[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6932-6942]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in favor of the Congressional 
Review Act resolution regarding the Department of Labor's new fiduciary 
rule. This resolution, which provides Congress with an opportunity to 
express its disapproval with the administration's regulations, is 
important for a number of reasons.
  On the substance, DOL's new rule is extremely problematic. As a 
number of my colleagues have already attested, the rule, on its face, 
would unnecessarily impose a new set of regulations under the 
Employment Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, on a greatly 
expanded number of people.
  Under current law, brokers and dealers who provide services to 
retirement plans are already heavily regulated. They are not 
automatically considered labor law fiduciaries, and, therefore, they 
are not subject to the increased liability provided under ERISA. 
Instead, these service providers are subject to regulations issued by 
the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect investors from fraud 
and to ensure transparency.
  Under the new DOL rule, virtually any broker who provides investment 
advice of any kind to individuals regarding their individual retirement 
accounts, or IRAs, will be considered a

[[Page 6933]]

pension plan fiduciary, subject to higher standards and greater 
liability.
  As my colleagues have aptly noted, this rule will reduce the 
availability of investment advice for retirees and make the advice that 
is available more expensive, which will have a disproportionately 
negative effect on low- and middle-income retirees. Higher costs and a 
more burdensome system also mean more expenses for small businesses 
trying to sponsor retirement plans for their employees.
  A 2014 study found that, as a result of these rules, many affected 
retirees--who, once again, are predominantly middle class or lower-
income retirees--will see their lifetime retirement savings drop by 
between 20 and 40 percent, which will translate into a reduction of 
between $20 billion and $32 billion in systemwide retirement savings 
every year.
  DOL's own analysis indicates that the rule will have a compliance 
cost. That is deadweight loss to the system of between $2.4 billion and 
$5.7 billion over the first 10 years, virtually all of which will be 
passed onto American retirees. I think it should go without saying that 
if anyone has an interest in understanding the cost of the DOL's 
regulations, it is the DOL itself.
  All of these problems--and they are real problems--with the DOL's 
fiduciary rule are within the substance of the rule itself. I wish to 
take just a few minutes, however, to talk about the process by which 
the rule came into existence because it is no less problematic.
  This regulation is an attempt to rewrite ERISA-prohibited transaction 
regulations for IRAs that have been in place since 1975. However, the 
prohibited transaction rules for IRAs are codified in the Internal 
Revenue Code which, generally speaking, would give Treasury regulatory 
jurisdiction over the matter.
  That was the understanding in 1975 when the current regulations were 
first established. However, a 1978 Executive order transferred some of 
the Treasury's jurisdiction over prohibited transaction rules--rules 
generally directed at preventing self-dealing and conflicts of 
interest--to the Department of Labor. In other words, the rule that DOL 
has rewritten with this new fiduciary regulation predated the 
Department's grant of jurisdiction.
  While this might be a little arcane and in the weeds, this 
distinction is important, given the reported disputes between agencies 
on this rule. Indeed, according to a report released by the Senate 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, career 
officials at the SEC and Treasury have expressed concern over DOL's 
course of action with regard to this rule. They also offered 
suggestions for improvements, most of which were disregarded by DOL in 
favor of a quicker resolution to the rulemaking process. Not 
surprisingly, this report found that political appointees at the White 
House played an outsized role in the rulemaking process.
  Given these procedural concerns, not to mention the substantive 
concerns with the rule itself, I think that at the very least we should 
revisit whether DOL should have jurisdiction in this area in the first 
place. Put simply: IRAs, which are at the heart of these regulations, 
are creatures of the Tax Code. They should, therefore, be governed by 
the agencies responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Tax 
Code and not by officials outside of those agencies who, far more often 
than not, have agendas that are geared more toward business pension 
plans and not tax-deferred savings accounts set up at the individual 
level.
  Toward that end, I have drafted legislation that would restore 
