harder for innovative States like 
Oregon to put in place a savings program that is voluntary in nature.
  So after all these speeches I hear about the States and States' 
rights and that the States are the laboratories of democracy, when it 
comes to a program that is voluntary in nature, the majority here still 
seems to think what we ought to do is say no.
  I know the Presiding Officer cares deeply about how policies relate 
to rural areas. This is going to be especially hard on rural parts of 
the country.
  I talked first about this issue during a debate a few weeks ago. 
Several employers had written my office to say how important 
OregonSaves would be for them. I shared a handful of those stories on 
the floor, and it was striking how many of those employers said that 
this would be a sea change for rural businesses in terms of recruiting 
workers. Thanks to OregonSaves, they would be able to compete when it 
comes to job benefits. The bill we are considering now would put in 
doubt that program that employers said could make a big difference, 
particularly in rural areas.
  OregonSaves and programs like this involve years of discussion, years 
of effort to work with the Department of Labor. There has been a lot of 
consultation between the Federal Government and the States to get the 
legal roadblocks out of the way. Now that work is in danger with this 
vote.
  So, colleagues, what I would like to do in wrapping up is to just 
step back for a minute and talk about what this body has been working 
on.
  Even though the majority party has unified control of the government, 
we are not exactly at this point churning out bill after bill--
certainly not landmark legislation that responds to the challenges 
facing American families. Mostly to this point, there have been votes 
on nominations and bills tossing out a bunch of Federal rules that 
protect the people who have no power or clout in America.
  An awfully large share of the business of this Congress comes down to 
taking steps like the one we are looking at today, making it harder for 
the American people to save. I don't think this is just a step in the 
wrong direction; this is a sprint in the wrong direction. That is what 
we are dealing with today in the Senate.
  Programs like OregonSaves are a commonsense response to a national 
savings crisis. The Congress should not be passing legislation 
threatening those programs, making the savings crisis even worse in 
communities across the land.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that 
affects every single Senator in this body and all of us as Americans, 
and that is this epidemic of drug use--opioids--which would be heroin, 
prescription drugs, the new synthetic heroins, like fentanyl, 
carfentanil, and U-4. It is devastating our communities. This is the 
worst drug crisis we have ever had in this country. That is my view, 
but it is also the view of a lot of experts. I have been involved in 
this issue for over 20 years, and I have never seen anything like 
it. That is why I have come to the floor to talk again today. This is 
the 34th time that I have spoken on this issue on the Senate floor in 
the last year or so.

  I come with sadness in my heart because it is not getting better. 
Based on the statistics I have seen from my home State of Ohio and 
around the country for the first quarter of this year, it looks like 
the number of deaths and overdoses from drug abuse are increasing, not 
decreasing. Part of it is because of these new drugs coming in, 
particularly synthetic drugs, including fentanyl, carfentanil, and U-
4--things that are produced in a laboratory by some evil scientist 
somewhere and shipped into our country.
  So the need to act has grown only more urgent. Every day we are now 
losing 144 Americans to drug overdoses. Think about that. Every single 
day, 144 Americans are dying of drug overdoses. It has now far exceeded 
the number of people who are dying in car accidents in my home State of 
Ohio and it is exceeding that number around the country.
  Millions more are not dying of overdoses but are seeing their lives 
and their futures ruined, and millions of us--those of us who are not 
drug addicted but who have friends, family, and neighbors who are--are 
watching loved ones as they fight this addiction. Maybe they have lost 
a job. Maybe they have broken relationships with families and friends. 
Maybe they have committed a crime like theft, shoplifting, or fraud to 
pay for their habit. Maybe they have just given up hope.
  Just last week, I met with some community leaders from Dayton, OH. As 
it happens, no matter where I am in Ohio, this issue comes up and this 
is what they want to talk to me about. They wanted to talk about the 
story of Nathan Wylie.
  Nathan Wylie was a happy 13-year-old boy. He was a Cincinnati Bengals 
fan. His goal in life was to be a professional football player. He 
wanted to play for the Bengals one day. He had his whole life ahead of 
him.
  Nathan's dad, according to police reports, is a heroin user. One day 
a few weeks ago, Nathan got into his dad's heroin, and he overdosed. 
His dad took him to the fire station and first responders did what they 
could. They took him to Dayton Children's Hospital, but it was too 
late. Nathan died of an overdose at age 13.
  Two weeks ago, a 14-year-old girl in Dayton was mowing the lawn at 
the apartment complex owned by her grandparents, and she came upon a 
body on the ground. It turns out that it was a 25-year-old young man 
who had died of an overdose.
  This is what is happening in our communities.
  Just a few hours after this young man who died of an overdose was 
discovered by this girl, Dayton Police responded to a car accident on 
Route 35 where a man had driven through a barrier and knocked over a 
street light. Police arrived and found the driver passed out with a 
used needle on the floor of the car. In this case they saved his life. 
They used this miracle drug called naloxone, or Narcan, which reduces 
the loss of life because it reverses the effects of overdoses. It 
doesn't always work, but it works the vast majority of the time if you 
get there in time. He was revived, and he said that he not only just 
used heroin, but that he was on his way to get more when he overdosed 
and almost died.
  So I could go on. We see these headlines every day, not just in 
Dayton, OH, where I talked about these three cases, but all throughout 
our State and our country. That is why people are starting to take 
action to turn the tide, and I commend them for it.
  Last week, more than 500 religious leaders across northeast Ohio 
banded together and said: We are going to do something about this. They 
took to their pulpits all at once to speak about this issue. A lot of 
them talked about National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day, which was 
this past Saturday that it occurred. Father Bob Stec of St. Ambrose 
Parish in Brunswick, OH, gave his parishioners a three-part action 
plan. No. 1, get educated. Learn about these opioids. Learn about the 
connection between prescription drugs and heroin. With many heroin 
addicts, their use started with prescription drugs.
  No. 2, throw out unnecessary medications from your medicine cabinets. 
It is unbelievable the number of people I have run into who have said 
they started because they took prescription drugs, and they got their 
prescription drugs--in one case, a young man told me--from his 
grandmother's medicine cabinet.

[[Page S2697]]

  No. 3, he said, was to pray for our first responders. God bless them, 
because they do save lives every day--in Ohio, 16,000 lives last year. 
Without them, the death toll would be far higher and the damage to our 
community would be far greater. They are as frustrated as anybody, by 
the way, by this epidemic. They want to get to the bottom of it, to be 
able to focus more on prevention and treatment and recovery. They don't 
want to keep applying Narcan to the same person again and again.
  So I want to thank Father Stec and all of the other religious leaders 
for being willing to roll up their sleeves and to get involved. If they 
prevented even one addiction from starting, then they have made a 
permanent impact on the community. I am convinced that those 500 
pastors, ministers, and rabbis have saved lives.
  People in Ohio are taking action in other ways too. People are 
forming groups, particularly parent groups. Those who have lost a child 
are banding together and talking about how they cannot just console one 
another and support one another but put in place plans to help others.
  I was at a treatment center recently when there were a couple of 
families there, and they spoke up. They are involved in the center. 
They come every day. They are there because they lost a son or a 
daughter to overdose. God bless them for stepping forward.
  The Federal Government needs to do more too. We need to take action 
because we can be a better partner with States, local communities, and 
families. It is not going to be solved in Washington. Washington is not 
the solution, but it is part of the solution by being a better partner. 
We can take best practices from around the country as an example, as we 
did in the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which passed this 
Chamber last year, and spread those around the country so that every 
community has the opportunity to make a bigger difference.
  Last week I met with Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. He has a 
passion for this issue. He is leading the President's Commission on 
Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis. I thought it was a very 
good meeting. Governor Christie is serious about this. I think he is 
going to be a constructive partner with the Congress and with our 
President to help turn this tide. I am glad he was selected, and I am 
glad he has the Commission going.
  I will tell you, though, that my message to him was twofold. One, I 
am glad you are doing this, but, second, let's take action. We don't 
need another commission to study this problem to know that this is an 
area where Congress and the administration can work together to take 
action.
  In fact, this agreement that we will vote on in the Senate this 
afternoon and again tomorrow to fund the government between now and the 
year's end actually includes a lot of good legislation to help with 
this crisis. It fully funds the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery 
Act I talked about earlier, or CARA. This legislation is the first 
comprehensive reform to Federal addiction policy in 20 years. It treats 
addiction like a disease, which it is. It focuses on prevention, 
education, treatment, and recovery and helping our first responders 
with Narcan. It is very comprehensive because that is the only way to 
get at this issue--to do it in a comprehensive way.
  The legislation we will vote on today and tomorrow also fully funds 
the 21st Century Cures Act, which includes more funding that goes 
directly to the States to deal with opioid addiction.
  In the funding bill, we have funded the CARA programs now at over 
$200 million for this fiscal year. That is more than the bill 
authorizes, and that is good news because we need it.
  It includes $103 million in grants from the Department of Justice for 
drug courts, veterans courts, and prescription drug monitoring 
programs. It also includes $114 million for Health and Human Services 
grants for Medicaid assistance treatment, treatment for pregnant and 
postpartum women, and for supplying naloxone--again, this miracle drug 
can actually reverse an overdose--also known as Narcan, and this will 
help our first responders. It also provides training for them to be 
able to use it effectively.
  It also includes $50 million authorized by CARA for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs to treat and prevent opioid addiction at the VA, as 
well as funding CARA's recovery services--the first time any Federal 
law has ever focused on recovery, not just for treatment but for longer 
term recovery.
  By the way, when there is a good recovery program, the rate of 
success is dramatically increased--much improved. So it is important 
that Congress is being a better partner with regard to recovery.
  Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services also announced 
that $26 million will also go out as part of the Cures Act I spoke 
about to the State of Ohio. Every State in the Union applied for that 
money, and States are getting money, and it will be very helpful. I 
know our Governor and our legislature will put it to good use.
  These are important steps. But I will tell my colleagues--and I said 
this to Governor Christie--that by my count, there are at least six 
provisions of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act that have 
not been implemented yet by either the previous administration or this 
administration. By the way, this is 9 months after CARA was signed into 
law. Let's get these programs all up and going.
  We haven't set up the Pain Management Best Practices Interagency Task 
Force yet. What does that mean? We need a strategy for figuring out 
what the best practices are for pain management, for opioid prescribing 
and alternatives to potentially addictive opioids.
  This is really important. Think about it. Four to five heroin addicts 
started with prescription drugs. Still, when you go to the doctor and 
you have an injury or an accident, it is not unlikely they will give 
you some pills--prescription drugs--and they will be addictive.
  We have to be sure we do everything we can to come up with 
nonaddictive forms of medication, right? If we don't do that, we will 
continue to have the problem. We need to stop overprescribing. We have 
made some progress, but not enough. When a young man or a young woman 
goes to get their wisdom teeth taken out, they should not be given 
opioids. This has happened too many times. I have met two families from 
Ohio, one whose loved one died from an overdose because as a teenager 
he went in to get his wisdom teeth taken out and was given a bunch of 
these pills--60 Percocets in 1 case--and then, because he got 
physically addicted, he ended up going to heroin as a cheaper and more 
accessible alternative and ended up overdosing. That shouldn't happen.
  So this is an important part. It can be done right now. Let's get 
this up and going and let's push back on overprescribing. Let's find 
ways for the pharmaceutical companies to produce medication that 
actually is not addictive that can help with regard to pain management.
  Second, we haven't started the public awareness campaign about the 
dangers of opioid abuse and the link between these prescription drugs 
and heroin and other synthetic drugs like fentanyl. Let's do it.
  In the legislation we have authorized an amount of money for the 
Federal Government to do a national awareness campaign that lets people 
know about this, because most of my constituents don't know about it. 
When the doctor prescribes those pills, they think that because the 
doctor prescribed them, it must be the right thing to do. Instead of 
taking maybe one or two, they are fine with having their kid or their 
brother or sister or mother or father take the whole dose when they 
aren't needed, perhaps, because they don't know about the link. They 
don't know these pills are addictive. Just getting that information out 
there is going to save lives, and it is an important part of turning 
the tide. Let's do it. This public awareness campaign can be 
implemented now.
  The Department of Health and Human Services has not yet released 
information on alternative treatment options for youth sports injuries 
and about how parents and kids can seek treatment if they become 
addicted as a result of a prescription. Why wouldn't that make sense? 
Let's do that. Let's do it now.
  I have had, unfortunately, many instances of talking to parents about 
a

[[Page S2698]]

kid who was injured in high school through a sports injury and who was 
prescribed opioids and, again, the parents and the kids didn't have the 
information to know how dangerous this can be.
  There is a guy I worked with a lot on prevention who goes to colleges 
and high schools and talks about this. He talks about his son Tyler. He 
was a football player. He must have been a great kid; I wish I had met 
him. He had an injury, and, of course, the coach said to play through 
it, and the doctor said: If you take these pills, you can play through 
it. He became physically addicted. Again, he later turned to heroin as 
a less expensive alternative because the pills were too expensive. He 
overdosed and died. His dad, by the way, is channeling his grief into 
something really constructive. God bless him.
  The FDA has not yet announced its action plan on approving new 
opioids. The legislation we wrote, the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act, says the FDA has to seek recommendations from an advisory 
committee before approving any new opioid, and they have to label any 
opioid that is going to be used by kids--label it. The FDA is also 
supposed to issue guidance to educate prescribers on this issue. They 
have not yet done that. Let's do it. That action plan of approving new 
opioids is something we can do. We don't need another study or a 
commission to do it. Let's do it.
  The National Institutes of Health hasn't begun CARA's clinical 
research into alternatives to opioids for treating chronic pain. NIH 
should do that. Now, they may say after hearing this speech that they 
are starting to do it. That is great. Let's do it. Let's get that 
information out there. Let's use the NIH and all the great researchers 
we have there and the great tools we have there to come up with 
alternatives that are not addictive.
  The Department of Justice has not yet expanded the prescription drug 
take-back program. As I mentioned, National Prescription Drug Take-Back 
Day was last Saturday. This is where you can dispose of your 
prescription drugs in a safe way. You know it is going to go into a 
safe receptacle where some trafficker is not going to take the drugs 
and spread them around our community, which, by the way, has happened. 
This is a really important program to get these painkillers off of the 
bathroom shelf. I mentioned the young man who got his grandmother's 
pain pills, and that is how he started his addiction.
  So get them off your shelves. If you are listening today and you 
haven't taken this action, I urge you to do it. Somebody is going to be 
at your home, maybe fixing your plumbing, or somebody is helping to 
clean your home or something else; or kids might be in your home, or 
maybe some friends of your kids, and those pills are just too darn 
tempting. The cost of one pill is about $80 on the street. So think 
about that. Get rid of those pills. Take them to a drugstore where they 
have a receptacle now or take them to the police department where they 
have a receptacle. Be involved in these drug take-back programs.

