[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2211-S2215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY BUREAU 
              OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I am here to give some brief remarks about 
what we are on right now, which is a Congressional Review Act vehicle 
to reconsider agency guidance. There is nothing that sounds more arcane 
and wonky than that.
  The issue at hand has to do with disparate treatment of people when 
they go in to get a car. There is plenty of evidence that Black and 
Brown people are taken advantage of and treated more poorly in the 
credit context than White people. So the CFPB went to collect data and 
to require that people be treated fairly.
  I will be voting against this CRA vehicle, but I actually think there 
is a bigger, broader, more concerning issue. I am going to try to work 
with the Parliamentarian's office and with the leadership of both 
parties to try to address it. Although it is arcane, it is very 
worrisome for the Senate itself.
  The Congressional Review Act passed in 1996. The idea was 
straightforward: All rules have to have some authority beyond the 
desire for the agency to want to promulgate rules. It is subject to 
review by the Congress. In other words, if you don't like what an 
agency is doing, now there is a pathway called privileged, which allows 
the Congress to go ahead and overturn that rule. In the Senate, it is 
especially important because it is not subject to a 60-vote threshold. 
This is a big deal. This allows Congress to say any time there is a 
rule made: We are going to overturn it with a bare majority threshold. 
That was the will of the Congress, and that is Federal law.
  Here is how the statute works. The rule gets submitted to GAO and 
Congress, and then a clock starts and a bunch of statutory triggers go. 
I dug into this over the last 10 weeks. Suffice it to say it is very 
complicated. There is a strict timeline, and there are 60 legislative 
days to take action. And because we are the legislative branch of the 
Federal Government, legislative days are not actual days; it ends up 
taking four times that long.
  The important part is that there is a process that is prescribed for 
that, and there is a timeframe that is prescribed for that. That is the 
authority the Congress gave itself in 1996. That authority is very 
clear about two things:
  First, it is meant to apply to rules, which are binding, and it is 
meant to have legal force. The CRA gives the Congress a way to weigh in 
when an agency's interpretation of the law conflicts with the 
legislative intentions.
  Second, it only applies to rules that were recently promulgated. In 
other words, they specifically envisioned that a clock would run. The 
rule gets submitted to Congress, the clock runs, and if the Congress 
likes the rule or if there is not sufficient will to overturn the rule, 
then the rule stands. If the Congress doesn't like the rule, then a 
Member can introduce a CRA resolution of disapproval, and we act on it.
  This is why what is happening right now is totally nuts. What is 
happening right now is not what we have normally done with CRAs. What 
is happening right now is that we are submitting agency guidance--not a 
rule but agency guidance--which has no legal force, to the same 
procedures as the rules under the Congressional Review Act. The 
guidance in question is implementing guidance for a statute that is 50 
years old. The guidance came out 5 years ago. The law that it is 
implementing is 50 years old. It is a piece of guidance. It is 
literally interpretation of an existing law for the public. And now we 
are going to overturn the interpretation of an existing law from an 
executive agency. We are not overturning a rulemaking.
  When you go through the rulemaking process in the executive branch, 
it takes anywhere from 12 to 36 months. There is a rigorous process. It 
is sort of quasi-judicial, and you have to really check all the boxes 
and do it right. Otherwise, you get sued under the Administrative 
Procedure Act. None of that happened. This was just guidance.
  So now, if the Parliamentarian and the GAO and everyone else decides 
that the CRA applies to guidance, then the time limits on CRA don't 
matter at all, and the interpretation of this statute is rendered 
absurd.
  I will point out that this is not the most well-crafted Federal law 
on the books. It is very difficult to interpret this Federal law, so I 
sympathize with the Parliamentarian and GAO and the leadership of both 
parties, who are trying to make sense of a statute that is unclear in 
some places. But when a statute is unclear, you are supposed to 
interpret the statute in a way that the statute functions. Right now, 
what we are doing is we are rendering the statute essentially absurd 
because if it is a rule, you have a strict time limit. If it is 
guidance--and I am not sure, if it is guidance, why that wouldn't also 
apply to an agency circular or an executive memorandum for the Under 
Secretary. All of this could be subject to tens of thousands of pieces 
of guidance and rules and views, and whatever is considered 
policymaking could be subjected to a Congressional Review Act action. I 
think that is completely bananas.