Treasury's rulemaking authority in this area in order to ensure that 
the proper expertise is brought to bear on these issues and that future 
rules governing financial advice and marketing are, at the very least, 
crafted with the broader financial regulatory framework in mind.
  As it is, we have a rule that appears to have been drafted by those 
who lack expertise about the retail investment industry in order to 
achieve a goal that is, to put it kindly, at odds with the purpose of 
that industry and the interests of the individual savers who rely on it 
in order to obtain a secure retirement.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us as it is the 
best near-term vehicle we have to putting the administration in check 
with regard to this rule. For the long term, I am hoping we can have a 
reasonable discussion about DOL's role in regulating IRAs to begin 
with. Ultimately, if that discussion takes place, I think more and more 
people will realize that the Labor Department should not be responsible 
for crafting what is essentially tax policy.
  I plan to vote yes on this resolution, and I hope that all of my 
colleagues will do the same.
  With that, 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as Senator Hatch has mentioned, in April 
the Department of Labor just issued its final conflict-of-interest, or 
fiduciary, rule, putting in place a framework of meaningful protections 
for Americans saving for retirement. The rule helps families save for 
retirement at a time when fewer and fewer workers have traditional 
pensions. Today my Republican colleagues are trying to block this rule.
  I join Ranking Member Murray of the HELP Committee and Ranking Member 
Wyden of the Finance Committee--on which the Presiding Officer and I 
both sit--to recommend that you vote no on the joint resolution.
  It is important to remember why this rule is necessary. Since the 
enactment of ERISA and the creation of 401(k) plans and individual 
retirement accounts in the 1970s, there has been a dramatic shift from 
traditional pension plans run by employers--that is where when you 
retire, there is a so-called defined benefit where you can count on a 
certain number of dollars a month for the rest of your life and perhaps 
for your spouse--to defined contribution plans that workers are left to 
manage themselves.
  Maximizing retirement savings and avoiding high fees and costs are 
more critical than ever. But most American workers need advice on how 
to prepare for retirement and navigate these plans, which can be both 
complicated and, maybe more importantly, risky.
  The DOL's rule--the Labor Department's rule--makes sure brokers and 
advisers act ``in the best interest'' of their customers and minimize 
the potential for conflicts of interest that could eat away at a 
saver's nest egg. This doesn't mean that diligent brokers and advisers 
have not been helping their customers, but the rule creates structural 
protections to make sure that is always the case.
  It is that simple: Customers come first. There is no alternative to 
that basic principle. Whether you are visiting your doctor or going to 
a lawyer, your interests come first.
  Following the rule proposal in 2015, the DOL reviewed hundreds of 
comments, held days of hearings, and issued a final rule with extensive 
changes that address a variety of concerns that many of us have heard. 
The major changes include extending the implementation period, 
simplifying disclosure requirements, and clarifying the difference 
between education and advice. The full list of changes is much longer 
and resulted in significant improvement. Most of the industry 
recognizes that and has said so. Thankfully, banks and brokers are 
already working on implementation. The Department of Labor is committed 
to helping companies figure out how to make the necessary changes and 
adapt to the rule.
  Industry and some in Congress have called for the SEC to issue its 
own fiduciary rule before the Labor Department. The Wall Street reform 
bill required the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, to 
consider its own rule. I urge them to move forward as well, but there 
is no reason for the Department of Labor to wait for the sometimes-too-
slow SEC.

[[Page 6934]]

  Congress gave retirement accounts tax-favored status and significant 
protections under ERISA. The Labor Department's rules build on the 
statutory framework under ERISA, and now the fiduciary rule reflects 
the reality of the modern retirement landscape. It is time to move 
forward to help protect this generation and future generations of 
American savers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution so the 
implementation of this rule can continue to move forward to protect the 
interests of millions of hard-working Americans who are saving for 
retirement.
  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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5243