  Almost every community in America participated on Saturday. There 
were tons of drugs--and I mean tons--that were disposed of. That is a 
good thing and that is going to save lives, but, again, the Department 
of Justice can expand that program. Under our legislation, they are 
authorized to do it. Let's do it. This is something that can be done 
right now. These are steps that HHS, DOJ, and others can take right now 
under the authorities already given them. It will make a difference. 
Again, this crisis is getting worse, not better. To turn the tide, we 
have to do all these things and more.
  I also wish to mention that in addition to these important parts of 
CARA and other actions the administration can take is that the 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Ben Carson, can 
increase access to sober housing for people coming out of treatment. I 
know Dr. Carson well enough to know he has a passion for this issue and 
he wants to address it. This is one way to address it.
  Under the previous Obama administration, sober living facilities lost 
priority if they had a zero tolerance drug policy. To me, that makes no 
sense. Dr. Carson has the authority to change that and to make it 
easier for folks who are in recovery to stay clean over the long term. 
Again, I hope the administration will take that step and these other 
important steps. Whether it is FDA, whether it is NIH, whether it is 
DOJ, whether it is HHS, whether it is Housing and Urban Development, we 
have opportunities without new legislation. This is either already 
authorized or actions they can take. Let's go ahead and do it. Let's do 
everything we can.
  None of these individually is a silver bullet. There is no silver 
bullet. This issue is ultimately going to be decided in our 
communities, in our families, and in our hearts. We all have to get 
involved. All these will help. All these will help to ensure that we 
are responding to a true crisis in our community. If we do all these 
things, I believe next year can be better. This year is going to be 
worse. All the data shows that the number of overdoses and deaths--in 
my State of Ohio, in your State--are increasing this year compared to 
the last year.
  It doesn't have to be this way. All these actions taken together on 
prevention and education, better treatment, longer term recovery, sober 
housing, ensuring that we are moving away from overprescribing and 
providing alternatives to addictive pain medication, ensuring that we 
do provide our first responders with the training they need on Narcan 
and naloxone, to get people who are overdosing and save their lives and 
then get them into treatment--not just save their lives but get them 
into treatment. All of that together will make a difference.
  I believe we can turn the tide. I believe we can save lives. I 
believe we cannot just save lives of those who otherwise may overdose 
and die as a result of their overdose, but we can help all those who 
are addicted--the hundreds of thousands of people in Ohio, the millions 
of people across our country--to be able to achieve their dreams by 
getting them into treatment programs.
  There is good news here because there are so many examples of people 
who have gone into treatment and longer term recovery and turned their 
lives around, many of whom are now helping others to do the same, many 
of whom are back at work, back with their families, back being the kind 
of citizens who contribute to our society in so many ways. That is the 
hope, and that is what can happen if we work together to implement this 
legislation, to do everything possible to have this broad, 
comprehensive approach to turn the tide.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a simple 
question for my colleagues, especially my Republican colleagues: Why is 
it that this Senate is working to pass a law which will deny millions 
of our fellow Americans access to the kind of retirement saving plans 
which we have access to as U.S. Senators? Why are we doing that?
  I know all of us recognize that we have a retirement savings crisis 
in this country. Too many Americans are saving too little for their 
retirement years. We should be making it easier for people to put aside 
some savings for their retirement rather than making it harder. Yet 
this legislation will indisputably make it harder for millions of 
Americans to put aside the kind of savings for their retirement that 
Members of the U.S. Senate enjoy.
  All of us know there are really about three legs to the retirement 
stool. The fundamental basic piece is the Social Security savings. That 
is the bedrock of the retirement system, but we all know that living 
off of a Social Security retirement benefit by itself is very 
difficult. After all, the average monthly Social Security benefit as of 
January of this year was $1,360 a month. That is the average. That 
means there are a lot below it and a lot above it. I can tell you, 
$1,360 a month and below is really difficult for somebody to get by on 
in terms of housing costs, medical costs, and other costs people are 
facing today. That is why we need to strengthen Social Security, not 
weaken it.
  The second leg of the retirement stool for most Americans for much of 
our history in the postwar period was a defined benefit plan through 
our employers, where employers--especially

[[Page S2699]]

large employers--would provide their employees a retirement benefit of 
a set amount over a fixed period of time during retirement. So that was 
something people could rely on. As we all know, we have seen that leg 
of the three-legged stool be dramatically cut down. It is not the 
practice of most businesses today to offer defined benefit plans.
  The third leg of that stool has been personal savings, the ability of 
people to put aside a little money for their future. Just a few years 
ago, we had a big wake-up call from the General Accountability Office, 
where they looked at retirement around the country and concluded that 
almost 50 percent of households of age 55 and older have no retirement 
savings in vehicles such as 401(k) plans and IRAs. That same GAO report 
found that 57 percent of workers' entire household savings and 
investments was less than $25,000. More striking was that almost one-
third of American workers had less than $1,000 in total savings. One-
third of American workers had less than $1,000 in total savings.
  We also know that 55 million Americans today do not have access to 
tax-benefited, tax-incentive retirement plans like 401(k)s enjoyed by 
those who work for major businesses. In fact, as all of us know, 
Members and employees of the U.S. Senate have access to 401(k) plans. 
If you work for a large business or a corporation of the United States, 
chances are you are going to get a 401(k)-type plan which allows you to 
deduct immediately through your paycheck funds for the purposes of your 
retirement savings. Of course, many businesses also have some matching 
and incentive for those savings.
  So when we have a situation where 55 million Americans don't have 
access to those kind of savings plans--which are an increasingly 
important part of retirement security because of the fact that defined 
benefit retirement has gone down so dramatically--most people would 
ask: How do we incentivize? How do we incentivize more savings? One 
innovative solution is in a growing number of States, as of now, five 
States, including the State of Maryland. What the State of Maryland and 
other States determined was that it is not that small employers or 
medium-sized employers don't want to provide their employees with 
access to these plans. They do. They want to be able to offer that kind 
of benefit, but there is a cost, an infrastructure cost. There is a 
burden to providing those kind of tax-preferred vehicles for retirement 
savings to their employees. That is why they are not provided.
  So what the States have done is, they have developed platforms which 
allow those small businesses or medium-sized businesses, on a totally 
voluntary basis, to sign up so their employees can benefit from these 
tax-preferred savings vehicles--just like Members of the U.S. Senate, 
just like most people who work for large corporations. In Maryland, we 
have hundreds of thousands of Marylanders who were signing up for 
these--a lot of people work for small businesses, a lot of people work 
for startups, a lot of younger workers who are mobile and going from 
one place to another--because this allows them, no matter which 
employer they go to, to make sure they can access that vehicle. All it 
requires is the employers to sign up for this platform which makes this 
retirement savings easier.
  What is really strange here is that in Maryland, this has been a 
totally bipartisan exercise--totally bipartisan. We had Republican 
State senators, Democratic State senators, members of our house of 
delegates, our Republican Governor signing the bill because everyone 
recognized that this was kind of a good thing to encourage these 
savings opportunities to more Marylanders.
  So why in the world would we, in the U.S. Senate, be passing a 
resolution which knocks down the ability of States to provide these 
kind of savings platforms? I have to say I have not heard an answer on 
the floor of the Senate. In fact, I have heard very few Senators coming 
to defend the vote we are apparently going to take at 5 o'clock.

  I know for sure that Candidate Donald Trump did not campaign on the 
idea of making it more difficult for hard-working Americans to save for 
their retirement. That was not something he talked about on the 
campaign trail. In fact, I thought a lot of his campaign message was 
how he was identifying with struggling working families and wanted to 
make life easier for those working families. That is what States like 
Maryland are trying to do--make it easier for people who work for small 
businesses and medium-sized businesses to put aside a little bit of 
their savings for their retirement because, as I indicated, right now, 
if you look at the different pillars of retirement, you have Social 
Security and you have very little or a dwindling amount through a 
defined benefit. Really, what we are left with are personal savings.
  It is pretty alarming to see people in this Senate charging ahead to 
try to eliminate the ability of States to do this. A few weeks ago, 
this Senate voted to deny municipalities the ability to do this. That 
was a very bad decision. Let's not compound a bad decision by taking 
this right away from the States. After all, I hear from my colleagues 
all the time that States are the laboratory of democracy. This is where 
experimentation should take place. This has been a successful 
experiment. It has been a successful experiment in five States. It also 
doesn't cost the Federal taxpayer one dime--not one dime. It is a very 
low-cost option for the States that enact these through their own 
democratic process in the States. As I said, this has been a bipartisan 
process in these States.
  I really hope people will take a deeper look at what we are going to 
be voting on at 5 o'clock today because I have heard a lot of our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle justifiably talk about the 
retirement crisis we have in this country. Yet this Senate is poised to 
vote on a piece of legislation that will make saving for retirement 
more difficult for tens of millions of Americans.
  So exactly what is it we are going to vote on? Well, the Obama 
administration wanted to make it clear that States had the authority to 
establish these platforms to help with savings because there was some 
ambiguity under Federal retirement law whether States could do it. They 
adopted a rule that made it clear that States would have this option, 
and States have moved ahead. Now this Senate is talking about undoing 
the rule that provided clarity so the States could move forward and 
offer these retirement platforms.
  I really hope this Senate will not vote today to take away this 
ability of States to help millions of our fellow Americans provide more 
money for their retirement savings.
  I will close where I started. How can any Member of this Senate look 
their constituents in the face and say to their constituents that they 
voted to take away a retirement savings option from their constituents 
when they have that savings option here as Senators? In the U.S. 
Senate, like a lot of other large organizations, we have retirement 
savings plans and we have 401(k) plans. So it is difficult to 
understand how in good conscience Senators who enjoy the benefit of 
that kind of plan can pull the plug on the ability of States to offer 
that same kind of savings plan--in fact, not even as good, but at least 
that savings platform to millions of our fellow citizens and say to 
small- and medium-sized businesses that want to offer this benefit but 
find it a little too costly--to deny them the option of signing up for 
these State plans.
  So I hope every Senator will examine his or her conscience on this 
and make the decision that they want to make sure their constituents 
can have access to at least some kind of the same benefit they have as 
a U.S. Senator.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, our Nation faces a retirement savings 
crisis. Too many seniors live in poverty after a lifetime of hard work, 
and too many people are facing retirement who have not been able to put 
away the adequate savings they will need. That is a problem not only on 
a human level and on a moral level but on an economic level.
  When seniors are forced to live in poverty, that hurts all of us and 
is a strike against our Nation's values. As more people have to spend 
money to take care of their retired parents and relatives, that hurts 
our economy. Millions of seniors do not have family

[[Page S2700]]

members who can spend those resources, so it is taxpayers who will have 
to make sure seniors have a place to live, food to eat, and medicine to 
keep them healthy. That is why we must do everything we can to help 
people save for retirement themselves and not have to rely on the 
taxpayer, to help them put a little bit of money away while they still 
can.
  At the very least, the Senate should stay out of the way of our 
States that are taking action to address this looming crisis, but that 
is not what the Senate is doing here today. Instead, we are debating a 
resolution that would make it harder for people to save for retirement. 
We are debating whether to limit the ability of State governments to 
help people save for their retirement.
  While some Americans are fortunate enough to work at companies that 
offer their employees retirement plans, many more do not. That is 
significant because research shows that the best way for people to save 
for retirement is through a retirement plan at work. Without one, 
workers are less likely to invest in an IRA or a 401(k) savings plan. 
That is why it is so worrisome that there are 55 million Americans 
right now in this country who do not have access to a retirement plan 
through their jobs. As the baby boomer generation approaches 
retirement, that is a serious problem.
  President Obama proposed establishing a national individual 
retirement account program to help these 55 million Americans, but 
Republicans said no. In the absence of congressional action, both red 
States and blue States took the lead. They did so by coming up with a 
way for Americans to better save for retirement. One solution that has 
gained momentum over the last few years is to establish retirement 
programs at the State level to give people the chance to have 
retirement contributions deducted out of their paychecks into that plan 
if their company doesn't already offer a retirement program. It would 
give every worker across this Nation the same access to the tax breaks 
those lucky enough to have access to an employer-sponsored plan 
receive.
  In my home State of Illinois, we were one of the first to do this. A 
few years ago, our State created the Secure Choice Program. It is an 
innovative program that is poised to give 1.3 million Illinoisans the 
opportunity to save for retirement when it launches next year. It is 
important to note that not only is Secure Choice innovative, it does 
not impose any burdensome mandates. It is optional. People can deduct 
up to 3 percent of their wages, and it applies only to businesses with 
at least 25 employees that have been in existence for 2 years. Secure 
Choice is also portable, so people can take their savings with them if 
they switch jobs. It is estimated that it will save taxpayers almost 
$243.8 million in the first 10 years because retirees will not need to 
rely as much on Medicaid spending.
  It is a pragmatic solution to address a real-world problem. Other 
States have since followed our lead in establishing other similar 
programs. That is why I find it so ironic that my Republican 
colleagues, who frequently speak about the need to protect States' 
rights, are using this resolution we are voting on today to try to 
block States as culturally and politically different as Illinois and 
Arizona from offering or even having the freedom to offer these plans. 
Instead of allowing States to be the laboratories of democracy they so 
often talk about, Republicans are trying to limit States' flexibility 
and, in the process, increase regulatory burdens on employers. That is 
quite a role reversal.
  Why is there this push to block the States from trying to help their 
residents better save for retirement? One reason could be that it would 
pad the financial industry's bottom line. That is because many 
investment brokers don't want increased competition, and they are 
worried that programs like Secure Choice that are run by States will 
offer people who are saving for retirement a better deal.
  News reports have indicated that mutual fund companies are worried 
that they will lose customers to State-based plans, even though the 
entire purpose of efforts like Secure Choice is to help the millions of 
Americans who are not currently saving for retirement. Other news 
outlets have reported that financial analysts on Wall Street are 
worried that State plans will be transparent about hidden fees, which 
means that financial analysts may be forced to reveal that they are 
charging fees that are perhaps a little too high and will have to lower 
how much they charge.
  Instead of encouraging greater competition that will help 55 million 
Americans save money for retirement, some of my colleagues are 
listening to Wall Street lobbyists who want less competition and who 
want to take away a retirement savings option from hard-working 
Americans. And here I was thinking that the conservatives believe 
competition produces better outcomes for the American people.
  At the end of the day, we as Senators must do everything we can to 
make it easier for people to save for retirement, not harder. We must 
look out for the constituents who sent us here to represent them, not 
for Wall Street or for special interests. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to stand by the States that have led the Nation in creating 
retirement plans, States as different as Illinois, Arizona, California, 
Maryland, Oregon, Connecticut, Washington, and New Jersey. Please do 
not take the opportunity to save for retirement away from 55 million 
hard-working Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                    Coal Miners Healthcare Benefits

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to join with a number of my 
colleagues, and I thank the Senator from Illinois for her comments on 
pensions, but there is another battle that a lot of us have been down 
here for a number of times over the last couple of years; that is, how 
do we make sure this country honors its promise and provides a 
permanent fix for our Nation's coal miners, particularly in terms of a 
promise that was made back in the late 1940s by then-President Truman 
in terms of healthcare for miners?
  The last few months have been filled with an awful lot of uncertainty 
about whether the promise of healthcare for miners, retirees, widows, 
and others would be kept. As a matter of fact, earlier this year, 
22,000 coal miners or their dependents received notices that their 
healthcare benefits would be terminated at the end of April.
  After months of uncertainty and fighting, we stand ready later this 
week to pass a bill that would make sure America kept its promise. We 
have spent a lot of time on this floor arguing for causes, but rarely 
in the 8 years I have been here have I seen any Member of the Senate be 
more engaged, more obsessed, more of a pain in the neck--and a pain in 
other parts of bodies--on this issue than my great friend, the Senior 
Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin. The truth is, without Joe's 
tireless work and leadership, I am not sure the miners in West Virginia 
or Virginia or Pennsylvania or other States that were affected would be 
able to look at this piece of legislation and know that their 
healthcare benefits are going to be maintained.
  This didn't come easily. If nothing else, this shows again the power 
of persistence. Joe first raised this issue in July of 2015, when he 
introduced the Miners Protection Act. Since then, he has brought it 
up--I ask my colleagues to contradict me if it is not the case--in 
every public meeting or private meeting. Whenever there were more than 
two or three Senators engaged in any topic, Joe would come bursting in 
and say: We have to take care of the miners.
  Well, there are a lot of times here in this Chamber that those kinds 
of efforts are not recognized or rewarded. I just wanted to be one of 
the first to say on behalf of all the miners in Virginia--but more 
importantly to the 22,000 miners who otherwise would have lost their 
healthcare--that many of us played some small role, but we wouldn't be 
having a permanent fix to the law without the absolute leadership, 
dedication, and determination of Joe Manchin.
  Before I turn it over to my colleague from Pennsylvania to make a 
comment or two, I know that at times Senator Manchin, as a former 
Governor, has wondered: Can you really get stuff done here? Well, there 
are a lot of issues we still have to work on; there are a lot of things 
we haven't gotten done. But for a whole lot of miners, their widows, 
and dependents, without the Senator's leadership, America wouldn't have