  We are going down a path where Congress can take an administrative 
action that has been done in the last 22 years and subject it to the 
CRA, and you will not need 60 votes. This is bad for our institution. I 
can't stress that enough. I understand that this is not the kind of 
thing that people across the country are going to be deeply passionate 
about and march on the streets about and be motivated to vote on, but 
we are in the Senate, and we have an obligation to safeguard the way 
this institution operates.
  I am deeply afraid that if we subject every piece of administration 
guidance--and remember, the door swings both ways in Washington. We 
will have a Democratic Senate. Who knows when, but we will have a 
Democratic Senate and we will have a Democratic House, and we can scour 
everything that every Republican administration has done since 1996 
pursuant to any law made at any time in our American history and 
subject it to a majority vote.

[[Page S2212]]

  I think the last thing this institution needs is a new opportunity to 
go down new rabbit holes on partisan issues and a new opportunity to 
fight on small things and not deal with the biggest challenges of our 
time.
  I am going to oppose this on the merits, but I am more worried about 
what we are doing to our institution. Right now, the Senate is not 
functioning at a high level. We have not had any open amendment process 
except vote-arama, which I think 100 Senators would agree is a useless 
process. So the regular order, which was called for by the then-
minority leader when he was criticizing Majority Leader Reid, is 
nowhere to be found. I am not blaming him. I am not blaming anyone in 
particular. But I am saying that when there is an opportunity to at 
least prevent this institution from falling further, we should take 
that opportunity.
  I understand we are not going to be able to intervene in this moment 
and stop this CRA, but let the record reflect that I do not accept that 
a precedent is being set. This has not been refereed yet. We have not 
fully had a conversation with the Parliamentarian and GAO about what 
exactly CRA is supposed to mean and how it is supposed to operate. If 
it is supposed to operate in an absurd way, I think we have a lot of 
work to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, first of all, happy tax day--three words 
that probably don't usually go together. I will share that anyway 
because the reason I am up here is that for the first time in more than 
three decades, Congress overhauled our Tax Code, and that is what 
distinguishes this tax day from the ones that came before it. This is 
the last time Nevadans will file their taxes under the broken system of 
the past.
  You don't have to look too far to see the positive impacts of our new 
tax laws. They are already having an impact on the people of my home 
State of Nevada. Nevadans and Americans throughout the country have 
already benefited from keeping more of their hard-earned money. In 
fact, more than 1 million Nevadans saw their paychecks get bigger last 
month because we doubled the standard deduction and we doubled the 
child tax credit. Taxpayers in every income category received a tax cut 
under this bill.
  Furthermore, since President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
into law just a few months ago, more than 500 companies throughout the 
country have committed to giving their workers bonuses, pay raises, and 
enhanced benefits as a direct result of tax reform. Let me share a few 
of those in my home State. About 11,000 Nevadans got a raise. Roughly 
13,000 Nevadans received special bonuses of up to $2,000. Up to 25,000 
Nevadans may benefit from college tuition assistance, increased pension 
funding, expanded maternity and paternal leave, and more paid holidays. 
More than 10,000 jobs are expected to be created in Southern Nevada 
alone.
  So it is no surprise that Nevada was recently ranked second among 
States when it comes to middle-income families who benefit the most 
from tax reform.
  Let me give you a few examples of how this new law is impacting 
Nevadans. South Point Hotel Casino and Spa doubled bonuses for its 
2,300 full-time workers.
  The Prospector Hotel in Ely gave its employees a $500 bonus and 
raised its starting wages.
  McDonald's, which has around 9,000 employees in my State, is 
expanding its education benefits program, tripling the amount of money 
eligible workers can receive to help cover the cost of college tuition.
  Lowe's Home Improvement, which employs more than 2,000 Nevadans, 
announced it is expanding benefits, such as adoption assistance and 