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last week the CDC announced it is 
monitoring nearly 300 pregnant women in the United States and 
territories for possible Zika infections. That means nearly 300 
families across our country are living through a true nightmare for 
expecting parents. They are waiting for news about whether their 
newborn will be safe and healthy.
  Unfortunately, with almost 1,400 cases of Zika already reported, the 
number of expecting moms and dads in this awful position is only 
expected to grow. As a mother, a grandmother, and a United States 
Senator, I strongly believe it is our responsibility to act as quickly 
as possible for these families and the families who will unfortunately 
be impacted by the Zika virus in the weeks and months ahead.
  Just to be clear, mosquito season has already started in some parts 
of our country, and we do not have any time to waste. In fact, we 
should have been able to act much sooner. President Obama's emergency 
funding proposal to support the Zika response has been available for 
everyone to see since February. Similar to many of my colleagues, I was 
disappointed the Republican leader refused to even consider it and that 
instead they came up with one excuse after another to delay, even 
though public health experts and researchers have made it very clear 
this is truly an urgent public health crisis.
  Some Republicans said Zika wasn't something they were willing to give 
the administration a penny more for, others said they would think about 
more money to fight Zika but only in return for partisan spending cuts, 
and others spent more time thinking about how to get political cover 
than actually trying to address this problem, but many of us knew how 
important this was and we didn't give up.
  So I am very glad that after a lot of pressure from women, families, 
Governors, and scientists, and after a lot of pushing Republicans to 
get serious about dealing with this emergency, many of our Republican 
colleagues in the Senate finally joined us at the table last week to 
open a path for an important step forward.
  I appreciate the work of Chairman Blunt, who joined me to get this 
done, as well as all the Senators on both sides of the aisle who voted 
for it. While Democrats didn't get the full amount we had hoped for in 
this compromise, I am glad the Senate was able to pass a $1.1 billion 
downpayment on the President's proposal as an emergency bill, without 
offsets.
  Our agreement would accelerate the administration's work, and it 
would allow money to start flowing to address this crisis even as we 
continue fighting for more as needed. This agreement was supported by 
every Democrat and a little less than half of the Republicans in the 
Senate. So the Senate has a strong bipartisan first step ready to go.
  Unfortunately, House Republicans went in a very different direction. 
They released an underfunded, partisan, and, in my opinion, mean-
spirited bill that would provide only $622 million--less than one-third 
of what is needed in this emergency--without any funding for preventive 
health care, family planning, or outreach even to those who are at risk 
of getting Zika. They are still insisting that funding for this public 
health emergency be fully offset, and the administration should somehow 
siphon money away from their critical Ebola response and other 
essential activities in order to fund the Zika efforts. House 
Republicans clearly feel this health care crisis is an appropriate 
moment to somehow nickel-and-dime and that it is a good opportunity to 
prioritize Heritage Action over women and families, but if you are 1 of 
nearly 300 mothers the CDC is monitoring for likely Zika infection or 
one of the almost 1,400 people infected so far or one of the millions 
of expecting mothers nationwide, I bet you would like to know your 
government is doing everything it can now to tackle this virus. So I am 
continuing to call on Senate Republicans to get our bipartisan Zika 
agreement to the House as quickly as possible. Senate Republicans have 
already said they would be willing to do this if we exchange it for 
Affordable Health Care Act cuts, and I think they should be just as 
willing to do it for the sake of women and families who are at risk.
  This agreement has strong bipartisan support. It can move through the 
House, and it can get to the President to be signed into law so our 
researchers, our scientists, and those in the field can get to work. 
This Republican-controlled Congress has already waited far too long to 
act on Zika. We should not wait any longer.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives 
from the House H.R. 5243, that all after the enacting clause be 
stricken; that the Blunt-Murray substitute amendment to provide $1.1 
billion in funding to enhance the Federal response and preparedness 
with respect to the Zika virus be agreed to; that there be up to 1 hour 
of debate, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as amended, be 
read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as 
amended, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senate majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  I wish our Democratic colleagues would spend as much time working 
with us to try to solve problems as they do engaged in political 
theater and posturing.
  Mrs. Murray, the Senator from Washington, has done good work working 
with the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, Senator Blunt, in 
coming up with a piece of legislation that funds the Zika response at 
$1.1 billion. That legislation has already passed the Senate. What 
remains to be done is the House and the Senate need to come together in 
a conference committee--which is the typical way where differences of 
approach are reconciled--to come up with a responsible piece of 
legislation.
  In the meantime, I am glad the President has taken up our suggestion 
initially that until this can happen, they reprogram money--$589 
million--from the Ebola response that had not yet been expended and 
transfer that to the Zika response. I am confident that money has not 
been spent yet and plenty is available to deal with it while Congress 
does its business in an orderly sort of way.
  I would have to say to my friend from Washington, my State is going 
to be directly in the crosshairs because this mosquito is not native to 
Washington State but it is to the warmer parts of our country--Texas 
and Louisiana. Thank goodness no one so far has gotten the Zika virus 
from a mosquito. It is people who have traveled to South America, 
Puerto Rico, or elsewhere and come back to the United States, but we 
all agree on a bipartisan basis that this is a very serious matter and 
we can't waste time. There is $589 million available to deal with it 
now.
  Secondly, we are working--as we typically do--with the House to try 
to