[[Page S2701]]

kept its promise. Because of his leadership and work, those miners, at 
least in terms of their healthcare, can rest easy.
  With that, I yield the floor to my friend from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak about what the Senior Senator from 
Virginia just spoke about, and that is the miners' healthcare. We have 
complete action at long last. This should have been done in December, 
when we were pleading with the majority leader at the time to get it 
done then.
  But we are happy we are at this point now, where one of two--one 
promise has been fulfilled, and that is the promise of permanent, 
guaranteed healthcare for thousands, tens of thousands of miners across 
the country. In my home State, the last count was 1,955. Let's round it 
off to 2,000--a lot of families. We are grateful we are at this point.
  I do want to reiterate what Senator Warner said about our colleague 
from West Virginia, Senator Manchin. He is right. Joe Manchin brought 
this up at every meeting over the course of many, many months and 
several years. We are grateful for the leadership he demonstrated and 
grateful that he kept us all focused. I thank all of our colleagues who 
worked on this.
  I think, initially, going back years ago, before Senator Manchin was 
in the Senate, Senator Rockefeller was raising this issue. This really 
has been around a long time--for at least 5 years. We heard this 
morning from Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of 
America, who talked about this 5-year fight.
  I commend and salute Senator Manchin. I also thank the committee 
dynamic here, the Finance Committee--several members on the committee--
with Senator Wyden helping us get this bill, the Miners Protection Act, 
through the Senate Finance Committee and the leadership of Senator 
Schumer, as well, in focusing our caucus on getting this done.
  I just want to make two additional points. One is a negative note, 
but I think it is important to point this out. There was a story 
yesterday in the publication, ThinkProgress. Here is what the headline 
was: ``Trump administration admits it used miners' healthcare as a 
bargaining chip.'' That was the headline. Then the subheadline was: 
``Coal miners were just pawns in a larger game.'' That is what the 
headline and subheadline said.
  I am not sure I have read a more disturbing headline in a long time, 
where the healthcare of coal miners--retired coal miners, who were 
promised this decades ago, would be used as pawns in a debate about a 
spending bill. Unfortunately, that is at least what has been reported. 
I hope we don't ever see a headline like that again.
  Going forward, the problem for us now is, as much as we are happy 
about this current result on healthcare, we still have a lot of work to 
do for miners, especially when it comes to their pensions. That is the 
second half of the promise.
  So I remind everyone again, these miners kept their promise. They 
kept their promise to their company to work in the darkness and danger 
of a coal mine, sometimes for decades, not just years. They kept their 
promise to their families to support them in the most difficult job 
imaginable. And many of them have served in combat or served in the 
military, in one war or another. They kept their promise to their 
country. It is time we fulfill the entire promise, and that means 
getting pensions done as well.
  We are grateful to be part of this, and let's keep the momentum going 
for pensions for all of the retired miners.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, there is a question Americans should 
be asking all of us every day: Who are you fighting for? We should be 
asking ourselves that. Who are we fighting for?
  Here is who Joe Manchin is fighting for--Senator Manchin, my 
colleague from West Virginia, and my other colleagues who are here on 
the floor: Billy Hull. He is a retired coal miner with 30 years of 
working at the Peabody Coal Mine near Montrose, MO. He wrote me a 
letter earlier, about 6 months ago, saying in part:

       My wife and I, married 59 years fall under the Patriot Coal 
     Companies Voluntary Employees Beneficial Association. My wife 
     Earlene is a 2 time cancer survivor and I suffered a stroke 
     in 2012. If we lose our benefits it will be hard for us to 
     afford our medicine cost.

  So these folks were made a promise by--I am accused of being a fan 
girl of this guy, and I am a fan girl of Harry Truman. I think he was 
plain-spoken. I think he was earnest, honest, and kept people like 
Billy Hull in the front of his mind 24/7--good, salt-of-the-earth, 
hard-working people who play by the rules. Mr. Hull played by the 
rules. Thousands of coal miners in our State played by the rules, and 
their widows played by the rules.
  The promise made by Harry Truman deserved to be kept. The promise 
deserved to be kept. So my friend, Senator Joe Manchin, decided he 
wasn't going to go with the flow around here. He was going--I think he 
said at one point on the floor, I think his quote was: If you don't 
stand up for something, we don't stand for anything. And he decided 
that he was going to get this done.
  Now, I have to tell you the truth. For about 2 years, everywhere you 
went, you would walk behind Joe, and Joe would be trying to talk to 
somebody about the miners. After he would walk off, people would 
whisper: You know, it is never going to happen. We are never going to 
get this done. It is not going to happen.
  I can't tell you how fun it is to celebrate getting something done.
  We bail out everybody around here. We bail out Wall Street. We bail 
out banks. We bail out corporations. We are busy figuring out how we 
can cut the wealthiest's taxes, as we speak. It is all about making it 
easier for folks who have plenty. Why is it so hard to help the people 
who don't have anything--who depended on a promise, just to have the 
basics in their lives, and put in long days of work for years as their 
part of that bargain?
  I am so proud of Joe Manchin. I can't imagine how proud the coal 
miners in his State must be of him. I am glad we had an opportunity to 
stand with him as he stood for something. I am proud that we got it 
done.
  Now we have another big task because there is another bunch of people 
out there; really, we are running roughshod over them, and that is a 
bunch of truck drivers, truck drivers in my State who have driven 
trucks for 35, 40, 45 years, understanding that at the end of that long 
period of time, they would have a pension. It is not their fault that 
the pension is not there for them.
  I have to tell Joe that I have to sign him up. I want Senator Manchin 
as the captain of the team as we now go on to fight for the pensions 
these people have earned.
  If we can bail out everybody we are bailing out, if we can cut taxes 
by $7 trillion, surely, we can find the money to make good on these 
promises.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I join my colleague, Senator McCaskill from Missouri, in her comments 
about the Central States Pension Fund. We have over 14,000 workers and 
retirees in our State affected by this as well.
  But I really stand here today to thank Senator Manchin for his work 
and to thank our leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, as 
well as Chairman Cochran and Vice Chairman Leahy for their ability to 
put partisanship aside and get this deal done. It meant everything from 
funding for the COPS Program to helping to combat the opioid epidemic, 
Capital Investment Grants, and medical research.
  But for one guy here, it was all personal, and that is Joe Manchin. 
He fought long and hard to protect healthcare benefits for his coal 
miners. Think about this: In October, 12,500 retired coal miners and 
widows received notices telling them that their healthcare benefits 
would be cut off at the end of the year. Then, in November, another 
3,600 notices went out. That is over 16,000 people.
  I don't have coal miners in my State, but do you know why I knew 
about those notices? Because Joe Manchin

[[Page S2702]]

made sure that I knew about those notices and because the other 
Senators who spoke here, who have coal miners in their States--they 
stood up and made sure we knew about those notices, and they worked 
tirelessly to get this done.
  For me, mining is not about that black coal dust. It is about red 
dust. It is about iron ore. As Senator Manchin knows, my grandpa worked 
1,500 feet underground in the mines in Minnesota. He got his first job 
as a teamster when he was only fifteen. He had to quit school and go to 
work and help raise his eight, nine brothers and sisters. One of them 
died. His parents died. He worked underground his whole life. He went 
down that shaft and that cage every single day, just to support his 
brothers and sisters. Then he married my grandma and supported my dad 
and his brother.
  Do you know what? I wouldn't even be here in the Senate today if he 
didn't have the pension benefits that came out of the job he had--and 
healthcare. Joe Manchin understood that about the people he represents. 
Those miners earned those pensions, and they earned their retiree 
healthcare benefits. That is why what he did, and what all those 
Senators who represent the coal miners did, is more than just about 
those States and about those miners. It is about a promise we made to 
our workers.
  As one former Congresswoman, Barbara Jordan from Texas, once said:

       What Americans want is something simple. They want a 
     country that is as good as its promise.

  I thank Senator Manchin for fulfilling that promise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
her wonderful remarks and for her wonderful comments about those people 
who go down into the mines every day.
  I acknowledge the permanent healthcare fix we have for our miners and 
their families that was included in the fiscal year 2017 appropriations 
legislation. This was a promise made by Harry Truman. It was a promise 
that was our obligation to keep, and the keeper of the flame for making 
sure it got done was my colleague, Senator Joe Manchin from West 
Virginia.
  As he knows, my State, the State of Indiana, the Hoosier State, has 
thousands of miners as well. They go to work in the dark, and they come 
home in the dark. They work in grueling conditions and have done so for 
decades. Part of it was the promise that was made to them that they and 
their family would have healthcare, a promise made by Harry Truman that 
is our obligation to keep. When the lights were starting to flicker and 
it was getting dimmer on this promise that it would ever be kept, we 
fought for years. Joe Manchin led the fight, led the crew, and we got 
this done.

  It is a good example of what Congress can do when we work in a 
bipartisan manner. I thank all of my colleagues on both sides for being 
part of this. Many people worked hard to secure the passage of this 
fix. Part of it was an amazing group of folks who came to visit us on a 
constant basis, our friends from back home, the miners from Virginia 
and from West Virginia and from Indiana and from Ohio and from all 
around this country who--if you remember, my colleague Joe Manchin was 
there that hot day this summer when it was 100 degrees outside.
  All of these retired miners--many in their seventies, eighties, some 
in their nineties--were here on one of the hottest days of the year. 
Under extraordinarily difficult conditions, they stayed and sat in the 
Sun and in the heat because, they said: We are here for our brothers 
and sisters. They said: We know you are here for us too.
  Our leader was Joe Manchin. He lived this every single day, every 
single conversation that we had. We were in it together. We told our 
miners: We will never stop until we get this done, and we have the 
permanent healthcare fix done. It was a wonderful team to work with, 
but there is no question that the captain of our team was a fellow from 
West Virginia.
  To my colleague Joe Manchin, we are so proud of you and so proud of 
you for keeping us moving forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, first of all, I cannot express how 
humbled I am and how proud I am of all of us, and my colleagues here, 
my dear friend Senator Warner. We were Governors together. We split the 
Virginias--Virginia and West Virginia. We worked together. He has the 
same constituency base I have in West Virginia, in Southwest Virginia, 
and all of West Virginia. He knows the mining industry. He knows the 
hard-working people.
  To Senator Donnelly from Indiana, we have been there together with 
the coal miners and the people who moved the coal and do the hard 
lifting. To Senator McCaskill from Missouri, Senator Casey from 
Pennsylvania--Pennsylvania has a rich tradition in coal mining--Senator 
Klobuchar and everyone who has spoken, and I want to thank the 
Presiding Officer too. He was an original cosponsor from Arkansas. So 
this is truly bipartisan. From Arkansas, the Presiding Officer 
understands hard-working people. He signed on to the bill without 
hesitation. I want to thank him. So it was really a team effort.
  People have been talking about all of the things and the passion we 
have for different things. My passion comes from the people I was born 
and raised and grew up with in the coal mining towns. So all I ever saw 
in my life was people around me who nurtured me and guided me and 
taught me who were truly coal miners or coal miner families. That is 
all I knew. My Little League coach was a coal miner. My Boy Scout 
leader was a coal miner. A lot of my teachers were coal miners, 
basically, off and on, trying to supplement their incomes. My teammates 
whom I played ball with through high school became coal miners. My 
grandfather was a coal miner. My uncle was a coal miner who lost his 
life in a 1968 mine explosion. My next-door neighbor in 1954--I 
remember I was 7 years old, and I wanted to throw a ball all the time.
  I would come home from school, and Pinchy would be there. He would 
throw a ball with me. I can still remember this so vividly. One day I 
was ready to play ball and Pinchy did not come home. I asked Mercia, 
his wife: Mercia, where is Pinchy?
  She said: Joe, honey, he is going to be a little late today.
  Well, we just had a mine explosion. I did not know anything about the 
mine explosion, but I knew there was no Pinchy to throw a ball with. So 
the second day, I asked: Mercia, where is Pinchy?
  Well, they still didn't know the outcome. The rescue was going on. 
They did not know if they lost their lives or not or what had happened. 
So they were still in limbo.
  She said: Joe, Pinchy has to work over again tonight.
  That was her explanation to me, the little boy. The third day, she--
by that time they knew. She had to tell me. So she is probably--I know 
Mercia had to labor with this. How is she going to tell this 7-year-old 
neighborhood kid who played ball with Pinchy?
  She said--this is a tough one. She said: He is not going to come 
home.
  When you think about the hard-working people who suffered--she never 
had anything. If it was not for healthcare and if it wasn't for a 
pension, Mercia would have had nothing. So I know the families and I 
know the sacrifices. What you all saw was my passion for the people I 
grew up with. So when I say thank you, I thank the President for 
supporting miners--President Trump--I thank my Republican colleagues, 
and I thank all 48 Democratic Senators who never wavered.
  A lot of them don't even know a coal miner. What they know today, 
after 5 years that we have been talking about this and working toward 
this, is that you would not have the country you have today if it 
hadn't been for those people who sacrificed, who worked hard, never 
asked for a thing, gave everything they could back, took care of their 
families but took care of their country.
  Basically, the energy they produced gave us the country. People, 
whether in California today, wherever they may be, understand that coal 
miners produced the energy that allowed us to win World War I, World 
War II, and every war we have been in, that supported the industrial 
might that we have that built the middle class.

