[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 1 (Thursday, January 3, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13-S17]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SENATE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today is a little like opening day here 
in the U.S. Senate. We have seen some of our colleagues--incumbents who 
were already elected--walk down this aisle, to be sworn in, after 
winning 6-year terms. We have also seen some new Members come in from 
all around the country who are from both parties. Just like every 
opening day, there is a certain sense of optimism in the air. I just 
went to a number of receptions for Democrats and Republicans alike, and 
people are talking about the need for us to work together.
  We are also facing a new reality, and that is we have divided 
government now. Before, we had a Republican House and Senate and a 
Republican President. Now we have a Democratic-led House to go along 
with the Republican Senate and a Republican White House. We haven't had 
a divided government for a little while; yet our jobs don't change at 
all as our job is to figure out how to work together to get things 
done. Frankly, here in the U.S. Senate, we need 60 votes for almost 
anything, which requires a supermajority, which has always been the 
case. Really, there has been only one way to accomplish things around 
here on behalf of the people we represent, which has been to figure out 
how to find that common ground. It is time to get back to doing that on 
some of these big issues. I would suggest to you that on issues like, 
maybe, healthcare and immigration, we have had a gridlock situation, 
where we just can't seem to figure out even how to get started.
  I will say that in 2018, the year that just passed, we did make 
progress in some areas, and it is worth reflecting on that and talking 
about how that happened, because that would be the model for the 
future.
  We made progress on combating the opioid epidemic that has gripped 
this country, and it is the worst public health crisis we have in this 
country now. In October, President Trump signed opioid legislation into 
law that contains a number of different ways to push back against this 
issue. In my home State of Ohio, it is the No. 1 cause of death now. 
Nationally, it is the No. 1 cause of death for those under age 50. We 
had over 70,000 people die in this country last year alone from opioid 
overdoses. So the President signed legislation into law that will help.
  One piece of legislation is called the STOP Act. It is something that 
we worked on for 3 years. In fact, it came out of some work that we did 
on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. I and the Presiding 
Officer here today are on the committee, and we are able to work 
together--Republicans and Democrats alike--and do deep investigations 
into issues that then result in good legislation. In this case, we 
found out that more people are dying of fentanyl overdoses--the most 
deadly of all of the drugs now--of synthetic opioids than of any other 
drug.
  We found out that it comes in through the U.S. mail system, 
primarily, and from China. We are really doing virtually nothing to 
provide the screening to try to keep some of this poison out of our 
communities. So that is now in place. Just a couple of weeks ago, I 
also met with the Postmaster General and with the head of Customs and 
Border Protection--the two individuals who are the most responsible for 
its implementation--to talk about how we can more quickly implement 
that legislation to save lives.
  The bill also includes some other legislation that we worked on for 
years. One is to remove an arbitrary cap on the ability of people to 
get treatment. Some treatment centers were capped at 16 beds just 
because they took Medicaid funding. That made no sense. There are some 
good treatment centers out there that were turning people away. These 
people are addicted. If they don't get into treatment, they are going 
to continue to have their addictions and continue to cause crimes and 
continue to break up families and cause all kinds of problems for our 
criminal justice system. So that is a

[[Page S14]]