parental paid leave, and giving bonuses of up to $1,000 to its 
employees.
  Walmart announced it will increase wages, give eligible employees a 
special bonus of $1,000, and expand maternity and parental leave 
benefits--benefiting up to 8,700 Walmart associates who are living in 
the great State of Nevada.
  CVS, which has roughly 2,000 employees and 100 stores in Nevada, 
announced that effective this month, it will increase the starting 
salary and wages for hourly employees.
  Developers of the stalled Fontainebleau Resort, recently renamed the 
Drew, announced they will resume the project and have committed to 
creating over 10,000 new jobs.
  A-1 Steel, which is based in Sparks, NV, implemented eight paid 
holidays for its employees.
  Finally, Cox Communications said it will give around 1,750 Nevadans 
bonuses of up to $2,000 today. Yes, on tax day they will be giving 
their employees bonuses of up to $2,000. This is just the beginning.
  During a phone call from the National Federation of Independent 
Business in Nevada, roughly 9 in 10 Nevada business owners said that 
because of the new tax law, they plan to take action that includes 
increasing workers' wages and investing in their companies. Several 
companies are also pledging to put more of their capital back into our 
country rather than overseas.
  Apple, which recently broke ground on a new facility in Reno, 
announced it will create 20,000 new jobs nationally, open a new campus, 
and directly contribute $350 billion to the U.S. economy over the next 
5 years.
  Make no mistake about it, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is working for 
the people in Nevada. Despite the bill's critics, who have described 
these tax cuts as ``crumbs'' and said it is ``the worst bill in the 
history of the U.S. Congress,'' this new bill couldn't have come at a 
better time. Let me tell you again why.
  Under the failed economic policies of the Obama administration, 
Nevadans suffered through 8 years of historically low economic growth. 
Think about this. In those 8 years, the average economy growth was less 
than 2 percent. As a result, wages and workers suffered, job creation 
suffered, and the middle class in America suffered.
  It has been reported that nearly 8 in 10 Americans who work full time 
are living paycheck to paycheck, and if you live in Nevada, you are 
more likely to be living paycheck to paycheck than if you lived 
anywhere else.
  Whether it is a single mother, who is taking classes to further her 
education to give her kids a good life, or the police officer and 
teacher with four children in Southern Nevada who tell me that they are 
barely getting by and are doing the best they can, families in my State 
are trying to plan for their futures. They have told me they are 
struggling, but it is not just Nevadans who felt the squeeze.
  Nearly two-thirds of Americans don't even have $500 set aside to 
cover an unexpected emergency expense. That is why, as a member of the 
Senate Finance Committee, I worked to help write this legislation. I 
fought to pass these meaningful tax cuts for the people of my State 
because they have been waiting too long for a break.
  I was proud to propose and secure a provision in the new law that 
doubles the child tax credit to $2,000 per child. Think about this. The 
enhanced child tax credit could mean enough money for a family of 4 to 
cover more than 6 months' worth of groceries, buy school supplies for 4 
kids, and purchase more than 9,000 diapers. It will allow families to 
better plan for their futures.
  Take Sarah as an example, a single mom living in Nevada. She told us 
she used her child tax credit to help her and her four children move 
out of a family shelter and pay rent a full year in advance.
  In addition to doubling the child tax credit, we doubled the standard 
deduction, cut rates for low-income and middle-class families. It is 
expected that a typical family of four will keep more than $2,000 this 
year.
  It also lowered rates on businesses to ensure that we are globally 
competitive and help incite economic growth. I am pleased this bill 
included my provision to make it easier for startups to give more 
junior employees an ownership stake in their company's success.
  I have been fighting for tax reform for years, and last year we set 
out to cut taxes for hard-working Americans and agreed to a framework 
that included three main goals: create more jobs, increase wages, and 
boost American competitiveness. Even though it has only been a few 
months, I believe we have already achieved all three of those.
  As the son of an auto mechanic and a school cook, I grew up watching 
my