[[Page 6935]]

reconcile our differences and to do our work in a responsible sort of 
way. In the meantime, our Democratic colleagues are blocking 
legislation, like the Defense authorization bill. They are throwing 
obstacles in the way of our getting the Senate back to work in every 
way they possibly can, including this--which, I am sorry to say, is 
just political theater and posturing.
  With that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just say this. This Zika virus is 
an emergency now, and though my constituents don't live in Texas, we 
have people in Washington State who have traveled to infected 
countries, gotten Zika transmitted through mosquito, have come home, 
and now they need to have tests to determine whether they have been 
infected. Those tests will not be available until we provide this 
money. The Ebola response money that was just referred to needs to be 
there because Ebola is not eradicated and can come back at any minute, 
and we are doing everything we can as a nation to protect American 
citizens.
  What we are trying to do is move the bipartisan bill that has been 
approved in the Senate quickly to the House. Yes, it has been attached 
to an appropriations bill, but for us to sit back and wait until a 
conference committee is appointed on that and does the long 
negotiations over the summer into the fall is too late. We can deal 
with this now. That is what I ask to do today, and we will continue to 
push until we can assure people in our States across the country that 
we are doing everything we can as a nation to help protect our citizens 
from the Zika virus, particularly expectant mothers or possibly 
expectant mothers and families.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. 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. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      USDA Catfish Inspection Rule