[[Page S2703]]

  I am so thankful for all of that. I get choked up when I think about 
it because that is what we were fighting for. They never asked for a 
thing. My grandfather was run out of the mines in 1927 because he was 
trying to organize and say: We can't make it.
  If you have ever heard the song lyric, ``I owe my soul to the company 
store,'' my grandfather owed his soul. He never had any money. He had 
script. He said: We have to do something different. We can't live like 
this.
  They blackballed him. On Christmas Eve, 1927, my grandmother was 
pregnant with my uncle. She already had four children. My dad was the 
oldest. They came to the house and threw them out of a company house in 
the middle of a snowstorm. That happened in 1927.
  So we know it. We lived it. In 1946, they talked about the history. 
In 1946, the Krug-Lewis amendment--Krug was Secretary of the Interior 
and John L. Lewis was at the United Mine Workers, and they said: You 
have to give those people something so they have something to live for. 
They have no health care. They have no pension. They have given you 
everything they have.
  Harry Truman said: We are going to take care of them. You can't go on 
strike because if you do, our economy collapses. This is in 1946. So 
that is how this came about. Now, people said: Well, I have heard this. 
They are going to bail them out. We are not asking for a bailout. You 
understand, these people basically made an agreement that every ton of 
coal that was mined from 1946, the United Mine Workers basically, there 
would be an amount of money set aside that came from every sale of a 
ton of coal that went into this fund.
  Every union contract negotiation, they contracted and they left money 
in their contract to pay for their benefits of healthcare and pensions 
and did not take money home to their families that they could have 
used. They made all of these sacrifices for all of these years. It 
wasn't their fault that the bankruptcy laws that were passed in 
Congress allowed companies to walk away and leave them high and dry.
  It was not their fault. They did everything. So finally we have all 
come together to do the right thing that should have been done. It 
shouldn't be played politics with today. Everyone says we have winners 
and losers. We are all winners. If you can get something like this 
accomplished and be part of it, then you have to feel good about it. It 
gives you a reason to even be here.
  That is what I am so appreciative of. I am so proud of everyone who 
has stood together on both sides, my colleague Shelley Moore Capito, a 
dear friend of mine, a Republican. I am a Democrat. You know what, we 
are Americans and we are West Virginians. That is what we were fighting 
for. That is the winner today. The winner is this great country that 
basically stood up and protected the people who gave them everything 
they needed to be the superpower of the world. That is what we fought 
for.
  So there is enough praise and enough accolades for everyone to take 
home and say: We all did it, and we all did a job well done. We do have 
pensions now. These are not big pensions. These are $300, $400, $500 
pensions. It supplements the way of life that is not extravagant by any 
means. So we are going to start working as soon as this is finished 
this week, and next week we will start on that.
  To the 22,600 miners and their families who say thank you--I have 
heard from most of them--to all of the people who came up here, they 
were coming up here, a lot of them every week driving just to be here, 
to be part of it and put a face, put a family, put basically the 
challenges they would have being able to even exist or live without 
this healthcare--they made it possible. I want to thank all of them.
  To Cecil Roberts, president of United Mine Workers, who was so 
diligent on this, Phil Smith, all of the people who worked so hard, I 
thank them, but really thank all of our Senators and the Congressmen. 
My congressional delegation, I am appreciative of them, our Republicans 
and Democrats on the House side who voted. They are voting now as we 
speak. The Senate is poised tomorrow for us to vote and support this.
  I know President Trump will sign it. People are saying they used it, 
played bargaining games with it. I am not going to get into that 
because I don't know how you could ever sincerely mean that you were 
using people's livelihoods and the healthcare for them and their 
families as a bargaining chip. I don't think anybody meant to do that. 
Maybe it came out in something that should have not been said, but with 
that, we have to forget all of that.
  Let me just say thank you. To the Presiding Officer, to all of my 
colleagues, thank you. Thank you for a job not only well done but 
basically very appreciated that it was done, and people's lives will be 
different because of what we did. God bless each and every one of you. 
Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to 
speak to the CRA legislation before us that would overturn the 
Department of Labor rule designed to help Americans save for 
retirement, but before I speak to that, I just want to join all of my 
colleagues on the floor in applauding what has happened to support the 
miners and to get them health benefits and to thank my colleague Joe 
Manchin for his leadership.
  I know how personally he has fought for this, as so many people who 
spoke on the floor have. You know, we don't have any coal miners in New 
Hampshire, Joe, but we have hard workers. We have people who understand 
that when you make a promise to them, you need to keep that promise. 
Thank you for leading this fight and to everyone who made this happen 
because we need to reassure Americans that when we say we are going to 
do something, we actually follow through and we do that. So thank you 
for making that happen.
  Now, Mr. President, it is disappointing that actually on the issue 
that is before the Senate right now, this effort to change the labor 
rule on retirement, that we are actually going to take something away 
from Americans. States across America have been developing and 
implementing innovative, low-cost retirement savings options to improve 
their citizens' retirement security.
  That is really important at a time when we have so many people who 
have not been able to save for retirement, who are worried about what 
might happen if something happens to them and they can't work into the 
retirement age. Sadly, the misguided legislation that is before us 
would shut down these efforts and effectively take away from States the 
right to establish retirement options for workers.
  Now, across the country we have had Republican and Democratic State 
treasurers join with groups, including the AARP and the Small Business 
Majority, to oppose this effort. I want to join them in asking two what 
I think are obvious questions.
  First, why do the sponsors of this resolution want to deny Americans 
new, attractive retirement savings options?
  Second, why in the world are they doing this at a time when the 
United States faces a growing retirement savings crisis--a crisis that 
threatens to strand millions of seniors without any personal savings 
and at risk of falling into poverty? And why do this when it doesn't 
include any mandates and there is no cost to taxpayers either at the 
Federal level or, in most States, at the State level? This is something 
that is paid for by people who are looking to get a pension.
  Facts matter, and we shouldn't ignore them. Some 55 million Americans 
lack access to a workplace retirement plan, and 45 percent of 
households don't have any retirement account assets--zero savings. 
Polls show that more than three-quarters of private sector workers fear 
not having enough money to live comfortably in retirement.
  To address this nationwide crisis, many States have stepped up to the 
plate, experimenting with public-private partnerships to help small 
businesses provide low-cost, turn-key payroll deduction options. The 
legislation being debated today would abruptly compromise the future of 
these State initiatives.
  In my State of New Hampshire, nearly 99 percent of our employers are 
considered small businesses. That number is hard to believe. They 
employ over 50 percent of New Hampshire's workers.

[[Page S2704]]

Nearly 43 percent of Granite Staters work for an employer that does not 
offer a retirement plan.
  As the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I talk to 
small business owners regularly, and as a former small business owner 
myself, I understand the challenges they face. For many, it is a 
challenge just to meet payroll and to keep the doors of their 
businesses open. I know that many of them would like to offer a company 
retirement plan because they want to do right by their employees, but 
they just can't afford it.
  A Pew Foundation survey found that three-quarters of owners of small 
and medium-sized businesses across the country support the idea of 
these State-run options because they offer a way for employees to save 
for retirement at little or no cost to the employer.
  So these programs are sort of like starter plans for small 
businesses. A company that is still trying to gain its financial 
footing can offer this option to its employees. Then, once the company 
gets on more solid ground and it needs to attract and retain talent, it 
can transition to a more ambitious retirement plan that allows it to 
contribute to its employees' retirement savings.
  It is especially troubling to me that the Senate is even considering 
whether to deny Americans this retirement option at the same time that 
we are seeing leaders on the House side trying to pass a healthcare 
bill that would make it more expensive for many preretirement seniors 
and for people with preexisting conditions to purchase health coverage.
  Again, I would ask: Why would we want to deny this new, innovative 
retirement option to millions of employees who work for small 
businesses without retirement plans? Why would we want to deny small 
businesses the choice of offering these options? Why should the Federal 
Government stand in the way of States and small businesses that want to 
take positive steps to address the retirement crisis and help their 
citizens?
  I think this legislation is misguided. It is legislation in search of 
a problem, and, worse than that, it would put a massive roadblock in 
the way of States and small businesses that are striving to solve the 
real and growing problem of inadequate retirement savings.
  So I urge my colleagues to really take a look at what would happen in 
their home States. I urge them to stand up for America's small 
businesses, to vote no on this legislation. Let's ensure that Americans 
have more, not fewer, options to save for retirement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, Congress has spent the first 4 months of 
this year using an arcane, expedited procedure to roll back policies 
from the previous administration, while disregarding the impact these 
changes will have on American workers and families.
  When you hold a belief that anything done by a Federal agency is bad, 
cutting programs seems like progress, but, unfortunately, it is not 
that simple.
  I am all for streamlining government and making the process of doing 
business easier, but some rules--rules that keep workers safe, for 
example, or to protect consumers or to keep our air and water clean--
are protections that make sense.
  In their ideological zeal, the majority has time and again made the 
decision to roll back important policies regardless of the impact on 
American people.
  So far this year, just to name a few, the majority has rolled back 
environmental protections for clean water and allowed internet service 
providers to sell your personal browsing history to the highest bidder. 
The majority has also reversed rules that make workplaces safer and has 
even made it easier for corporations to bribe the governments of 
developing countries.
  Now today, as the window closes on the majority's ability to rush 
through legislation under the Congressional Review Act, we are again 
facing a vote that could harm American families and make it harder for 
people to save for retirement.
  As I have said on this topic before, for the people of Michigan, the 
American dream can take on many forms. But no matter who you are, there 
are a few fundamentals that I truly believe cut across the entire 
American society. One small piece of the American dream is the ability 
to retire with dignity and save enough to be able to pass along 
something to the next generation.
  The measure under consideration today, which would repeal the 
Department of Labor's safe harbor for States developing retirement 
plans, would be a step backward, and it would make it harder for people 
to save for a secure retirement.
  It is no secret that the American economy has changed in the last 
generation. One of the most profound changes for working families has 
been the dramatic shift from defined benefit pension plans to defined 
contribution plans. Our current system of IRAs and 401(k)s work well 
for many people, but it is unfortunately leaving millions of Americans 
behind.
  If you work for a large, stable employer--like those of us privileged 
to work for the U.S. Senate--you will more than likely have access to a 
retirement plan. Americans, when they have access to these types of 
plans, make smart, prudent financial decisions.
  Over 90 percent of Americans with access to a workplace plan report 
saving for their retirement. But not everyone works for a large 
employer, and for those who do not, the system has very large, gaping 
holes.
  Nearly 60 million working Americans do not have access to a workplace 
retirement plan. These are workers who are trying to put something away 
for a comfortable retirement and build a stable financial future for 
their families. They simply demand some solutions, and they certainly 
deserve them. Families don't care if it is a Democratic solution or a 
Republican solution, nor do they care if it is a Federal Government 
idea or their local State's idea. They simply want and need access to a 
plan that allows them to build a better future.
  So this leads to a very important question. If the States are working 
to do their part to find solutions to this problem, why would we in the 
U.S. Senate work to block them?
  These safe harbors provided by the Department of Labor are the 
perfect example of allowing the States to do what they do best, which 
is taking an active role as laboratories of democracy.
  As I have said, we need big ideas, we need small ideas, and, frankly, 
we need all of the ideas that we can get. But I am saying here today 
that I am willing to work with any of my colleagues on a plan--big or 
small--to help Americans move toward a secure retirement.
  A secure retirement cannot become a relic of the past, but this piece 
of the American dream will only be true for this generation of workers 
if we start working on these solutions now. We certainly should not 
stand in the way of States working on innovative ways to help the 
citizens of their respective States.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution.
  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.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Congressional 
Review Act measure to overturn the Department of Labor's rule that 
gives States the flexibility to help small business workers save for 
retirement.
  Every American who has worked hard throughout their life deserves the 
ability to retire, knowing that they will be financially secure. But it 
is clear that we are on the verge of a retirement crisis. More and more 
Americans are retiring every day without the economic security they 
need, and we are beginning to see the harmful impacts of what happens 
to a generation that was not afforded the opportunity to participate in 
a traditional pension plan.
  The AARP has estimated that 55 million Americans, including roughly 
230,000 Granite Staters, do not have access to a retirement plan at 
their workplace, and participation in retirement plans has dropped over 
the past

[[Page S2705]]

several years. Few low- and middle-income families have retirement 
accounts. For families who fall into the lowest 25 percent of household 
incomes, fewer than 10 percent have retirement savings accounts. Even 
among families where the primary wage earners are between the ages of 
56 and 61, those who are nearing retirement, the median retirement 
account balance for all families, regardless of income, was only 
$17,000--far less than what those families will need to live on in 
retirement. Therefore, we should be doing everything possible to 
support these future retirees and to look for opportunities to help 
them save now.
  The Department of Labor rule that we are debating today supports 
States' efforts to enter into innovative public-private partnerships 
that would increase personal savings rates for employees of small 
businesses. The rule makes clear that small businesses will experience 
no operational burden for these plans, and workers have the opportunity 
to opt out of these plans if they choose. Already we have seen five 
States adopt their own plans based on this guidance, and additional 
States are considering similar programs that best match the retirement 
needs of their citizens. We are starting to see results. Research has 
suggested that employees with access to retirement plans from their 
employers are 15 times more likely to save for retirement.

  Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are pushing this Congressional Review Act measure to roll back 
the progress States are making and to limit a State's ability to decide 
to facilitate a critical service to their citizens. If this measure 
passes today, the 12 million Americans who have already benefited from 
their States entering these partnerships will see their retirement 
plans impacted, and the other States considering these measures will 
have to stop.
  As a former Governor, I understand how decisions made here in 
Congress have the ability to impact a State's ability to innovate and 
grow, and it is unacceptable that Republicans would vote to limit a 
State's authority to help their citizens save.
  In States across this country, there is broad bipartisan support for 
State-facilitated retirement plans. Recent surveys have found that 80 
percent of private sector workers support State-facilitated plans to 
help them save for retirement, and 80 percent of small business owners 
say they support the basic concept behind these plans. The bipartisan 
National Council of State Legislatures said passage of the CRA will 
``result in an unwarranted preemption of state innovation'' and will 
``restrict the ability of millions of hardworking Americans to save for 
retirement.'' The AARP has written that ``a Congressional Review Act 
resolution to overturn this rulemaking represents significant overreach 
by the federal government.''
  I find great irony in the fact that many of my Republican colleagues 
are voting to limit the ability of States and localities to innovate 
and craft policies--something they often say they support in other 
areas.
  Additionally, retirement plans sponsored by States help save taxpayer 
dollars. Greater retirement security would result in fewer older 
Americans falling into poverty, reducing the number of citizens who 
would be forced to access social safety net programs.
  This Department of Labor rule is exactly the type of commonsense, 
bipartisan proposal we should all support, and I am willing to work 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to address the 
retirement needs of Granite Staters and all Americans. Undoing the 
States' progress on this front by voting in favor of this measure would 
limit the ability of more Americans to save for their retirement.
  I will vote against this measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I rise to express my strong 
opposition to H.J. Res. 66. This resolution would overturn a rule 
issued by the Department of Labor that is essential to providing 
increased access to retirement savings programs.
  Among all working families in America ages 32 to 61, the median 
family in America had only $5,000 saved in 2013. This indicates to me 
that we are clearly facing a retirement savings crisis.
  In California, 7.5 million workers don't have access to a retirement 
savings plan through their jobs, including 3.4 million women. Of those 
without a workplace retirement savings plan, almost 5 million are 
individuals of Color and over 3.5 million are Latino.
  The good news is that, when a person has access to a retirement 
savings program through their workplace, they are 15 times more likely 
to save for retirement.
  In California, legislators have been working for more than 4 years to 
create the Secure Choice program as a way of addressing the retirement 
crisis we face. This program allows workers to easily save for 
retirement through a deduction made directly from their paycheck.
  Those who need access to a workplace retirement program the most, 
individuals with lower incomes, are far less likely to have that 
access. These are the people who stand to gain the most from the Secure 
Choice program and lose the most by Congress halting its progress.
  Let me share some examples of the people who would be impacted. Most 
eligible employees work for small businesses that might not be able to 
offer retirement savings plans on their own. Nearly half of eligible 
workers work in the retail, hospitality, healthcare, and manufacturing 
industries.
  This program supports lower and middle-class workers by providing 
access to the tools they need to control their financial future. The 
average wage of workers eligible for this program is $35,000, and 80 
percent of eligible workers earn less than $50,000.
  We are in a time of deep income inequality and must stand up for 
programs that support the middle class, like Secure Choice. Nationwide, 
the bottom 90 percent of households have seen their income drop 
compared to what it was in 1970. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent has seen 
their household income triple.
  As workers struggle to make ends meet, it is appalling to me that 
Congress would actively take away a key resource for financial 
planning.
  Californians want to ensure that all employees have access to a 
retirement savings program. The Department of Labor's rule clears the 
way for California to set up programs like Secure Choice by clarifying 
employers' obligations to the accounts.
  This rule would also help small businesses compete for qualified 
workers who expect and deserve access to a workplace retirement savings 
program. Small Business California supports the Department of Labor's 
rule paving the way for these programs, and opposes this resolution.
  Finally, in California, our State chapter of the Chamber of Commerce 
specifically asked for an opinion from the Department of Labor on 
employer obligations. Once the Department of Labor's rule was issued, 
CalChamber no longer opposed the California bill.
  In fact, the legislation that passed in California requires the State 
board to report a finalized rule from the Department of Labor. 
Overturning the Department of Labor's rule ignores the effort and care 
taken in California to craft a program that works for both employees 
and employers.
  Nationally, almost half of working-age households do not have 
retirement savings accounts, and 55 million people don't have access to 
a workplace retirement plan. This is shocking.
  According to the Economic Policy Institute, the median retirement 
account savings for families ages 56 to 61 was only $17,000 in 2013. 
This is only slightly higher than the 2016 poverty threshold for a 
household of two people aged 65 and older. It is inconceivable that a 
family could afford to finance their retirement with only $17,000 in 
savings.
  Supporting retirement savings is not a partisan issue. In fact a 
bipartisan group of State treasurers oppose this resolution, as does 
the National Conference of State Legislatures.
  We are facing a retirement savings crisis in our country, and the 
Department of Labor's rule is a commonsense guideline that makes it 
easier for individuals to save for retirement.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to stand up for American workers and 
support their access to retirement savings programs by opposing this 
resolution.
  Thank you.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, while the Senate is on the topic of 
retirement savings, I would like to call attention