positive part of what has happened here.
  We also passed legislation in that package to help care for pregnant 
and postpartum women who are addicted and for their children and for 
babies who are born with this neonatal abstinence syndrome--dependent 
on drugs, essentially--and to help get them through life.
  Last year, we passed important legislation that is already having an 
enormous impact to push back on another topic that we studied in the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I talked about earlier. 
That is legislation that deals with the trafficking of women and 
children. So much of that has moved online. Our research indicates that 
most of it was happening, actually, on one website, called backpage. We 
wrote legislation that enabled the victims to go after some of these 
websites if they had been exploited but also to allow prosecutors, 
including the prosecutors in your States and your cities and your 
counties, to go after some of these groups online that were knowingly 
trafficking women and children.
  As a result of that, we have made huge progress. It took 3 years of 
investigation and legislating to get there, but that legislation now, 
in its having become law, according to the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children, has resulted in substantial decreases in the 
online sex trafficking of women and children. Lives have been saved. 
Those who were not able to pursue God's purpose in life are now able to 
because no longer are they being trafficked.
  In addition, the permanent subcommittee's report helped the 
Department of Justice indict this worst actor in the online trafficking 
arena, backpage, as well as its executives. We were able to shut down 
the website altogether because of that. So we have made progress.
  The year 2018 was also the first year of the new Tax Code that has 
made American workers and American companies far more competitive. It 
is responsible, more than any other thing, for the fact that we not 
only have more jobs in this country and historically low unemployment 
numbers now but also higher wages. Over the past few months, we have 
seen where we have had, for the first time, really, in a decade and a 
half, rising wages relative to inflation so that people who are working 
hard and playing by the rules are feeling that they are getting ahead 
again. A couple of months ago, there was a 3-percent increase from the 
previous year. That is something you want to see happen continually, 
and this tax reform, because it encourages investment in jobs and 
expansion, is having that impact.
  The year 2018 was also the year we provided more funding for our 
brave men and women in uniform who are out there protecting us every 
day. Our military was not able to do its job because we didn't have 
adequate resources. We were able to do that in 2018 on a bipartisan 
basis.
  So there have been some examples of bipartisanship that have made a 
big difference. Again, we should look at those and determine what 
happened there. Why were we stuck on one issue; yet, on others, we were 
able to make progress? I would suggest to you that there are four or 
five other issues that are at the point at which they have enough 
bipartisan support that we should be able to get them done this year.
  I know people say: Well, we are getting into the 2020 election. 
Folks, it is only 2019. We are only a couple of days into it. Let's not 
talk about the 2020 election. Let's not focus on what happens on the 
talk shows and what happens on the op-ed pages and what happens in 
terms of the red meat speeches being thrown out from both sides. 
Instead, let's focus on what we can do this year, in 2019--there is no 
election this year--to actually make progress on some of these issues. 
Some of them are ones that affect all of our constituents in very 
fundamental ways. Others, perhaps, are not as significant.

  Right now, we have an opportunity to break this gridlock and to stop 
the partial government shutdown and to also make some reforms in the 
immigration system as we do it.
  The appropriations process for funding our Federal Government is 
stuck right now. There are 7 bills out of 12 that have not been passed. 
Of those seven, six have been agreed to by this body and the other 
body. Republicans and Democrats alike have voted for them, so we should 
get them done.
  As we try to figure out a way forward, we should also be sure that we 
do two things: Stop the partial government shutdown--which makes no 
sense, particularly for taxpayers, which I will explain in a second--
and strengthen our border.
  Of course we should strengthen the border. There are a lot of bad 
things happening on the border. One, of course, is people coming across 
illegally. That is something none of us should want to see. We want to 
see a legal process. I think it is true that pretty much everybody in 
this Chamber understands we have to have a secure border, and there is 
not a secure border now. Some of it requires new fencing. Some of it 
requires other kinds of barriers. Some of it requires more technology 
and more people to respond when somebody breaches a fence or a wall. We 
all know that. We know there has to be more funding provided there. We 
should be able to do that.
  At the same time, we should also realize that with regard to 
government shutdowns, as I said earlier, they really don't accomplish 
much because we always go back and repay the workers who have not been 
working on behalf of all of us. In these shutdowns, taxpayers always 
end up having to pay more, not less.
  With regard to the shutdown right now, I don't think it is political 
leverage in particular because I think that some of those who are more 
partisan on the other side of the aisle are happy to have it continue, 
thinking it is good for them politically. Let's take the politics out 
of it. Let's stop shutdowns altogether.
  There is legislation that has been introduced called End Government 
Shutdowns. Actually, when the Presiding Officer was in the House of 
Representatives, he was one of the leaders on that and still supports 
this idea. The notion is, if you don't finish an appropriations bill or 
if a continuing resolution expires--which is short-term, temporary 
funding instead of an appropriations bill--instead of having a 
shutdown, what you do is continue spending from the previous year. Then 
slowly, over time--1 percent after 120 days, another 1 percent after 90 
days, and so on--you reduce that funding to give the Appropriations 
Committee around here and our leadership some incentive to come to the 
table and resolve the issues.
  I just don't think shutdowns work. I have never quite understood it. 
Again, from a taxpayer's perspective, I don't think it makes much 
sense.
  We are going to reintroduce the End Government Shutdowns bill again 
next week. It has been bipartisan in the past. I hope it will be 
bipartisan next week when we reintroduce it. Let's get that done. At 
the same time, let's figure out ways to have more security at our 
borders. Everybody agrees with that. I hope we can find a way to get to 
some common ground.
  When we got into this issue last year, along with Senators Thune and 
Moran, I introduced legislation that would provide $25 billion over a 
5-year period to support this plan for a more secure border, including 
the plan from the Trump administration, while at the same time 
providing legal certainty to those young people who came to the United 
States illegally as children through no fault of their own. Some have 
called these children, who are now young people, part of the DACA 
Program. You have heard that word, D-A-C-A, DACA. These are people who 
came here as kids without going through the proper channels. They 
shouldn't be punished for that, so let's codify the administrative 
action that has been taken, and let's combine that with the funding. To 
me, that seems to be one where Republicans and Democrats could each 
find some opportunity for a victory. The win-win would then allow us to 
reopen the government and to move ahead with broader immigration 
reform, having had a little bit of success on at least one small part 
of the immigration issues we face. I think this is an example where, if 
both sides can give a little, we won't have a shutdown anymore, and we 
can move ahead on some other legislation.
  I want to talk about some of those other priorities that we could 
easily