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the bait-and-
switch being pulled on the American people in this Congress regarding 
catfish inspection. We have all been told by lobbyists for fish 
importers and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that the catfish 
inspection program is ``duplicative and trade distorting,'' but that 
simply isn't true. This rule is not duplicative, this rule is not 
distorting, and the program is working to keep food safe for Americans. 
There is nothing duplicative about this rule. The FDA no longer 
inspects any catfish. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service is the 
only agency inspecting catfish. Additionally, the USDA and the FDA 
operate under a memorandum of understanding to prevent duplication. For 
decades, USDA and FDA coordinated to prevent duplicative inspections 
with regard to seafood, beef, pork, and poultry.
  The fact is that the FDA did not adequately inspect catfish. The FDA 
inspected less than 2 percent of catfish, and it lab tested an even 
smaller percentage. It would not be a stretch to argue that we had very 
little inspection at all. In contrast, the USDA's Food Safety and 
Inspection Service inspects all catfish, as they do with other farmed-
raised meat.
  This rule is not a WTO violation. Equivalent standards are applied to 
imported and domestic fish.
  The USDA has been inspecting beef, pork, and poultry with this system 
for decades. Is that too much to ask for? Why should American consumers 
be subjected to harmful contaminants that we can prevent?
  Contrary to what you may hear, this program is not costly. I have 
heard many different numbers thrown around, but the bottom line is that 
the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this resolution 
would not save the taxpayer a single penny.
  If Congress votes to disapprove the USDA's catfish inspection rule, 
the food safety of the American people will be significantly 
undermined. This is a health and safety issue, pure and simple. With 
only a few weeks of inspection under its belt, the USDA has already 
denied entry of two shipments of imported catfish because they found 
crystal violet in one shipment and malachite green in another. Both are 
dangerous carcinogens.
  Earlier today the American Cancer Society said they support keeping 
farm-raised fish inspection at USDA.
  Overturning the USDA's catfish inspection rule would set a bad 
precedent. Congress has never used the Congressional Review Act to 
overturn a rule that Congress explicitly directed by law. Additionally, 
if the rule is overturned, the law requiring USDA catfish inspection 
would remain in place. USDA simply would not have a rule to implement 
the law, which would lead to significant trade disruption.
  Catfish farming is an important industry to Arkansas. Arkansas 
producers are proud to supply a safe product for American consumers. 
The bottom line is that our farmers aren't afraid of competition. They 
just want the security of knowing the domestic industry and imports are 
all safe.
  Voting to disprove this rule would put consumers at risk. I strongly 
urge my colleagues who share my concerns about the security of our food 
system to let this important food safety program continue to operate 
and continue to keep harmful carcinogens out of the food supply of 
Americans.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. 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. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the resolution 
of disapproval of the Department of Agriculture's catfish inspection 
program on several grounds. This has become a rather heated issue. I 
think there are some issues we need to clear up, especially speaking 
from the privilege of being the chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Agriculture.
  The amendment seeks to make changes to food safety inspection by 
eliminating the Department of Agriculture's inspection program of 
domestic and foreign-raised catfish. This program just started in 
March. Some of the comments about the expense of this program have been 
made as if they were on an annual basis. Most of the costs that were 
cited in the General Accounting Office report did not mention the fact 
that these were startup costs.
  The program was created due to concerns related to food safety. The 
USDA has a very strong record of requiring meat that is imported to the 
United States to be processed in foreign facilities that are 
``equivalent'' to U.S. meat processing facilities. The Department of 
Agriculture visits these facilities and conducts audits to ensure that 
their practices are in line with what we require in the United States. 
This is done to ensure that food coming into the United States is safe. 
That product is also inspected once it arrives at U.S. ports of entry.
  Simply put, what we have here is a program that requires the same 
equivalency determination for foreign raised and processed catfish as 
we require for beef, chicken, lamb, pork, and all the other commodities 
or all the other animal products that you could imagine.
  Just last week I was notified by the Department of Agriculture that 
their inspections of Vietnamese catfish found illegal drug residues in 
two shipments destined for the United States. I am sure that others who 
have spoken to this issue, especially Senator Boozman and Senator 
Cochran, have repeated this. Had this program not been in place, this 
violation would not have been caught and the product would have been 
allowed to enter into commerce.
  I am very surprised. I know this is an easy issue to bring up with 
regard to a

[[Page 6936]]