[[Page S2706]]

to a policy that I have worked to advance for many years. I believe 
policies permitting the existence of pooled provider plans, which 
passed the Senate Finance Committee to this past September by a vote of 
26 to 0, should be enacted as soon as possible to ensure the ability of 
Americans working for small businesses to have quality access to 
retirement savings.
  A critical challenge in enhancing the retirement security for all 
Americans is expanding plan coverage among small businesses. To address 
this, I believe we need to make retirement plans less complicated, less 
intimidating, and less expensive for those entities. That is exactly 
what pooled provider plans accomplish.
  This proposal is nonpartisan. In the past Congress alone, I held 
bipartisan HELP Committee roundtables with the junior Senator from 
Vermont and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and in a prior 
Congress, I worked with Senator Harkin--all to discuss the best way to 
craft and implement this proposal. I am very proud of the bipartisan 
work that has been done to this point, and I thank my colleagues on 
both the HELP and Finance Committees for their support, but now it is 
time for the full Senate to pass the measures allowing the existence of 
such plans.
  I look forward to the day in which the retirement gap in America is 
closed. I believe we will take a very large step towards closing that 
gap with the passage of policies that permit pooled provider plans.
  Thank you.
  Ms. HASSAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 The President's First One Hundred Days

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, reflecting on his accomplishments to date 
in his administration, President Trump recently said: ``I think we've 
done more than, perhaps, any President in the first 100 days.'' 
Throughout the campaign and since coming to office, President Trump has 
repeatedly attacked politicians who are ``all talk, no action.'' It 
seems to be appropriate that, now that the first 100 days have passed, 
we should apply the President's standard.
  Over the course of the campaign, Candidate Trump promised to replace 
the ``very stupid people'' in our government who ``don't know how to 
win'' with the ``greatest minds'' and the ``best people.''
  He said that the Presidency was ``going to be easy'' and that the 
``jobs are coming back, folks; that's going to be easy.''
  He promised a ``beautiful,'' ``terrific'' plan to provide ``such 
great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it's going to be 
so easy.''
  He promised to build a wall so fast that ``your head will spin'' and 
that Mexico would pay for it. ``Just rely on me,'' he said.
  He promised to be the ``greatest jobs President that God ever 
created,'' to ``bring us all together,'' and to create a ``unified 
Nation--a Nation of love,'' he said.
  He predicted: ``We're gonna win so much that you may even get tired 
of winning, and you'll say, please, please, it's too much winning, we 
can't take it anymore. Mr. President, it's too much.''
  He outlined that winning plan in no other place than Gettysburg last 
October. There, on that hallowed ground, where Lincoln reflected on his 
own ``poor power'' and wondered whether the world would little note nor 
long remember what he said there, President Trump--the man who said: 
``I alone can fix it''--outlined his 100-day action plan to make 
America great again and restore honesty, accountability, and change to 
Washington. On that day, he promised that, on his first day, 18 
different accomplishments would be achieved. He delivered just two of 
those.
  Over his first 100 days, he promised to introduce and fight to pass 
10 major pieces of legislation. That included a bill to ``grow the 
economy 4 percent per year and create at least 25 million new jobs.'' 
It included a bill to ``spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment 
over 10 years.'' It included a bill to ``make 2- and 4-year college 
more affordable'' as well as bills to ``clean up corruption in 
Washington'' and ``discourage companies from laying off their 
workers.''
  Today, more than 100 days into the Trump Presidency, where are we?
  So far, the President's ``great'' team has not yet been assembled. 
There are 465 vacancies for which there are not even nominees yet. You 
cannot blame that on anything going on around here. There are 465 slots 
that still do not have nominees. Of the 10 pieces of legislation that 
he proposed on that day in Gettysburg, he has passed zero--none.
  In his first 100 days, amidst the Great Depression, FDR stabilized 
the banks and put 250,000 Americans to work through a new Civilian 
Conservation Corps. Ronald Reagan rallied the country behind his agenda 
for taxes and spending. Facing an economic collapse--the likes of which 
we had not seen since the Great Depression--Barack Obama cut taxes and 
made historic investments in infrastructure, clean energy, and 
education in 100 days.
  Notwithstanding this history--these facts--President Trump has 
repeatedly claimed in interviews and broadcasts how well the 
administration has done during the first 100 days. In fact, on day 90--
he did not even need to get to 100--he said: ``No administration has 
accomplished more.'' As evidence for this claim, the President referred 
to the 28 bills that he has signed into law--laws to rename a VA clinic 
in American Samoa, laws to make it easier to hunt bears out of 
helicopters, to improve weather forecasts, to appoint members of the 
Smithsonian Board of Regents. Those were in the 28 laws. Missing from 
that list, however, is any legislation that fulfills a single campaign 
promise that he made, including his promise to repeal ObamaCare.
  In the absence of fulfilling the promises that he made at Gettysburg 
and on the campaign trail, he has also taken credit for a series of 
Executive orders even though, during the campaign, he railed against 
President Obama for using them. Candidate Trump said: ``We have a 
President that can't get anything done, so he just keeps signing 
executive orders all over the place.'' In fact, history shows that 
President Obama turned to Executive orders only after years of 
unprecedented obstruction and after he passed legislation through this 
Chamber and through the House.
  President Trump turned to executive orders in the first 100 days 
despite controlling both Houses of Congress. With a Republican 
President, a Republican majority in the Senate, and a Republican 
majority in the House, he has to revert to the very same instrument 
that he was so appalled by in the hands of President Obama, and he 
still has no major legislative accomplishments to show for it. That is 
not fake news. That is the truth.
  While we are on the subject, it bears noting, I think, that President 
Obama used his Executive orders to advance rights and opportunity for 
the American people. President Trump has used them to discriminate 
against refugees and immigrants in an unconstitutional travel ban, to 
weaken American competitiveness by reversing fuel efficiency standards 
for our cars, to weaken protections for our national monuments and 
endanger our economy and our environment by undoing the Clean Power 
Plan.
  Not only has President Trump failed to keep his promises--it is 
actually worse than that--but he has actually proposed or supported 
legislation that would do just the opposite of what he has promised.
  Look at healthcare. I hope I am not in need of any right now. Over 
the course of the campaign--I do not need to tell anybody in America 
this; we all saw it--Candidate Trump attacked ObamaCare over and over. 
He described it as a ``disaster'' that is ``imploding.'' So he 
promised: ``On day one, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a 
full repeal of ObamaCare'' and replace it with ``something terrific.'' 
He pledged to ``take care of everybody,'' to champion what he called 
the ``forgotten man,'' and he assured America that ``everybody's going 
to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.''

[[Page S2707]]

  More than 100 days after taking office, President Trump has not only 
failed to fulfill that promise, failed to repeal ObamaCare--the House 
has not yet even had a vote on it, as far as I know--but the White 
House has actually helped to write--and he endorsed--a proposal that 
would throw 24 million people, many of them poor and middle class 
folks, off of their health insurance, while slashing $300 billion in 
taxes for the top 2 percent.
  That is what is in the bill that they are considering in the House 
right now. That is not a healthcare bill. That is a tax cut for the 
wealthiest Americans that is masquerading as a healthcare bill. That is 
not the promise that he made to the people who voted for him. That is 
not the promise that he made to the forgotten man. It seems that in the 
first 100 days the forgotten man remains forgotten, unless by 
``forgotten'' President Trump meant millionaires who can avoid dealing 
with America's health insurance system by paying cash for their medical 
expenses with their having the benefit of the tax cut that President 
Trump has proposed to give them.
  My point--and I want to be clear about it--is not to ask the 
President to fulfill these promises, most of which I opposed when he 
was running. I am simply pointing out that what he has said is not what 
he has done, including his promise to build a ``great, great wall on 
our southern border'' and force Mexico to pay for that wall. Instead, 
he asked Congress for $1.4 billion in taxpayer money to start 
construction.
  I was part of the Gang of Eight in the Senate that negotiated the 
immigration bill--four Democrats and four Republicans--over 8 months. 
We had $11 billion of border security. By the time we passed the bill 
in the Senate, there was $40 billion of border security in that bill. 
It was paid for, unlike a lot of stuff we do, and it was not the 
taxpayers who were paying for it. It was the immigrants who were paying 
for it in their fees to this country.
  Why is that not a better way of doing it?
  Mexico is not going to pay for it. It has said it is not going to pay 
for it. He continues to say that it is going to happen, but it is just 
another broken promise. Instead, he went to the taxpayers and hoped 
nobody would notice that he was asking for $1.4 billion for the wall. 
Fortunately, both Republicans and Democrats alike in the House of 
Representatives and in the Senate rejected it--in particular, Members 
of the House of Representatives who represent border States or 
represent the border, who actually know what is going on down there.
  I am sad to say that this inconsistent and erratic approach has 
spilled over to our foreign relations. On North Korea, President Trump 
bragged that the United States would easily ``solve the problem''--his 
language--without China, which he called a currency manipulator and on 
which, he said, everybody in Washington was soft, and he was going to 
fix it. Then he sat down with Chinese President Xi for 10 minutes and 
``realized it's not so easy.''
  When he was running, the President said: ``Maybe NATO will dissolve, 
and that's OK.'' He called it ``obsolete.'' Then he sat down with the 
NATO Secretary General and realized that it was, in fact, ``not 
obsolete''--his words.
  At a time when NATO faces new pressure from Russian aggression and 
American troops are deployed to Eastern Europe to support our partners 
and our allies in the region, including the soldiers whom I met 2 weeks 
ago from Colorado's Fourth Infantry Division, they need a steady voice 
and a clear vision from Washington.
  We need an administration that can face reality instead of one that 
spins its own. This is not a campaign anymore. This is governing.
  During the campaign, Donald Trump promised: ``There will be no lies. 
We will honor the American people with the truth and nothing else.'' 
Over its first 100 days, the administration has honored the American 
people--it has been recorded--with 488 false or misleading claims, 
nearly 5 a day. Some people have actually lost count. It has honored 
them with 100 days of dog-and-pony shows of CEOs, campaign rallies, and 
photo-ops in semi-trucks on the South Lawn. It has honored the American 
people with empty theatrics where Donald Trump, the President, donates 
a portion of his salary to the National Park Service, hoping no one 
would notice his proposal to slash $1.4 billion in funding for the 
Department of the Interior.

  This administration needs a reset for the next 100 days and the next 
100 after that. The President needs to focus on what the American 
people need and what he said he would provide them instead of attacking 
the independent judiciary and the free press and blaming ``fake 
news''--his so-called fake news--in an effort to obscure a reality that 
he doesn't want to deal with. He needs to focus on the next generation 
instead of his daily approval ratings. He needs to focus on the future 
instead of complaining about how unexpectedly hard the job is or how 
great his previous life was.
  And one more thing--a small thing. Candidate Trump loved to criticize 
President Obama for playing golf. He tweeted about it at least 26 times 
with lines like ``Can you believe that, with all the problems and 
difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing 
golf.'' Well, President Trump has spent 19 days playing golf so far--
even with all of these vacancies in this administration--more than 
Presidents Obama, Bush, or Clinton. But that is not the only record he 
has broken for the first 100 days, which includes an average of more 
than five tweets a day, over a month he spent in this 100 days at Trump 
properties, and over $20 million in taxpayer dollars to finance his 
personal travel, which is on pace to exceed in his first year what the 
previous administration cost the American taxpayer in eight.
  A better idea than repeating this next 100 days for the 100 days that 
are coming would be to actually drain the swamp, as he said during the 
campaign. He could start by releasing his tax returns, which during the 
campaign he falsely claimed he could not release because of a ``routine 
audit.'' There was no prohibition on his doing the same thing that 
every candidate in the history of America for the Presidency has done.
  Now that he has put out a healthcare bill that slashes taxes by 
hundreds of billions of dollars for the wealthiest Americans and 
proposed tax reforms that would further deepen income inequality in 
this country, the least he could do is show the ``laid-off factory 
workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade 
deals'' what the President stands to gain and what they stand to lose 
from his proposals.
  While he is doing that, he should focus on dealing with Americans' 
rising healthcare costs instead of trying to take health insurance away 
from millions of Americans, making it harder for them to see a doctor 
and take care of their families. He should focus on expanding 
opportunities in our communities with investments in infrastructure and 
on helping people compete in the global economy and reducing the 
national debt crushing the next generation of Americans. That is why he 
was elected President. To some degree, that is why all of us are here.
  At the start of his first 100 days, President Trump promised in his 
inaugural address that ``America will start winning again, winning like 
never before.'' More than 100 days later, it is really not clear what 
we have won, but it is clear what we have lost--civility in our 
politics, facts in our policy, confidence in ourselves, and 100 days 
that should have been used to bring this country together to confront 
our great challenges.
  The next 100 days must be better than the last because, as our 
President once said, the American people are ``tired of being ripped 
off by politicians that don't know what they're doing.'' On this, at 
least, I completely agree.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      National Small Business Week

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today 
to join my colleague, who is the chair of the Small Business 
Committee--and I am the ranking member--to celebrate National Small 
Business Week.
  This is an opportunity for all Americans, regardless of party 
affiliation or geography, to come together and support the small 
businesses that drive