[[Page S2213]]

parents work hard to provide for me and my five brothers and sisters 
and to provide a good life. They told us that if we worked hard and 
played by the rules, then we, too, could achieve the American dream.
  Our problem today is that too many people think that the American 
dream is out of reach. That is what tax relief legislation is all 
about--empowering families to give them a better chance to get ahead 
and to prepare for their futures.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has put my State and our country on the 
right track to economic prosperity, and I look forward to seeing what 
the rest of the year brings for Nevada families and their workers.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I just had a chance to hear my colleague 
from Nevada talk a little bit about the importance of the tax cuts and 
tax reform that this Chamber passed at the end of the year and that is 
now in effect.
  All I can say to my constituents is, this is the last year you are 
going to have to file under the old code. You will have the new code 
next year. Why is that important? Because it is simpler. It doubles the 
standard deduction, as an example, which is a great simplification for 
a lot of taxpayers. It also takes about 3 million people off the tax 
rolls altogether.
  Think about that. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, over 
3 million Americans, who currently have income tax liability, will no 
longer have it under this new tax reform bill. Why? Because it focuses 
on lowering the rates, doubling the standard deduction, and doubling 
the child tax credit. That helps people who are lower income Americans, 
who right now have tax liabilities and will not in the future. So it 
will be easier for a lot of people a year from now because they will 
have no tax-filing debate because they will not have any tax liability, 
and for others, it is just a simpler form.
  What is already happening this year is that the paychecks are 
changing. Why? Because the IRS is saying the employees are going to get 
more money in their paychecks because the employers are going to 
withhold less as we go into 2018 because the tax proposals went into 
effect at the beginning of this year. So even though this is the last 
time we will have to file under the old code, people are already seeing 
some of the benefits of tax reform.
  When I go around Ohio, I talk to people, and they say: You know, Rob, 
my paycheck has already changed. That is because 90 percent of 
Americans are now being told they will have less withholding taken out 
of their paychecks, again, because of the lower tax rate, doubling of 
the child tax credit, and doubling of the standard deduction.
  This is really helping. The average person in Ohio will probably see 
maybe $30, $40, $50 every 2 weeks in their paycheck. That adds up. The 
average in Ohio for a median income family is about $2,000 a year in 
tax relief. That is the average. That is a big deal. That is not just 
crumbs.
  Most people I represent live paycheck to paycheck. Most people I 
represent think $2,000 is really helpful. By the way, they tell me they 
are using it. It might be for a long-planned vacation they couldn't 
afford. It might be, as a couple of people have told me, to help with 
healthcare because they couldn't afford to buy healthcare until they 
had that extra $2,000 in their pocket--or more for some people--to be 
able to afford healthcare.
  For others--we heard a great story this morning from my colleague 
from West Virginia about a woman who said her daughter used to have to 
do her schoolwork at school or maybe at the library. She couldn't come 
home to do it because they couldn't afford high-speed internet. Now she 
can afford high-speed internet with this tax relief that is being 
provided. So this is something that is actually affecting people right 
now.
  As you go to the post office to mail your form today, or as you send 
it in electronically, just know it is going to get a little bit better, 
a little bit simpler, with a little bit less tax liability.
  By the way, the IRS has had some difficulty in accepting electronic 
filings today--another reason we actually have had to go beyond just 
tax reform, as important as that is, because we have to ensure we have 
an IRS that is working for the American taxpayer. The taxpayer service, 
the number of calls that are being answered, the number of answers 
which will be given correctly, all of those indicators are concerning 
right now. So we do need to ensure that the IRS has adequate funding to 
respond to taxpayers but also that there are reforms at the IRS so 
their computer systems do work, so the different stovepipe systems are 
talking to each other.
  So tax reform and tax relief are very important but also, as we have 
seen today with this glitch with regard to electronic filing, we have 
to make sure the IRS is up to the task and providing the taxpayer 
service that people deserve.
  The tax relief effort, though, wasn't just for families and 
individuals. It also focuses on business relief. Why? Because we know 
American companies were not competitive under the old code. You had 
investment going overseas and you had jobs going overseas. There is tax 
relief for small businesses and large businesses alike. We are hearing 
more about that because we have seen a lot of headlines.
  There was another one today about yet another major company that is 
making some investments in this country.
  I was at the Kroger company yesterday. Kroger is one of the largest 
employers in the United States. It is a great grocery store chain--the 
largest in the country, by the way. They happen to be headquartered in 
Ohio. They made a huge announcement yesterday. They said they are going 
to take the savings they got from the tax relief and tax reform 
measure, and they are going to substantially give it back to their 
employees.
  The things they talked about were very interesting. One is to 
increase the 401(k) match. That is important. They already give a 100-
percent match. Now they are going to do it at 5 percent, rather than 4 
percent, of people's salary. That is nice because people can save more 
for their own retirement.
  They talked about helping employees who are having a tough time 
through the employee assistance program. They are increasing funding 
for that program. They talked about the employee discount program so 
the employees can buy more from their own stores, expanding more things 
they can buy and how much they can buy with discounts. That helps their 
employees.
  They also talked about something I thought was really great, which is 
continuing education--lifelong learning. They said they are going to 
provide their employees with a $3,500-a-year--$3,500-a-year--stipend to 
continue their education. Maybe it is getting a GED, or maybe it is 
getting an MBA and everything in between, but they believe in 
education. They want to help these employees be able to better 
themselves. They believe that will also help them to keep people longer 
term. This is part of how they are using the tax cut.
  By the way, it is applicable to everybody who has been there for 6 
months. You only have to be there for 6 months to apply for this. You 
can be there part time or full time, and you get this assistance for 
education. This is all coming from the tax relief this body passed.
  Is it making a difference in the lives of your constituents? It 
certainly is in the lives of my mine; I can tell you that.
  I have now been to 13 different businesses around the State of Ohio, 
and I have asked them this question directly: What is happening? What 
are you doing? All of them tell me they are investing either in their 
people or they are investing in their plants and equipment, helping the 
technology so people can be more competitive and more effective at 
doing their jobs.
  I have also had a half dozen roundtable discussions, where I bring 
small business owners together, and dozens of businesses have told me 
what they are doing. Some are providing more healthcare coverage. In a 
couple of cases--one is a small craft brewer in Ohio, another is an 
auto parts company--they are providing healthcare for their employees 
for the first time.
  In one case, they had it before it got too expensive because of the 
Affordable Care Act, and now they are able to provide healthcare for 
their employees.