[[Page S15]]

address this year because they are bipartisan. In some cases, they had 
already been worked on for years, and in other cases, for months. 
Frankly, just before we broke for the holidays, we came close to 
passing some of those.
  One is for us to reform the tax collection agency, the IRS. Everybody 
should want to do this because, once again, the IRS is not serving 
taxpayers as they should. I say ``once again'' because about 20 years 
ago, Congress took on this task and formed a commission. Actually, I 
was co-chair of it with Senator Bob Kerrey. We passed legislation to 
improve the customer service of the IRS but also to give them more 
money for technology so they could do a better job with regard to 
enforcing the tax laws.
  At that time, the IRS was in really tough shape. They weren't 
answering the phone. When they did, they weren't providing right 
information. The Agency suffered from wasteful spending, from low 
workforce morale, and from a lack of leadership and strategic 
direction. Guess what. That is happening again--all of those things.
  We now have a new Commissioner who has just been confirmed. I am very 
hopeful he will make a difference there, but he needs our help 
legislatively--give him some tools to use. This new Commissioner, along 
with his new team, is eager to have those reforms. They think it is a 
prime opportunity to update what happens at the IRS and to be sure it 
is serving taxpayers better.

  My hope is that calls will begin to be answered again and that we 
will get correct answers when we call to find an answer to a tax law 
question. We have now simplified the tax law in certain ways. We have 
also made it more complicated in other ways with this new tax reform 
legislation, so there are a lot of questions out there. Our legislation 
would be very helpful.
  By the way, 20 years ago, we decided to include an independent appeal 
of an IRS decision. It is very important. To me, it is sort of a 
fundamental right. If the IRS is saying you are wrong about something, 
you should have the ability to appeal it and to have an independent 
forum.
  Over the last 10 years or so, the IRS has kind of moved away from 
that. The appeals have declined because the IRS has chosen to settle a 
lot of cases in tax court, costing taxpayers a lot more money. Our 
legislation, which has been bipartisan, will help to create a new, 
independent appeals process. The Commissioner supports that. It is a 
way to ensure we have, frankly, more faith and confidence in the IRS, 
having that independent appeal.
  We also give more structure to what is called the IRS Oversight 
Board. This was established 20 years ago. It worked for a while. It 
hasn't worked for the past 10 years. It is basically not in existence 
anymore. So we said: Let's establish this very simply so that it 
focuses on long-term, strategic goals for the Agency, so it doesn't 
again fall back into the situation it is in now, with bad technology, 
bad customer service, and so on, and let's set up this oversight board 
in the right way.
  Senator Ben Cardin and I have introduced legislation called the 
Protecting Taxpayers Act. We almost got it done at the end of the year 
last year, just a few weeks ago. My hope is that we can get this 
legislation up and get it passed very, very quickly. We have already 
had hearings on it in the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Taxation and 
IRS Oversight, which I chair. My hope is that we can get that to a 
final vote very soon.
  Another opportunity we have is to expand retirement savings. That is 
something which is very important to a lot of my constituents who are 
finding themselves in a situation where they thought they had saved 
enough, but they hadn't. People are living longer, healthier lives, and 
unfortunately the amount they have saved in their IRA or their 401(k) 
or what they have in their pension plan is not enough for them to have 
a secure retirement.
  We have done this in the past. Again, we have worked together in a 
bipartisan way over the years to try to increase what people can save 
for their own retirement. In fact, Senator Cardin, a Democrat from 
Maryland, and I have worked together in a bipartisan way going back a 
couple of decades. We had three different bills that expanded how much 