GAO report for 10 years that said this duplicating what the Food and 
Drug Administration does. It is, but it is no longer because the 
Department of Agriculture is taking it over because they have a much 
more robust program. The Food and Drug Administration really only 
inspects 2 percent of the catfish. We are talking about a much higher 
percentage by the Department of Agriculture.
  I hope those in the Senate who are trying to remove this important 
safeguard just 2 months into the program being enforced and on the 
tails of it paying off and preventing adulterated catfish from entering 
commerce--I remind my colleagues that this program was authorized in 
the 2008 and 2014 farm bills. That was delayed for a while. Startup 
costs started last year. Again, those costs that are mentioned in the 
General Accounting Office are not pertinent to what is happening today.
  I want to say one other thing. Farm bills are developed through 5 
years of thoughtful discussions and also negotiations. When a farm bill 
is passed, any producer of any product, including any animal product, 
expects--almost as if it is a contract--to be able to depend on it. If 
you have a burgeoning industry of domestic catfish, you want to make 
doggone sure that it is safe and that there are no imports that 
represent a health hazard, and that is exactly what happened in this 
particular instance. You do not want to open up farm bills willy-nilly 
on a specific issue that may make a headline or may make a good TV 
spot--to quote the General Accountability Office--which has not taken 
into consideration that this is just a startup kind of situation in 
terms of the money.
  It is interesting to me that this was scored at zero. The 
Congressional Budget Office has scored it at zero. I think I understand 
all of this talk about wasting money. I don't know anybody in the 
Congress--House or Senate--who is for wasting money. One person's 
wasteful spending of money is another person's viable investment. So we 
have to look pretty close.
  I ask that my colleagues vote no on the resolution and to maintain 
these important food safety protections and the carefully crafted 2014 
farm bill. This is not the time to open up the farm bill. We will 
certainly begin discussions on that in the next year, and we will take 
up these matters in the following year and go over it with a fine-tooth 
comb.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Madam President, I strongly urge the Senate to reject 
the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 28. This resolution would overturn a 
catfish inspection rule that is working to protect American consumers. 
Congress directed the Department of Agriculture to write this rule in 
both the 2008 and 2014 farm bills. It did so based on evidence that the 
inspection regime then in place was inadequate.
  Almost all catfish consumed in the United States is raised on farms 
in controlled environments. The Department of Agriculture, or the USDA, 
is the most experienced and well-equipped agency to ensure that farm-
raised meat products, including catfish, are as safe as possible.
  Since assuming responsibility of catfish inspection just a few week 
ago, the Department of Agriculture has intercepted and impounded two 
large shipments of foreign catfish contaminated with cancer-causing 
chemicals banned for use in the United States. Prior to the 
implementation of the rule, less than 2 in 1,000 catfish products 
entering the United States was laboratory tested. If it were not for 
the rule that S.J. Res. 28 seeks to nullify, this dangerous foreign 
fish would be in the U.S. food supply today.
  Sponsors of this resolution have said that the catfish rule is 
costly. This is not true. The Congressional Budget Office has said that 
this resolution won't save a dime. Sponsors of this resolution have 
said that the catfish rule is duplicative. This is untrue. The Food and 
Drug Administration ceased all catfish inspections on March 1 of this 
year. The Department of Agriculture is the only agency charged with 
inspecting catfish. Sponsors of this resolution have said that the 
catfish rule creates an artificial trade barrier. This is untrue. The 
Department has stated that the rule is compliant with the World Trade 
Organization's equivalency standard and would not violate its 
principles.
  Adoption of this resolution would not change the law. It would only 
call into question and potentially halt the ability of the U.S. 
Government to carry on important activities authorized by law to keep 
American consumers safe.
  It is clear that the inspection rule is working as intended to 
protect U.S. consumers. Congress was right in twice mandating these 
inspections, and reconsidering that decision would be a poor use of the 
Senate's time.
  I hope Senators will reject the motion to proceed to this resolution.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5243

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I have been on this floor many times 
talking about Zika. I think some people believe in the old adage ``out 
of sight out of mind.'' It is equally as much, if not more, of a 
crisis--an international crisis--as was the Ebola crisis. Yet do you 
remember how everyone became so suddenly concerned about Ebola when 
there were only a couple of cases that showed up in the United States? 
Remember how we in this body suddenly rushed in and appropriated on an 
emergency basis several multiples of billions of dollars to address the 
Ebola crisis? I remember how successful that was even though Ebola is 
still raging in parts of western Africa. We are continuing to try to 
help out those African nations so it will not spread across the world 
and especially to keep it from coming here to our shores.
  The same thing is happening with the Zika virus, but people are not 
recognizing it. That is why this Senator continues to talk about it--
because we need the resources necessary to stop the spread of Zika. It 
is only a matter of time before there is a local transmission in the 
continental United States. What is a local transmission? Well, we know 
they put a fancy name on it. It is called vector. What is vector? The 
vector is a strain of mosquito called the aegypti. And, by the way, it 
is math. What happens across a lot of the coastal United States and 
southern United States in June? It gets hot, the rains come, and what 
comes along with that? Swarms of mosquitoes.
  Since this particular strain, the aegypti, is prevalent across the 
United States, up the west coast, the Pacific coast, up the Atlantic 
seaboard--much further than what you consider to be southern States--lo 
and behold, this strain of mosquito carries the Zika virus, and when it 
sticks its sticker into a human being and starts drawing blood, the 
virus is transmitted into the blood of the human being. Now you have a 
human carrier of the Zika virus that can be transmitted through sexual 
contact. But, lo and behold, if the carrier is a pregnant female, then 
that Zika virus--and the virus itself sometimes doesn't manifest itself 
in many ways; it might be like a mild form of the flu. But if it is a 
pregnant female, then there are some disastrous consequences coming 
ahead. Those are the horrible pictures we have seen--the microcephaly. 
The virus gets in and attacks the fetus and does not allow the fetus to 
develop, particularly with regard to the structure of the head and the 
brain, and that is what causes these terrible family tragedies.
  Last week we voted for $1.1 billion as part of an appropriations 
bill. We turned down Senator Rubio's and my proposal of $1.9 billion.