[[Page S2214]]

Another one had never provided healthcare because it was a small 
business just getting started, and now they can provide healthcare for 
their employees because of the savings from the tax bill.
  Others are doing much more in terms of the community and charitable 
giving, again, some with regard to 401(k)s and some with regard to new 
equipment and machines to make their employees more productive.
  When economists look at what is going on in our economy, they think: 
Gosh, the reason wages haven't gone up much in the last decade--and, 
really, it has been flat in Ohio--is because work productivity has not 
been high enough. Well, this tax reform effort is providing more 
investment to our companies.
  I would much rather have people investing here in America than 
investing overseas, and that is what was happening. Three times as many 
American companies were bought by foreign companies last year, instead 
of the other way around because of our Tax Code. There was a study out 
by Ernst & Young that said 4,700 of companies went overseas. When they 
do that, they take their investment with them. They take some of their 
R&D with them.
  We have done studies on this to be able to show that 4,700 companies 
had gone overseas that would have stayed--American companies--just over 
the last 13 years if we had the kind of tax reform in place we now 
have. Those companies now have incentive to be here. They have 
incentive to invest here.
  Foreign companies now have an incentive to invest here. When they are 
trying to decide between investing in Japan, China, or Europe, now they 
look here and say: This is a lower tax rate, and you get immediate 
expensing. In other words, when you buy something, you can expense it 
more quickly, deduct it more quickly. That encourages investment here, 
whether you are a U.S. company or a foreign company. That is why this 
is exciting.

  There is some new information out from the Congressional Budget 
Office that talks about economic growth, and it says that because of 
the tax reform effort, we are seeing higher growth rates. For this 
year--the year we are in right now--the Congressional Budget Office had 
projected 2 percent economic growth--pretty weak. I mean, it is growth, 
but it is not enough to get wages up. It is not enough to really get 
people the opportunities they are looking for when they work hard and 
play by the rules. Guess what they are saying now: 3.3 percent, not 2 
percent. So 3.3 percent economic growth is projected for this year. 
Again, they say this is largely attributable to the pro-growth policies 
included in the tax reform effort we are talking about--the tax cuts.
  They also say that for the first time in a long time, we are seeing 
wages going up. They project wages going up. When we look at last month 
and the month before, we can see these wages start creeping back up 
again.
  This is really exciting to me because, ultimately, we want to see 
economic growth, yes, but we really want to see working families be 
able to see a little higher income so that they are not stuck in this 
squeeze where their income is flat and yet their expenses are up.
  What is the biggest expense that has been increasing? Healthcare. So, 
yes, we have to do more on healthcare and, yes, we have to do more to 
increase economic growth, but wouldn't it be great to have wages going 
up to be able to compensate for that and to give people again the sense 
that if they are doing the right things in life, if they are willing to 
work hard and play by the rules, they can get ahead and their kids and 
their grandkids can get ahead too.
  So I am excited to be here today to say that this is the last day we 
have to file under the old Tax Code but also to say that the new Tax 
Code is helping to give the families that I represent the opportunity 
to do a little better, to give businesses that I represent the 
opportunity be more competitive and to reinvest in their employees and 
to reinvest in their businesses and their competitiveness and their 
productivity. That, ultimately, is what is going to make the biggest 
difference in this tax reform effort.
  With that, I see that one of my colleagues is here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                              S. Res. 463