you could put away in a 401(k) or an IRA and have catchup contributions 
if you are over 50 and changing the rules to make it easier for small 
businesses to provide plans. Unfortunately, it is time to do that again 
so that people can set more aside for their golden years and have more 
peace of mind in retirement.
  The numbers are pretty interesting. After our three pieces of 
legislation back in 1997, 2001, and 2006, we did see more savings. In 
fact, nationwide, growth of 401(k)s and other defined contribution plan 
savings, IRA savings, expanded pretty dramatically. There has been a 
179-percent increase in 401(k)s in the last 17, 18 years and a 254-
percent increase in IRAs. So we have shown that by passing legislation 
that provides more opportunity for people to save for their own 
retirement, more money is being put in.
  However, having had those successes in moving retirement savings from 
about $11 trillion in 2001 to $28 trillion today, there is still a lot 
more to be done. My generation, the baby boom generation, just isn't 
saving enough for their retirement, and the same is true with the 
succeeding generation. Young people aren't putting enough aside, and we 
need to give them that incentive to do more because, frankly, that is a 
much more effective way for us to improve their chances of having a 
secure retirement, not depending solely on Social Security, and also to 
help our economy, because more savings is a good thing for our private 
sector economy.
  Even today, only just over half of the employees who work in private 
companies have a company plan. I think they should all have one. We 
should make it so easy that every company says: You know what, you come 
work for me, and I am going to provide you with a 401(k).
  Maybe it is a simple plan, which is something we want to work on to 
try to create a new, very simple plan for small businesses because a 
lot of small businesses don't have the professionals, the H.R. people--
the human resources people--to do it. That is part of what we have in 
our legislation. We need to do more to help part-time workers in 
particular. We need to do more to ensure that the smallest businesses 
have an opportunity to have savings plans.
  Before the end of last year, just a couple of weeks ago, we 
introduced this legislation. It is called Portman-Cardin 2.0--the 
Retirement Security & Savings Act. It has more than 50 provisions. It 
is a culmination of many years of work with various stakeholders to 
come up with stuff that makes sense.
  Among other things, it establishes new automatic enrollment safe 
harbors. It does raise the catchup contribution limits. It allows 
individuals to make additional catchup contributions after age 60. It 
would also expand the saver's credit for low-income families and make 
that refundable. To ensure that Americans don't outlive their savings, 
the bill exempts any savers with less than $100,000 in aggregate 
savings from the currently required minimum distributions from their 
401(k) or IRA. Right now, at age 70\1/2\, you have to start taking it 
out. For many people who are working into their seventies, this makes 
no sense at all. You have worked your whole life. You are still working 
into your seventies, as my dad was, and you are told: You have to start 
taking money from your retirement account, or we are going to penalize 
you. Our legislation says that if you have less than $100,000 in 
savings, you shouldn't be subject to the minimum requirements at all. 
For others, we raised it from 70\1/2\ up to 75 years old over time to 
ensure that those who are in their seventies don't start depleting 
their retirement accounts when they may well need them, as they are, 
again, living longer and longer lives.
  Let's continue our work to focus on helping people save for their own 
retirement. That is something we can do on a bipartisan basis.
  We also have a little issue that is growing dramatically with regard 
to defined retirement plans, defined benefit plans--not defined 
contribution plans, like the 401(k)--and specifically what are called 
multiemployer plans. You may have heard about this, but if you haven't, 
you probably will if we don't do something because it looks like, by 
the year 2025, the Federal insurance program called the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation will go