[[Page S2708]]

the American economy and make such an enormous contribution to our 
local communities and culture.
  I am pleased to be able to work with Senator Risch. We have enjoyed a 
terrific working relationship. We are there, at this moment in the 
committee, to try to make a difference for the small businesses of not 
only our States of New Hampshire and Idaho but throughout the entire 
country.
  I ask my chairman if he would like to start out and then turn it back 
to me, and we can talk a little bit about what we see happening on the 
Small Business Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to return the 
sentiments of Senator Shaheen. There was so much written and talked 
about today in the meeting about the poisoned atmosphere and the lack 
of bipartisanship, but I can tell my colleagues that working with 
Senator Shaheen on the Small Business Committee has been an honor and a 
privilege, and it certainly has been anything but troublesome. We work 
together closely. Both of us having been Governors, we understand how 
important small businesses are to our States--in fact, to all the 
States.
  With that, I would like to take a few minutes, with the concurrence 
of the ranking member, to honor America's small businesses and their 
owners and the impact they have on our economy and our communities and 
the vital role small businesses play in America today.
  America's small businesses are truly the engine that keeps our 
economy running. They create two out of every three jobs in America. 
Let me say that again. Small businesses create two out of every three 
new jobs that are created in America today. Our Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship knows that Congress has a responsibility 
to help this engine roar by getting the government out of the way of 
our Nation's small businesses and thus providing small businesses with 
the opportunity to do what they have done to make this the greatest 
country in the world for the last 240 years.
  We know that small businesses are vital to our economy, employing 
nearly half the American workforce and making up 99.7 percent of all 
employers in this country. It is because small businesses are so 
important to our economy that Washington needs to do all we can for 
businesses to start and, more importantly, to survive and grow.
  We have seen a steady and well-documented decline in startups and a 
persistently low GDP over the past decade. Despite this, small 
businesses' optimism has hit record-high levels in recent months. Small 
business owners are more confident than ever. National Small Business 
Week--this week--is a fitting time to not only celebrate our Nation's 
small businesses but also to assure them that greater relief is coming.
  Congress and the new administration are working hand in hand to undo 
the regulatory burden that has been hampering small business growth. It 
is no secret that the excessive regulatory burdens our Nation's 
entrepreneurs face places them at a disadvantage. We hear this every 
day from our position on the Small Business Committee. When asked what 
the biggest challenge they face is, it is almost always the regulatory 
burdens they are operating under.
  America's small business owners want to comply with a reasonable and 
appropriate regulatory structure; however, the time and money they 
spend complying with layers of regulations from a myriad of agencies 
hampers their ability to focus on what truly matters, and that, of 
course, is running their business.
  My Senate colleagues and I will continue to work with the 
administration on rolling back regulations that don't make sense. We 
will take a closer look at other issues facing the diverse small 
business community. Just last week, Senator Shaheen and I held a 
hearing on the many challenges that exist for rural entrepreneurs. As 
it turns out, these challenges are not much different from those that 
exist for entrepreneurs in more populous areas, except the challenges 
are amplified for business owners who operate without broadband 
internet or a traditional storefront on Main Street.
  The shared challenges amongst most entrepreneurs, such as access to 
capital, trade opportunities, and cyber security threats, among others, 
are at the forefront of the minds of those of us in Congress who are 
committed to delivering the relief small business owners have been 
waiting for.
  Despite these challenges, America's 28 million small business owners 
and their employees set out every day to pursue their dreams and 
contribute to their communities. Their entrepreneurial spirit is 
nothing short of inspiring.
  I want to give an example from Idaho--in fact, more than one example 
from Idaho--but I yield to Senator Shaheen at this moment for her 
comments and perhaps to tell us a little bit about what she took away 
from the meeting we recently had on rural small businesses.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Risch.
  As you point out, we were both Governors, so we had a chance to see 
small businesses from the perspective of the States and how States can 
be involved in supporting small businesses. But we also have been small 
business owners and operators ourselves. My husband and I had a family-
owned seasonal retail business, and you operated a family-run ranch in 
Idaho. So I am sure you share with me the challenges of small business 
owners, the things that kept me awake at night and that I know keep 
other small business owners awake: meeting payroll, balancing budgets, 
attracting workers, finding customers, and complying with local, State, 
and Federal regulations.
  As you pointed out, and I certainly agree, our committee works in a 
bipartisan way not only on supporting public policy to help small 
businesses but also supporting the Small Business Administration, which 
has programs that help nurture our small businesses and address their 
unique concerns.
  On Monday, I visited one of those small businesses. I was kicking off 
Small Business Week in New Hampshire, and I visited a company in Dover, 
which is a neighboring community to where I live. The company is called 
Popzup, spelled just like it sounds. It is a family-owned business that 
created an innovative microwave popcorn box without harsh chemicals, 
plastic, or silicon. The company's popcorn that goes in that box is 
environmentally friendly. It comes from American farms that don't use 
GMO products. It is great. They also have all of these seasonings that 
go on the popcorn, everything from a seasoning called Everything Bagel 
to one that is maple syrup. So it is a unique company.
  Its founders, Julie and Marty Lapham, launched the company in 2015. 
They have received a lot of support from the Small Business Development 
Center in New Hampshire. In fact, Julie told me about preparing for a 
``Shark Tank''-style competition she was participating in and how she 
got tremendous help from the SBDC in her presentation. She said: 
Without that help, I wouldn't have been able to do it. She actually won 
first prize in the competition--$10,000--because the SBDC had helped 
her sort through financing options, and she and her husband continue to 
work with them as they grow the company.
  As we look at Small Business Week this week, it is important to also 
recognize the great work SBA does with outstanding entrepreneurs from 
all 50 States and territories.
  I know you have some similar examples of small businesses in Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Shaheen.
  We do, and I want to tell a story of an example of the inspiring 
spirit small businesses bring to us. This is the story of a small 
family business in Idaho Falls, ID, called Fin Fun. It began when its 
founder, Karen Browning, was asked to make a mermaid costume for her 
granddaughter. That doesn't sound like a very ostentatious beginning, 
but it was the beginning. This simple request was the catalyst of a 
much larger operation that experienced over a 3,000-percent growth over 
a 3-year period, now employing 75 full- and part-time employees in 
Eastern Idaho. The Browning family contributes greatly to the community 
and makes all of us in Idaho proud with their continued success, having 
been named by the SBA as Idaho's Small Business of the Year.

[[Page S2709]]

  Stories like Fin Fun underscore the optimism that can be found in all 
corners of our country as small business owners everywhere take the 
large leap into the American dream.
  I ask all Senators to join me this week in supporting and thanking 
the small businesses in our home States all across America. Senator 
Shaheen and I, of course, as part of the jurisdiction of our committee, 
have oversight responsibilities with the SBA. I have been very 
impressed over the years as to the focus of the SBA on small 
businesses.
  One of the things I think Senator Shaheen shares with me is 
supporting an increase in the Office of Advocacy. We all know the 
Federal Government passes regulations at a stunning rate, which most 
people really don't completely understand. But the job of the Office of 
Advocacy is to act as an independent voice for small businesses when 
the Federal Government actually proposes a regulation. The Office of 
Advocacy is supposed to stand up and say: Wait a minute. Let me tell 
you how this is going to affect small businesses.
  We all know that if the Federal Government, in any one of the 
agencies, enacts a regulation, it does affect businesses of different 
sizes differently. Indeed, if it is a large business, they generally 
have an army of lawyers, compliance officers, and accountants who can 
deal with the regulations relatively easily and absorb the cost. On the 
other hand, if it is a one-, two-, or three-person business, just 
filling out the forms the agencies require is sometimes a real burden. 
It is important that this Office of Advocacy in the SBA be encouraged, 
be expanded where possible, and be a real, true independent voice for 
small business in America. And I know Senator Shaheen shares my 
enthusiasm for continuing to support that enterprise within the SBA. I 
am always happy to work with any of my colleagues to make it easier for 
Americans to start and grow a business.
  Happy National Small Business Week, and thank you to our Nation's 
entrepreneurs and small business owners who are the real backbone of 
our Nation and our economy.
  I yield to Senator Shaheen.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I very much thank Senator Risch. I share 
his enthusiasm for the Office of Advocacy and all of the programs SBA 
administers and appreciate the good work of the new Administrator 
there, Linda McMahon.
  You bragged a little bit on your Small Business of the Year in Idaho, 
and I would like to do the same. Our New Hampshire Small Business 
Person of the Year is Dr. Jake Reder, who is the cofounder and CEO of 
Celdara Medical in Lebanon, NH.
  I think it is important to point out that small businesses create 16 
times per employee the number of patents that large businesses do, and 
Celdara Medical is a great example of that. They were founded in 2008. 
They are a biotech startup that identifies early-stage medical 
technologies and provides financing and business guidance to move 
lifesaving products from university laboratories to high-potential 
medical companies. They really show that entrepreneurship can be a 
positive force to cure disease and save lives.
  During their startup, Celdara secured funding through the SBA's SBIR 
Program, the Small Business Innovation Research Program, which was 
extended last year--thanks in large part to the work of the committee--
for 5 years because of its great track record, enabling entrepreneurs 
across the country to participate in R&D to keep us at the vanguard of 
innovation. They were also assisted by the SCORE counseling network, 
which provides mentors to small businesses.
  There are so many things we can do to support our small businesses, 
and that is the goal of the Small Business Committee. We also want to 
continue to support a modern and flexible SBA that can respond quickly 
to economic conditions that confront small businesses in this global 
economy.
  Like you, I thank all of our colleagues who are going to help us 
recognize small businesses throughout the country. I also thank the 
Appropriations Committee for its bipartisan work on the omnibus bill to 
fund the SBA and our critical rural development programs. We have heard 
about many of them at the rural hearing you talked about. Hopefully the 
spirit of cooperation we share on the committee will spread throughout 
the Congress.
  So happy Small Business Week to all of our small businesses, and I 
thank all of the entrepreneurs in New Hampshire and Idaho and across 
the country for their hard work, for their innovation, and for their 
grit. They have our gratitude and our respect.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the good work we will 
continue to do for small businesses in this country.
  Mr. RISCH. Likewise.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, we have a retirement crisis in this 
country. Today, among working families on the verge of retirement, 
about a third have no retirement savings of any kind and another third 
have total savings that are less than one year's annual income.
  Let's be blunt. Social Security alone is not enough for a secure 
retirement. Hitting retirement with little or no savings means spending 
those last years hovering around the poverty line, with little or no 
money for important purchases, like dental care or hearing aids, or 
extras, like buying a birthday gift for a grandchild.
  There are a lot of different reasons people hit retirement with no 
savings, but one big reason is that 55 million Americans don't have the 
ability to save for retirement through a workplace retirement account. 
For years, the Republican-controlled Congress has done nothing to help 
the 55 million Americans who don't have an employer-provided retirement 
plan to save for their retirement--nothing--so seven States have 
actually stepped up. They passed legislation to provide retirement 
accounts to their constituents, and 23 more States are currently 
considering proposals like this. Massachusetts has stepped up, too, 
passing legislation to allow workers in small, nonprofit organizations 
to save for retirement in a State-administered plan.
  These State efforts are a big deal. The actions of just those first 
seven States could expand coverage to 15 million Americans who don't 
currently have an employer-sponsored retirement account. These efforts 
would go a long way toward starting to chip away at the retirement 
crisis in our country, and both Republicans and Democrats should be 
applauding the efforts of the Governors, State treasurers, and State 
legislatures who are doing this important work. But instead of passing 
legislation to incentivize States to continue their innovative work or 
instead of bringing up a bill on their own encouraging companies to 
offer retirement accounts to their workers, Republicans are voting on a 
bill that would pull the rug out from underneath these State plans, 
jeopardizing all of the States' recent progress.
  Republicans are constantly saying they are the party of federalism, 
deregulation, and State flexibility. Over and over again for the past 
several months, my colleagues across the aisle have come down to the 
floor to overturn regulation after regulation because they claim those 
regulations ``limit the role of State and local governments.'' So why 
on Earth are they now passing a bill to run roughshod over the States?
  The States certainly aren't asking them to take it up. The National 
Conference of State Legislatures--the bipartisan organization 
representing the legislatures of all 50 States--sent a letter urging 
Congress not to pass this bill because ``it will result in an 
unwarranted preemption of state innovation, will restrict the ability 
of millions of hardworking Americans to save for retirement, and will 
prove costly to federal and state budgets.'' And 23 State treasurers 
and top budget officials, both Democrats and Republicans, from Idaho to 
Mississippi, wrote urging Republican leadership to ``protect the rights 
of states and large municipalities to implement their own, unique 
approaches . . . to address this growing retirement savings crisis.''
  No, the State legislatures didn't ask the Republican Congress for 
this bill, and the American people are certainly not calling their 
Senators asking that they overturn the rules to help them save for 
their retirement either. Seventy-two percent of Republicans and 83 
percent of Democrats support the work the States are doing.

[[Page S2710]]

  If it is not the State legislatures and it is not the State 
regulators and it is not the American people who want this bill passed, 
why are Republicans pushing it forward? Why are we voting for this 
legislation?
  Four words--national chamber of commerce. The national chamber of 
commerce has been fighting tooth and nail to kill these retirement 
initiatives. Their armies of lobbyists are swarming over Capitol Hill. 
They are peddling misinformation about what these plans do, all because 
the giant financial firms that pump money into the national chamber of 
commerce are worried that the State plans will offer better investment 
products with lower fees for customers.
  Yes, the giant financial firms are right to be worried. States 
probably will not award investment contracts to the companies with the 
highest fees or to the companies offering kickbacks and prizes to make 
the sale. They are going to award contracts to companies that can 
provide the best product at the lowest cost. That is how a competitive 
bidding process works.
  The financial firms hiding behind the chamber of commerce don't want 
competitive bidding, they don't want transparency, they don't want to 
fight on a level playing field, and they are willing to spend a whole 
lot of money to make sure they don't have to. In fact, the Chamber is 
so serious about keeping the system rigged that they have sent letter 
after letter to every Member of Congress and their staff, letting them 
know they are watching this vote.
  Just in case you can't read between the lines, for extra emphasis, in 
bold and underlined typeface, their letters warned that they will be 
``consider[ing] . . . votes on, or in relation to, [this] resolution[] 
in our annual How They Voted scorecard.'' Whoa. The chamber of commerce 
is going to score who votes to help the big financial corporations and 
who doesn't, and they are going to make sure that all those potential 
campaign contributors know about the vote.
  This is what gives Washington such a terrible reputation. The 
American people didn't send us here to work for giant financial 
institutions and their armies of lobbyists and lawyers. I don't care 
what kind of threats the chamber of commerce puts out; it is wrong to 
pass a law to kick people in the teeth when they are trying to save for 
their retirements. The lobbyists may be watching this vote, but the 
American people are watching, too, and they are ready to fight back.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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, like so many, I spent the weekend 
reflecting on what the past 100 days have meant. And from President 
Trump--aided by congressional Republicans--it has been 100 days of 
broken promises, 100 days of far too much division, and 100 days of 
attacks on women and workers and seniors. It has been 100 painful days 
for many, no doubt about it.
  It is not surprising then that to kick off their next 100 days, 
President Trump and Republicans have prioritized today, sending a clear 
message to Wall Street that the Trump administration remains open for 
business and is committed to standing with them and not with working 
families. That can be the only possible message, since today, Senate 
Republicans have advanced another one of their favorite tools this 
Congress--yet another CRA--to thwart efforts by States to simply 
provide their workers access to retirement savings program.
  In March, Senate Republicans voted to overturn a rule that would 
allow major cities the flexibility to start their own retirement 
savings programs. No doubt, the negative impact of this reversal has 
already been felt across the country. Today's effort by Republicans to 
target State programs would have even more far-reaching consequences 
now and in the long term.
  If Senate Republicans jam through this CRA that is on the floor 
today, they will be pulling the rug out from numerous States 
nationwide, leaving over 15 million workers, which includes nearly 2 
million workers in my home State of Washington, without any easy option 
to save for their retirement.
  This is going to have a significant, chilling effect across our 
retirement system for our workers, for our Governors, for State 
legislators, and State treasurers.
  As AARP said this week, it would send the political message that 
Congress is opposed to State flexibility to increase retirement 
savings. We would likely see a number of States delay action or 
legislation to offer workers more savings options because of the 
perceived congressional prohibition. This cannot and it should not 
happen.
  Fifty-five million workers today in our country lack access to a 
workplace retirement plan through their employer. That is about one-
third of all of our workers in this country. Our retirement savings gap 
has continued to worsen, and it is true for most States across this 
country. It is true for my home State of Washington, despite progress 
and steps in the right direction over the past few years.
  Today, fewer than half of all Washington State workers participate in 
a retirement plan at work, and nearly 90,000 Washington small 
businesses offer no retirement arrangement. This is too common all 
across our country. Because Congress has been unable to come together 
to address this retirement savings crisis, States have now begun to 
step up to help workers save for retirement through savings programs.
  As I previously talked about on the floor, these savings programs 
simply allow employers to automatically enroll workers while giving 
workers the opportunity to opt out. These programs only apply to 
businesses that do not currently offer retirement plans. They in no way 
limit an employers' ability to seek out and offer their own employer-
sponsored plan.
  These plans are worker and business friendly. There is little 
paperwork required for workers to participate in the program, and there 
are no added burdens to small businesses. In fact, in these programs, 
employers are strictly required only to serve in administrative 
capacity.
  Last year, Democrats working with the Obama administration pushed for 
guidance to provide certainty to States that have launched their own 
retirement programs. This guidance simply clarifies an existing safe 
harbor allowing employers to establish payroll deduction IRAs, which 
gives States clarity they need that these programs will not be 
preempted by Federal retirement law.
  This guidance merely provides flexibility to cities and States to 
move forward with these programs, and in fact it was requested by the 
States and local officials. This is pretty common sense. In fact, it is 
the kind of proposal that Democrats and Republicans have agreed on for 
several years.
  As much as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not like 
to recall now, many of them have been on the record previously 
supporting just these kinds of efforts. Really, it is not hard to 
understand why. As I have said, it is very clear who President Trump 
and Republicans are standing with on this. Working families across our 
country are seeing clearly that on any chance to move the ball forward 
for them and their retirements, Republicans are now standing in the way 
and choosing instead to put the interests of Wall Street first.
  This is a critical vote. Families are watching. If you say you stand 
with working families, you vote against this resolution. If you want to 
meaningfully address our retirement crisis, vote against this 
resolution.
  I urge our colleagues to reject this harmful repeal. I urge them to 
stand with our States and our working families who just want to provide 
economic retirement security for the families in their States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S2711]]