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, this is a very focused topic and I will 
just be a few minutes.
  I rise today to discuss S. Res. 463, which is a resolution that 
Senator Blunt and I just discharged from the Rules Committee that will 
help new parents--specifically, Senator parents--to bring their infant 
children onto the Senate floor. It hasn't been brought to the Senate 
floor yet, but I thought I would give an update and explain the 
importance and really the historic nature of this resolution.
  As my colleagues know, this month Senator Duckworth made history when 
she gave birth to her beautiful daughter Maile Pearl. Senator Duckworth 
has made history in many ways but, among other things, she is the first 
sitting U.S. Senator to give birth while in office.
  Some have pointed out that it is remarkable that it took so long to 
have a Senator who gave birth while in office, and I think it does 
speak to the fact that while we are a growing number of women in 
Congress, there are still not that many, and it is changing.
  We currently now have 23 women Senators, which is an all-time 
record--more than at any time in history. We are seeing record levels 
of women run for office. It is inevitable that in the future more women 
will have kids during their time in the Senate. So in this way, we are 
simply anticipating what we see as the future, and it is on us to make 
this a better workplace before they get here. I think workplaces across 
America are making, and have made, those same kinds of adjustments and 
decisions.
  As the ranking member of the Rules Committee, I recognize that this 
means that some of our outdated rules--and Senator Blunt as the chair 
realizes this as well--that were developed without considering the 
changing needs in the workplace must be changed. Senator Duckworth has 
taken the lead, and her resolution is an important part of that change.
  As she prepared to give birth, Senator Duckworth did what many moms 
do. She started to come up with a plan for how to juggle her family and 
her work. Like too many other moms in the United States, she came to 
realize that there were problems in her workplace for accommodating new 
moms.
  Senators have important constitutional obligations related to their 
service, the most fundamental among them being voting on legislation. 
The Senate rules require Senators to vote in person. We have no 
intention of changing that. They must vote on the Senate floor, and no 
one can do it for them.
  Right now, unlike in the House, children are not allowed on the 
Senate floor. That means that in order to fulfill her Senate 
obligation, Senator Duckworth would have to leave her baby for extended 
periods in order to come in and vote. Sometimes that would be just 
fine. She would have childcare. Her husband would be there. But as we 
all know, there are times when we vote late into the night, when we 
vote at unpredictable times, and it doesn't work for a mom with a 
newborn.
  So what did Senator Duckworth do? She called for legislation to 
change the rules so that Senators can bring their infants on the floor 
during votes, and we worked to come up with a workable proposal.
  I am proud to say that this week, the Senate Rules Committee swiftly 
discharged the legislation so that it can be passed by the full Senate, 
because that is what working moms do. They stick together and they get 
the job done.
  Sticking together means recognizing that we have a lot of work to do 
inside the Halls of Congress. The truth is too many American moms 
aren't in positions of power to change the rules, which is why it is so 
important for those of us who are in positions of power to be champions 
of change, not just here in the Senate but in workplaces across the 
country. It is wrong that America is the only industrialized country 
without a law that requires paid maternity leave, and it is wrong that 
only 10 percent of American employers offer workers full pay during 
parental leave.

[[Page S2215]]

  The lack of parental leave, coupled with the cost of childcare, has a 
profound impact on our economy and on our society, and it is one of the 
reasons, I believe, why there are not enough women in power. We must do 
better.
  Adopting Senator Duckworth's resolution represents a small step 
forward. In fact, it is one baby forward. In answer to some of the 
questions that I got in the hallway, no, there will not be wardrobe 
requirements of the baby, and, no, we do not believe the baby will be 
required to wear a Senate pin.
  Somehow, I think we will be able to adjust to this simple notion to 
allow a child--an infant--on the floor for the first year of life. That 
is why I am hopeful that this will inspire further change both inside 
and outside of Congress.
  In addition to the support of all of the women Senators, I would like 
to thank Chairman Blunt, Leaders McConnell and Schumer, and Senator 
Durbin, Senator Duckworth's colleague, who all played an instrumental 
role in getting this resolution to the floor. Women may be leading the 
charge, but there are a lot of good men who have had our backs, and 
that is a good thing, because we need to work together as we continue 
to fight for more family-friendly workplaces.
  Finally, I would like to thank the one who did all the work, Senator 
Duckworth, who continues to serve our country with courage and 
strength, for paving the way. Maile Pearl is very lucky to have Senator 
Duckworth as a mom, and I look forward to meeting her here on the 
Senate floor during a future round of votes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________