[[Page S16]]

insolvent because of these plans not being properly funded.
  Some of these plans are very big. There are about 60,000 people in 
the State of Ohio who are in one of these plans, including the Central 
States plan. If it goes belly-up, it will result in the PBGC--the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation--going belly-up. That insolvency 
would then create problems for all plans, including single-employer 
plans, not just these multiemployer plans we are talking about.
  We need a bipartisan solution for that. We came close to it last 
year. We had a joint select committee formed to look at it. Again, that 
should be bipartisan--really, nonpartisan. If we don't solve this 
problem, it is going to have a big impact on our economy because not 
only does the Federal guaranty program go bankrupt, but a lot of 
businesses that rely on that are going to go bankrupt as well.
  Finally, to continue our progress in combating the opioid epidemic, 
which we talked about earlier, we need to take the next step. There is 
new legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 
2.0, referring to the same legislation, the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act, CARA, which was passed here in this body 2\1/2\ years 
ago. That legislation is to do more in terms of treatment, recovery, 
and specifically prevention.
  It also deals with this issue that we don't have effective drug-
monitoring programs back in our States. Often, if someone gets a 
prescription for opioids, they wouldn't know whether that person 
already had that prescription. They also don't know if somebody has 
crossed the State line. In my State of Ohio, people might cross over to 
Michigan or Indiana or Kentucky or West Virginia, as they do--all 
States that have opioid problems, as well--and get a prescription 
filled there, and we in Ohio don't know it is a doubling up of 
prescriptions when they go to a pharmacy in Ohio. We need to work 
better to ensure that we have an interstate system. That is in this 
legislation.
  We also have a limitation on prescriptions for acute pain. This is 
based on the Centers for Disease Control--the CDC--guidelines. They 
tell you that after 3 days of taking opioids for acute pain, it is far 
more likely that you are going to become addicted to pain medication. 
Obviously, this is a huge problem that we want to stop. So much of this 
opioid addiction--even the fentanyl addiction we have now, the 
synthetic opioids coming in--started with prescription drugs. It often 
started with legally prescribed prescription drugs.
  Again, this says that for those who are prescribed drugs after a 
surgery, let's say for acute pain--not chronic pain, not cancer, but 
acute pain--there should be a 3-day limit. This is based on CDC 
research that has been done.
  It is also based on the research being done by the FDA about how pain 
medication works. They say opioid medication may be helpful for 
somebody that has a serious pain issue after an operation, say, acute 
pain. But after the first couple of days, it is much more likely to be 
handled through something less dangerous, like ibuprofen. So there is 
not a need to have a continual use of opioids. Getting a 3-day national 
limit in place alone would have a huge impact on overdoses going 
forward, because it starts with an addiction and leads to the 
overdoses. For over 70,000 Americans last year, this led to not just an 
overdose but to overdose deaths--the No. 1 cause of death among people 
under 50 in our country today. It also requires hospitals and doctors 
to not just use these prescription drug monitoring programs but to 
share that data to prevent people from cheating the system and getting 
prescription drugs they shouldn't be getting.
  Around the holidays, the New York Times did an interesting three-part 
study on the issue of addiction. I found it very helpful and commend it 
to you. It is about the science of addiction and some simple 
information about how these drugs essentially hijack your brain. This 
is a 2-page foldout that was in the New York Times just before 
Christmas. It goes through the various stages--from the gateway to 
opioids we talked about earlier, often from prescription drugs, 
tolerance and withdrawal symptoms, addiction, treatment, relapse, and 
recovery. If you haven't seen it, you can find it online. I would 
recommend it. It is in very simple language--talking to addicts, 
talking to experts, and giving people a simple sense of what happens 
here and what we can do to address it.
  What we can do is much better on the prevention side--again, more 
information out there on understanding how dangerous these drugs are, 
but, second, getting people who are already addicted into treatment. 
This is in everyone's interest, including our law enforcement 
officials, who are tired of arresting the same people again and again 
for the same crimes, usually property crimes associated with paying for 
their habit--the No. 1 cause of crime in my State of Ohio. But it is 
also incredibly important for our families who are being broken apart 
and for so many of our healthcare systems, emergency rooms, and 
neonatal units in hospitals which are overwhelmed with these babies 
with neonatal abstinence syndrome. There is a huge cost and impact of 
that on individuals, on families, and on taxpayers.
  It is something that is affecting employers in big ways now. When I 
look at the numbers in terms of what is happening in our economy, the 
biggest issue in terms of workforce is people who are not in the 
workforce at all anymore. That is at historically high levels. They 
aren't even applying for jobs. Among men, it is probably at historic 
levels. On men and women combined, you would have to go back to the 
late 1970s to see such low levels of participation in the workforce, 
when we had double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, and 
double-digit inflation. We don't want that again. When you look at why 
these people aren't working, it is dramatic how many of these people 
are addicted, and opioids is driving these numbers at a time when there 
should be many more people engaging in the workforce. The jobs are 
there. The jobs are open and not being filled. Often, people can't pass 
the drug test if they are looking, because of their opioid addiction. 
So it is affecting us in every way, including our economy and 
workforce.
  To address these issues, this CARA 2.0 legislation will help, as will 
the legislation we passed last year with regard to the synthetic 
opioids and with regard to providing more treatment for people. If we 
keep up these efforts and continue to pass legislation that addresses 
the specific problems out there, I think this year, 2019, we will see 
the tide turning. We will see fewer addictions. We will see fewer 
deaths from overdoses. We will see more families not broken apart but 
coming back together. We will see our communities begin to heal because 
we are beginning to make progress. It is not showing up in all the 
numbers yet, but I see it back home with regard to individual regions 
and cities and with regard to communities doing an awesome job, with 
volunteers coming together and using some of the tools we have been 
giving them to have a more effective prevention campaign and also to 
get people into treatment. Where that is working, they are making a 
huge difference. So I am hopeful that in 2019, if we can keep this up, 
on a bipartisan basis, we will be able to see this progress be 
manifested in our communities.
  There is plenty more to be done this year. I joined a bipartisan 
group of colleagues on the Senate floor just before the holidays, 
calling on the Senate to pass the Restore Our Parks Act, which is to 
deal with the $12 billion maintenance backlog at our national parks. 
Things are falling apart--roads, bridges, water systems--and it is a 
shame because it is really a debt that is owed. We aren't keeping up 
because our annual budget doesn't provide money for these so-called 
capital expenses. Yet, if we don't deal with them, it becomes far more 
expensive. If the roof isn't fixed because it is too expensive, what 
happens? You have the entire building--as is happening at one of our 
great parks in Ohio--which has to be rebuilt at a huge cost to the 
taxpayer. So there is an opportunity here--again, on a bipartisan way--
to deal with this long overdue maintenance at our national parks. The 
administration supports it, our Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
has voted it out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote. The House 
of Representatives supports it on a bipartisan basis. Let's get it 
done.