  

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, seeing none of my Democratic colleagues on 
the floor seeking to speak, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
Democratic time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Government Funding Legislation

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week the Senate continues to consider 
the government funding bill, which I hope we will decide to vote on 
tomorrow afternoon. I want to highlight a few ways that this 
legislation is good for America. It addresses important priorities, and 
it is particularly good for those 28 million people I have the 
privilege of representing in Texas.
  I know people say we don't want to do an omnibus appropriations bill, 
and frankly this is not the best way to do business, but when our 
Democratic colleagues objected to us processing individual 
appropriations bills, this is the only alternative, other than perhaps 
a continuing resolution.
  A continuing resolution would continue Obama-era policies and frankly 
wouldn't end up saving any money because both of them are subject to 
the same spending caps under the Budget Control Act.
  Here we are. The House will undoubtedly pass this agreed-upon bill, 
the first negotiated bill with the Trump White House, with a Republican 
majority in the House and the Senate, and with Democratic participation 
and input as well.
  First, as I mentioned yesterday, this bill provides significant 
funding to shore up security at our international border with Mexico. 
This is a particularly important Texas issue because obviously we share 
a 1,200-mile common border with Mexico, but it is also a national 
issue. It is an important issue President Trump ran on and one of the 
reasons I believe he was elected.

  Attention to securing the border is long overdue. I have always 
contended that border security is first and foremost a matter of 
political will because we know how to do it. The question is, Do we 
have the political will to accomplish it? Rio Grande Valley Border 
Patrol chief Manny Padilla likes to say--he served in numerous 
capacities all across the border, from Arizona, California, and now in 
the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. He likes to say that there are really 
three legs to the stool of border security. There is technology, there 
is personnel, and then there is infrastructure, what some people like 
to call fencing or walls. Each area along the border depends--the 
mixture will depend on what makes sense, what is actually effective. It 
is obviously important to get the advice and input of professionals of 
Border Patrol who work day in and day out to secure the border. With 
this omnibus bill, we will see the strongest increase in border 
security funding in nearly a decade. That means more resources to help 
Customs and Border Patrol, among other agencies, to enforce our laws, 
keep trade flowing, and stem the tide of contraband and illegal 
immigration.
  When we talk about border security, it is also important to recognize 
the important economic and trading relationship we have with Mexico. 
Roughly 5 million American jobs depend on binational trade with Mexico, 
which is another reason I have been paying such close attention to the 
administration's discussion about updating NAFTA and other important 
trading agreements. More than half of the entire border between the 
United States and Mexico is in Texas so this is critical to Texas and 
to Texans and necessary to keep our people safe.
  Fortunately, this funding deal will also strengthen our Nation's 
defense at a time when, under the Obama administration, we saw a 20-
percent cut in defense spending. As former Director of National 
Intelligence James Clapper liked to say--well, maybe he didn't like to 
say it, but he did say it: In 50 years in the intelligence community, 
he had never seen a more diverse array of threats in his entire career. 
So our country does face multiple threats all over the world.
  This legislation includes more than $20 billion for defense--a real 
important plus-up in defense spending for the first time in a long 
time. This bill also includes new funding to support our military men 
and women deployed abroad in the fight against ISIS, for example, and 
it includes a pay raise for our troops as well. We have an All-
Volunteer military that has been stressed--really, unlike any other 
time in our Nation's history--with the longest continuous time at war, 
particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq and now in other places around the 
world. So in an All-Volunteer military, it is really important for us 
to make sure that we treat our troops right when it comes to pay and 
living conditions in an All-Volunteer military.
  Fortunately, this bill will also begin to tackle a major problem that 
I spoke about just last week; that is, our readiness--readiness of our 
military to face the new and evolving threats around the globe.
  I would just pause here to note that some people have said we can 
solve the disparity in our needs or the threats and the amount we have 
been able to fund for national security by just tweaking the Budget 
Control Act of 2011. Well, the fact is, Congress only appropriates 
about 30 percent of the money that the Federal Government spends. Well, 
70 percent is on autopilot because of the Budget Control Act. We have 
been able to keep discretionary spending, which includes defense 
spending, relatively flat since 2011, when the Budget Control Act was 
passed, but the fact is, mandatory spending is growing at a rate of 
about 5.5 percent. In my own view, we are never going to be able to 
fund our priorities--including national security--adequately, unless we 
revisit all of that 100 percent of Federal spending, which is going to 
take an act of political courage on the part of the President and those 
of us in the Congress but something we really cannot continue to put 
off day after day, week after week, year after year.
  This Omnibus appropriation bill funds the procurement of new warships 
and aircraft and increases funding to help modernize our ancient 
nuclear deterrent programs and includes resources to counter radicalism 
and instability in the developing world.
  I am also glad this legislation includes funds to help our veterans 
and their families transition into the civilian workforce, and it will 
better equip Texans working in military installations across the State, 
keep our military ready, and funds resources for the battlefield.
  So while there is a finger-pointing and blame game or credit-seeking 
game going on here in Washington--and I guess if the blame game were an 
Olympic sport, Washington would win that--but this is too important to 
be talking about in terms of political winners and losers. The truth 
is, the American people will be the winner if we keep the government 
running, if we do our job, and particularly if those of us who are 
fortunate enough to be in the majority after this last election will 
simply govern. That is what they elected us to do, along with the 
President of the United States.
  On a different note--I want to close on this. Yesterday, I spoke 
about the terrible storms and tornadoes that whipped through East Texas 
over the weekend. Fortunately, we were able to secure additional 
disaster relief funding in this omnibus package that will play a big 
part in helping communities rebuild, not only from floods and bad 
weather we have had in the past but also this current tragedy with loss 
of life and loss of property. It will help our communities rebuild, 
recover, and prepare for the next storm.
  This legislation will also bring us closer to a solution to mitigate 
damage from hurricanes and storm surges along the gulf coast in the 
Gulf of Mexico. This is particularly an important issue in Houston and 
along that gulf coast region, which is a huge, vital economic center 
for our country. By funding an Army Corps of Engineer study, we can 
best find a way forward that keeps more Texans safe from the next big 
hurricane, which we know is coming, and the question is just a matter 
of when.
  This bill also dedicates resources to improve and strengthen 
waterways that will help maintain Texas ship channels so they can 
handle more commerce and provide better flood control for susceptible 
areas.
  I will close by pointing out that this legislation also appropriates 
funds for bipartisan bills we passed last year. I know frequently--if 
you read the newspaper or if you watch cable news--you may think that 
nothing ever happens here, but actually even under the Obama 
administration, Republicans

[[Page S2712]]

worked in a bipartisan way to accomplish important things like the 
Every Student Succeeds Act, the follow-on from No Child Left Behind, 
and one that actually does things that conservatives think is 
important and pushes more authority back down to the States and out of 
Washington when it comes to our schools. It makes sure that the States, 
local school districts, parents, and teachers have a say when it comes 
to the best quality and the best way to teach our children in K-12 
schools. So we will fund much of that effort in this legislation.

  I know many of our colleagues represent areas of the country that 
have been devastated by the opioid crisis, as well as heroin crisis, 
which unfortunately seem to go hand in hand. We worked closely 
together, in a bipartisan way, to fund the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act signed into law last year under President Obama to help 
tackle the opioid epidemic running rampant throughout many parts of the 
country. It also includes resources that help eliminate the rape kit 
backlog, one that I have been working on for some time, to make sure--
the Debbie Smith Act, which is in excess of $100 million that is 
available in funding to forensic labs all across the country to 
eliminate the rape kit backlog. The power of DNA testing through these 
rape kits to identify the perpetrator of sexual assault, as well as to 
exonerate the innocent, is really something to behold. So in this 
funding, the rape kit backlog will be reduced and we will bring to 
justice victims of crimes and vindicate those who were accused but who 
are in fact innocent.
  This legislation will also help provide funds for victims of human 
trafficking to recover, and it will help train law enforcement to 
handle an active shooter situation via something we passed last year, 
on a bipartisan basis, called the POLICE Act. As the Presiding Officer 
knows, police changed their tactics when it comes to active shooters. I 
believe it was Columbine where the tactic was still used to surround an 
area near a school and to make sure nobody comes in or goes out, but 
our police and first responders learned to be very resourceful and 
innovative and indeed are training now. According to the POLICE Act, 
Federal funds go to State and local law enforcement and first 
responders to help the police train to engage an active shooter to stop 
the killing but also to train the first responders, typically the EMS 
officials, to stop the dying. So you can stop the killer, but unless 
you have EMS or emergency medical service personnel trained along with 
the police department, you may stop the killing, but you will not stop 
the dying, and that is the goal of this important bill. This 
legislation helps fund that.
  So here is the bottom line. Legislation is always a compromise, so it 
never ever meets anybody's individual expectations in terms of what 
they would want as the perfect bill, but I know people are frustrated 
by that because they say: Why couldn't we do more? Why couldn't we get 
more of what we wanted, and why did we have to give up something that 
other people wanted in order to agree to pass this legislation? Well, 
that is the way our system was designed. That is the way our Founding 
Fathers created the legislative branch and made it a requirement that 
in a country as big and diverse as ours, that we needed to build 
consensus in order to pass legislation, and that means Democrats and 
Republicans, Congress and the White House, working together to come up 
with an acceptable consensus product. That is what this is. It is a 
product of bipartisan give-and-take. It includes many conservative 
priorities that I like--that we have been talking about for a year--
that benefit communities across my State. It provides for our national 
defense, and it will make our country healthier and safer, and it does 
that at the same time as we consolidate or eliminate more than 150 
outdated and unnecessary programs and initiatives.
  That is why it is important we pass this omnibus, as opposed to 
another continuing resolution, which, by the way, makes it nearly 
impossible for our national security agencies and our intelligence 
community to actually plan. When we fund government for a 6-month 
period of time, they don't know what is going to happen after that. So 
it is really important that we put our shoulders to the wheel and we 
work together, on a bipartisan basis, to give them some more certainty, 
to give them a longer flow of revenue, so they can do planning and 
spend the tax dollars that are appropriated efficiently.
  An important point that has been lost as we discussed and debated 
this bill is, it finally sets the country in a new direction--one that 
leads away from the Obama administration's priorities, which existed 
under the continuing resolution and was reflected by endless cycles of 
continuing resolutions. That is the past. We entered a new era of a 
stronger defense, less regulations for job creators, and a more 
streamlined and efficient government.
  This is the first major piece of bipartisan legislation negotiated 
with the new White House, and it proves that we can come together when 
we must, that we can govern, and that we can deliver results. It will 
also serve as a good blueprint moving forward with a carefully thought-
out strategic budget as we look ahead to the fall.
  This legislation isn't perfect, but it does represent progress. It 
does represent an important watershed with this new administration, 
where we have all come together and reached agreement on a piece of 
legislation that we feel is beneficial to the entire country. If we are 
not going to engage in that sort of activity, but we are just going to 
vote no on everything because it is not perfect, we are not going to be 
able to make that kind of progress that we are all, I believe, 
committed to making on behalf of the people we represent.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here to talk about 55 million 
Americans who presently lack the authority to save for retirement 
directly from their paychecks. I am here to talk about preserving, 
protecting, strengthening retirement savings for all Americans, and I 
am here to talk about providing State and local governments with the 
tools they need to expand access to retirement savings accounts in 
order to reach that goal.
  I am here to oppose H.J. Res. 66. This misguided proposal would tear 
down ongoing efforts at the State and local levels to help families 
achieve financial stability in retirement after years of hard work and 
sacrifice. These ongoing efforts at the State level should be 
encouraged, not deterred.
  The numbers here tell a dramatic story. Many private sector employees 
have the option to set up and contribute to their own individual 
retirement accounts, often called IRAs. We know them well. But fewer 
than 10 percent of workers without access to a workplace plan 
contribute to a retirement savings account. This lack of retirement 
savings often leads to ruins--life-transforming disasters at ages when 
nobody deserves them, jeopardizing access to adequate meals, housing, 
healthcare, and other necessities for older Americans across the 
country.
  In response to this catastrophic possibility for so many Americans, 
in August of 2016, the Department of Labor promulgated what has become 
known as the State-sponsored auto-IRA rule. This rule provides basic, 
critical guidance for States on how to administer programs designed to 
improve access to retirement accounts among private sector employees. 
These State-facilitated programs allow State governments to provide 
automatic enrollment in State-sponsored IRAs, with the opportunity, 
importantly, to opt out at any time.
  The rule that has been promulgated by the Department of Labor, which 
was also expanded to include a limited number of larger cities and 
counties, made it clear that any auto-IRA program established by a 
State or municipal authority must limit the employer's role in the 
program. In addition, the rule clarifies any ambiguity regarding the 
application of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. It makes 
clear the conditions under which ERISA does not apply.

[[Page S2713]]

  The misguided proposal before us today seeks to overturn all of this 
critical rulemaking, carefully devised and developed. If it is passed, 
the resolution will cripple efforts at the State level to ensure that 
retirement savings opportunities are more readily available for all 
workers.
  I have always assumed that my colleagues across the aisle were in 
favor of State initiatives and State authority and State experiments 
and States addressing the issues of their citizens directly. These are 
basic States' rights--but not so much in this case.
  H.J. Res. 66, in fact, will be particularly harmful in States like 
Connecticut, which has already begun to bridge the retirement savings 
gap for nearly 600,000 people who lack access to employer-based savings 
for retirement in our State. The Connecticut Retirement Security 
Authority has pioneered this effort. I am very proud to say, 
Connecticut is among several States that have made real progress toward 
expanding secure pathways to retirement savings for their private 
sector employees.
  By leveraging State facilitation with private providers, these plans 
allow workers access to secure, low-cost retirement savings which, in 
turn, allow more workers to adequately prepare for retirement, 
improving life for those workers and also reducing the burden on 
taxpayer-funded services. In fact, encouraging increased retirement 
savings yields important savings for Federal and State budgets in the 
future, not just now.
  Studies have shown that expanded retirement savings programs could 
potentially reduce Medicaid expenditures in Connecticut by over $65 
million in the first 10 years after implementation. That $65 million in 
savings on Medicaid is for Connecticut alone. Think of the whole 
country. Think of the savings in Medicaid and other critical service 
programs that go to aid our seniors. They would much rather save for 
themselves.
  I ask my Senate colleagues who believe we ought to be spending our 
time expanding, not limiting, access to secure retirement solutions to 
join me in opposing this legislation. There are many of our Republican 
colleagues who have long called for reduced government spending and in 
increased autonomy for State governments. They should be joining in 
opposing H.J. Res. 66.
  There are many of our Republican colleagues who have long advocated 
giving people the freedom and the opportunity to plan for their own 
future. They ought to be joining in opposing H.J. Res. 66.
  I ask all of us now to join me in voting no on H.J. Res. 66 because 
States ought to have the flexibility and the opportunity to implement 
proven strategies to support hard-working Americans who wish to prepare 
themselves for retirement. Give them that opportunity. Do not destroy 
it in H.J. Res. 66.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it looks as though we are at it again. 
Instead of fighting to make things even a little bit better for hard-
working, middle-class Americans, Members of this body just want to make 
life harder for those hard-working, middle-class Americans.
  We have had the debate on Capitol Hill about how to strip healthcare 
from 24 million Americans. We have had a conversation on Capitol Hill 
on how to reduce the taxes phenomenally on the very richest Americans. 
We have seen the President's one-page description of a tax plan that 
consisted of a goody bag for the richest Americans, the 
multimillionaires and the billionaires. But here we have another 
provision just trying to sucker punch hard-working Americans because 
those hard-working Americans work for companies that often don't have a 
retirement plan, so they do not have a convenient way to put funds away 
to prepare for retirement.
  Along came the States. The States said: You know, for those workers 
who don't have a retirement plan at their work, why don't we design 
one, present one, so that they could automatically sign up and have 
their wages--a small amount of them--put away for retirement 
automatically?
  Then they would go to a different job, and that job would not have a 
retirement plan. Well, then, in that new job, they could have a little 
bit of their wages put away automatically for retirement--not in a 
manner that requires people to save. They could ``unsign'' themselves 
up. This is called automatic opt in. They could say: I don't want that 
3 percent put into a retirement plan. Make it 2 percent, make it 1 
percent, make it 5 percent, or make it 0 percent. They would have the 
control, but when they first start the job, it automatically puts away 
a little bit for retirement.
  I think about my son and daughter--my son who is 21 and my daughter 
who is 19--and they have worked a whole series of modest little jobs, 
from pouring coffee to coaching sports teams to working as a lifesaver 
and so on and so forth.
  What if for every single job in those companies that were not 
providing those retirement plans, workers automatically had 3 percent 
of their funds put away toward retirement in a low-cost option--the 
same kinds of low-cost options that U.S. Senators have when they come 
here to the Senate, the same types of low-cost options that every 
Federal employee has? Why not give that same opportunity to ordinary 
working Americans? That is what we are here talking about.
  We already made it harder to set up such stand-in plans--plans that 
stand in when there is no retirement plan provided by the employer. In 
March, we passed another CRA making it difficult to impossible for 
municipalities to create such a plan for their citizens, but the plans 
probably made more sense at the State level.
  Now come my friends across the aisle to say: It is not enough. It is 
not enough that we hit them once by stopping the municipalities from 
providing a plan. We are going to hit them again--kick them while they 
are down. That is the attitude of this provision that is before the 
Senate.
  What we are really talking about is denying the American dream to 
millions of citizens across the land who work for employers that don't 
have retirement plans or who run small businesses and don't have the 
administrative overhead to be able to set up a plan. This rips away the 
certainty that comes with knowing that if you work hard and play by the 
rules, you automatically save through one of these plans and you get a 
certain level of security and a certain level of dignity in your golden 
years.
  Isn't it our job here in the Senate, as representatives of our 
citizens and our States, to do everything we can to provide a ladder of 
opportunity, to lift up the men and women of this country?
  It isn't our job to say: Well, the States provided a ladder of 
opportunity; so let's go tear it down. Let's take a buzz saw and saw up 
that ladder of opportunity, because, wow, why would we want the States 
to help out our citizens? Isn't that not our job--to try to destroy 
opportunity?
  But here we are with my colleagues saying: Well, as to these folks 
who don't have a retirement plan set up by their employer, we are going 
to make it as hard as possible for them to save money for retirement.
  I hear the same folks come down here and say: Well, you know what; 
wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone saved more for retirement?
  Well, yes, it would be. So why don't we make it easier for them to do 
so, not harder. A plan that puts no imposition on the small business--
doesn't that make a lot of sense? Isn't that a win-win? Isn't that a 
blow in favor of helping out working people, rather than a blow that 
knocks them down?
  Today, apparently, we have a slim majority that says: No, knock them 
down.
  Furthermore, there is apparently a slim majority that likes to preach 
on States' rights. But when it comes to States trying to address a 
problem, you have a powerful special interest come to Capitol Hill and 
say: Don't let it happen because, after all, maybe one of them someday 
will be a customer of ours, and we wouldn't want them to be able to get 
help from their State while they are waiting for us to help them.
  A powerful special interest comes here, and suddenly States' right 
are out the door, States' rights are out the window.
  The conversation during the Presidential campaign was that we heard 
about electing a President who will

[[Page S2714]]

fight for workers. Well, that was yesterday, because today we are 
passing a bill that Members of the Senate expect the President himself 
to sign to take a buzz saw to the ladder of opportunity for working 
people--the President of the United States, I am talking about, to take 
an ax to the program that makes it easier for Americans to save money 
for their retirement.
  Now, don't we know that public pensions are disappearing and private 
pensions are disappearing? What we are left with is Social Security. If 
workers don't have pensions through their jobs, and all they have is 
Social Security, it is going to be pretty rough in retirement.
  There is another option: to make it easier for workers to save. 
According to one study from 2013, 40 percent of small business owners 
had no retirement savings, 75 percent had no plans for funding their 
retirement, and 55 million Americans--nearly half of the private sector 
workers in America--are employed in jobs that do not offer any form of 
retirement savings or pension plan.
  Well, that is a lot of Americans who are only going to have Social 
Security unless they save.
  We know that it is much easier for them to save if they have a 
workplace plan and funds go into that plan automatically, and the 
individual worker can change the amount, the set-asides. They can 
increase it. They can decrease it. They can stop it. They can 
reactivate it. But because it is set up automatically, most workers 
choose to stay in it once they are there.
  Workers don't want to have a different retirement plan for when they 
worked at this company and then another one at this company and another 
one at that company, or companies that didn't have a plan so they had 
to set up something on their own.
  The idea is that this plan is portable, that you can take it from 
employer to employer. These are the things that are appealing to our 
State governments, which are saying: That is what will work well for 
the citizens of our State.
  Shouldn't we enable the States to be a laboratory of invention, a 
laboratory of innovation? Shouldn't we enable them to test run whether 
this works or doesn't work, instead of our taking and destroying that 
pilot project, destroying that laboratory of innovation, destroying 
that experiment at the State level to see if this would help make 
American citizens better off?
  This would all be done at the State level at no cost to businesses. 
In fact, that is what businesses have liked about it. That is why they 
have lobbied their State legislatures to say: Hey, maybe you would like 
to do this. We are too small. It is too difficult for us to set up a 
retirement plan. Maybe you all would like to design one that would be 
available.
  At this moment, 25 States are considering legislation to create 
retirement savings accounts for small business employees that currently 
aren't able to participate in a workplace retirement plan because the 
workplace doesn't have one. Twenty-five States are looking at this. 
Even if only one State were looking at it, shouldn't we give that State 
the opportunity? Five States are looking at it--and power to them 
because maybe one of the five will figure out a way to make it work and 
the other States will learn from that.
  Twenty-five States are looking at this because there is such an 
urgent need for their citizens. Seven of those 25 States are already at 
work implementing plans.
  I am very proud that Oregon, my State, is one of those seven. It 
plans to launch a voluntary pilot group later this summer. If that goes 
well, it was planning to expand that plan over the next 2 years, and if 
that goes well, it was planning to make it available to individuals 
working in any job in Oregon where there wasn't a retirement plan.
  That is very thoughtful. Start with a little group, expand it to a 
few more, and see if it is still working. If it is a good model and the 
feedback is good and you need to make some changes, you can make it on 
a small scale. When it is ready to roll, if it is doing a good thing 
for America's workers, for Oregon's workers, give every Oregon worker 
that opportunity to easily save for retirement.
  There is so much interest from the States, so much interest from the 
businesses in those States for the possibility of experimenting with 
these plans. Last year, the Department of Labor set up the safe harbor 
rule that helps to clarify a piece of ERISA, our Federal retirement 
law, to make it possible for States to pursue this. That is what is 
before us today. Are we going to undo the protection to let States 
experiment?
  The AARP likes to point out that these State-sponsored plans would 
likely increase the number of workers saving for retirement. That is 
because, as they enter the workforce, they would be automatically 
enrolled. They would be able to continue using that plan even if they 
change jobs within the State. That would be helping them from their 
very first day of employment in the workforce.
  Imagine your son or daughter, age 15 or 16, getting that first summer 
job or evening job or early morning job, and already they are starting 
to save for retirement. It makes a big difference over their working 
years, which might cover four decades or more. It makes a big 
difference, whether they have anything to back them up other than 
Social Security.
  It is good for small businesses because not only does it free them 
from feeling badly that they hadn't set up a plan, but it makes their 
workers happier, more productive employees, and the businesses get to 
have all that by bearing no additional costs.
  It is good for taxpayers. It is good for States. It is good for 
business. It is good for the workers. The only thing it is not good for 
is for some powerful special interest that has failed to offer plans to 
these workers but says someday it might and it doesn't want the 
competition--a powerful special interest coming here to Capitol Hill to 
rip down a ladder of opportunity for workers.
  Is the President going to sign that after he campaigned on helping 
workers? Well, yes, apparently he is because that was yesterday in a 
campaign, and today is the reality of governing. Apparently, a powerful 
special interest is talking to the President of the United States, and 
he is helping that interest, rather than the workers of America.
  He is fighting for a Federal blockade rather than for States to be 
the laboratory of innovation and experimentation. He is fighting for 
the billionaires, rather than for the working people of our Nation, and 
that is just a terrible development to see.
  Colleagues, you can change that right here. We are going to have a 
close vote. So come down to this floor and place your vote with States' 
rights. Come down to this floor and place your vote in ladders of 
opportunity. Come down to this floor and place your vote on the side of 
an average working American.
  You might live in a bubble. You might live in a gated community. You 
might live in a fancy world as a Senator, but these are the workers of 
America who have employers who provide no retirement plan. That is who 
we are talking about here.
  So get out of your bubble. Get out of your elite frame of mind. Come 
down to this floor and fight for the workers of America. Vote no on 
this blockade to the States' addressing a fundamental need, providing a 
fundamental opportunity for the workers of America to save for their 
retirement.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from West Virginia, my friend and colleague, 
Senator Capito.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Coal Miner Healthcare Benefits

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend from West 
Virginia, my colleague, Senator Capito, for her support and leadership 
in our fight to keep the promise made in President Truman's White House 
more than 70 years ago.
  For the past two Congresses, Senator Capito has been an original 
cosponsor

[[Page S2715]]

of the Miners Protection Act with me, and I am proud to say that the 
healthcare portion of that bill is included in the Omnibus 
appropriations bill that we are set to vote on later this week. Before 
sending this permanent fix to the President's desk for his signature, I 
want to confirm our specific understanding of how the language would 
apply to the eligibility for benefits of the former employees of 
Patriot Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, and Walter Energy.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the kind comments 
from my friend and fellow Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin, who 
has been a champion of this issue. It has been a pleasure to work 
together and to have it all work out. We have worked closely together 
for the past several years to advance a permanent solution for the 
retirement benefits of thousands of miners in our State and across the 
Nation. I appreciate Senator Manchin's hard work and leadership on 
this; I really do.
  I would be happy to discuss what I believe is our shared 
understanding of the intent behind miners' healthcare language in the 
omnibus bill that originated in the Miners Protection Act.
  Mr. MANCHIN. The language states that anyone who would have received 
retiree healthcare coverage from one of these three companies, but for 
the orders entered in their bankruptcy proceedings terminating the 
employer's obligations to provide these benefits, becomes a participant 
in the UMWA 1993 Benefit Plan.
  I understand that the language encompasses anyone who would have 
received such coverage from the bankrupt employers and not just those 
who meet the 1993 plan's general eligibility requirements. This 
includes miners or widows who might have been specifically bargained 
into the plan, such as the miners who worked at the ill-fated Upper Big 
Branch Mine. We all know the drastic situation of those great miners.
  Also included are miners who do not meet the 1993 plan's general 
eligibility requirements because their employers rejected their 
collectively bargained obligations and withdrew from the UMWA 1974 
Pension Plan but who would have become eligible if their service for 
the bankrupt employer or its successor were included in determining 
their eligibility.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I wholly share Senator Manchin's understanding of this 
key provision of the legislation.
  By adopting the language from the Miners Protection Act that is 
included in the Omnibus appropriations bill, we intended to cover any 
miners, survivors, and dependents who would have received or continued 
to receive Federal retiree healthcare benefits from one of these 
bankrupt employers had it not gone through the bankruptcy process, 
without regard to the 1993 plan's usual eligibility rules.
  I understand that these individuals are eligible under the rules as 
applied by the Patriot VEBA, and I expect that these rules will 
continue to be applied in the same manner by the 1993 plan.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Let me say that both of us representing the great State 
of West Virginia from both sides of the aisle--a main purpose has been 
protecting the people who did all the heavy lifting in this great 
country and gave us the energy we needed to be the superpower of the 
world.
  I know that Senator Capito is as proud as I am. I am proud to be 
working with her to make this happen. This is truly a bipartisan 
effort. It is the way legislation used to be done, and it is the way it 
should be done, and hopefully we can start something anew here. I thank 
my colleague.
  Mrs. CAPITO. There is nothing like seeing the faces of our miners as 
we did in our offices the other day and I have seen in my office 
throughout this time--or when it was at the 100-degree rally out on the 
lawn last fall--to realize the human faces behind what we are talking 
about.
  Senator Manchin is right. It is a bipartisan issue, and it is the 
right and fair thing to do.
  It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Manchin and with the UMWA 
and our other colleagues to see this legislation through.
  Mr. MANCHIN. I think we have both been able to educate not only our 
fellow colleagues, our Senators, but basically the entire country on 
the hard work the miners have done and what they have provided for this 
country for us to be the superpower of the world--to respect the work 
they have done and continue to do.
  With that, I am so proud of everybody who worked so diligently on 
this issue and this effort, for the Republicans, our President, and our 
leaders on both sides, Democratic and Republican, making sure this was 
first and foremost the main obligation for us to accomplish. I thank my 
colleagues.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. MANCHIN. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired.
  The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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 clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Corker
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     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
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Durbin
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 66) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________