  There has also been talk of a major infrastructure compromise. We 
need

[[Page S17]]

that. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, generally, not just at our 
parks. We need an infrastructure bill. Maybe the parks bill will be the 
start of that. We will see if that can be something where we can find 
compromise.
  Of course, we also have to make progress on healthcare. The costs of 
healthcare are out of control. I know Senator Alexander talked about 
this earlier on the floor today, but there are so many opportunities 
for us to improve our healthcare system and the cost and the quality of 
that system. It is something that has been very difficult and very 
partisan. It has been difficult for us to make any progress on that, 
but I think we have to put our partisan blinders away and say: How can 
we come up with sensible solutions? Some have talked about it today on 
the floor. Senator Collins, who was here earlier today as Presiding 
Officer, has specific legislation to have these high-risk pools in 
States--it has worked in her State of Maine, and it can work 
nationally--to be sure that we are reducing the cost for everybody for 
their premiums, deductibles, and copays.
  I think the American people are looking for wins right now. I think 
it would help our country to have some of these wins. I think there are 
some great examples I have presented today of some pretty easy wins, of 
some low-hanging fruit--whether it is dealing with these issues that we 
are left with here with the government shutdown, making some small 
steps forward on immigration reform right away, or whether it is low-
hanging fruit like the reform of the Internal Revenue Service, the 
retirement savings expansion, so people can save more for retirement, 
and this idea that we can begin to turn the tide on the opioid 
epidemic, which has gripped our country. It doesn't have to be a year 
of gridlock. It can be a year of progress.
  My hope is that on this opening day, as Members are walking down the 
aisle and are here with their families and celebrating and the optimism 
of opening day and thinking that hope springs eternal, this can be a 
good season. This can be a good year. This can be a year where we focus 
on what is best for the people we represent and focus on what is best 
for our country. If we do that, I think we will make a difference, and 
I think we will look back and realize that it doesn't have to be this 
way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The majority whip.

                          ____________________