[[Page 6937]]

  By the way, did you notice a Republican and a Democrat coming 
together, saying: This is tough in our State. In our State there are 
well over 120 cases. There are also multiple pregnant women in Florida 
who are infected.
  Nationwide there are 1,200 Americans in 48 States that we know of who 
have been infected with the virus. We know that in Puerto Rico--the 
Centers for Disease Control tells us that 25 percent of that island's 
population of our fellow American citizens is going to be infected. 
That is in Puerto Rico alone--800,000 people. As a result of that 
infection in Puerto Rico, we saw the first case of microcephaly linked 
to the Zika virus reported in Puerto Rico. That was determined because 
of a miscarriage, and the fetus had all the markings of microcephaly. 
Prior to that, the CDC had confirmed the first Zika-related death in 
the United States that had also occurred in Puerto Rico.
  While we here in the Senate last week turned down $1.9 billion, which 
was the administration's request, we appropriated $1.1 billion. But 
guess what they did down at the other end of the hallway in the U.S. 
Capitol Building. They did only $622 million. And they want this to go 
to a conference committee to be worked out over time? Folks, it is late 
May and summer is upon us. These cases are going to become increasingly 
apparent.
  Now why don't we add Brazil into the mix? It is hot and humid. By the 
way, there is something happening in a few months in Brazil: People 
from all over the world are going to Brazil for the Olympics, and right 
now Brazil has more than 100,000 cases of Zika virus this year alone.
  This is a very dangerous emergency, and we are playing around and 
delaying. Congress has not stepped up and is failing the American 
people by not treating it as an emergency. It ought to be clear that it 
is up to us to protect our constituents, to stop the spread of the 
virus, and to do everything the administration has requested, including 
replacing the multiple hundreds of millions they raided out of the 
Ebola fund to try to get a jump-start on this because the Congress was 
sitting around on its hands, not willing to give the money. They 
borrowed from the Ebola fund, and we need to replenish that fund. That 
is a part of the $1.9 billion request.
  So, Madam President, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we 
proceed to a vote on this emergency. We ought to be trying to do the 
right thing. We ought to give the President and the public health 
experts the resources they need, that they tell us they have to have to 
stop the spread of this virus.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
receives from the House H.R. 5243, that all after the enacting clause 
be stricken; that the Nelson-Rubio substitute amendment to provide the 
$1.9 billion in funding to enhance the Federal response and 
preparedness with respect to the Zika virus be agreed to; that there be 
up to 1 hour of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage of the 
bill, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this was 
debated extensively and considerably for more than 1 hour, equally 
divided, just last week, and was resolved by a vote in this body.
  I don't think there is anyone in this body who isn't worried about 
the Zika virus and who doesn't want to do everything that can be done 
in the quickest way possible. It was determined to be an emergency and 
was put into the bill that way. There was Senator Nelson's bill for 
$1.9 billion, but it lacked specificity on how that was to be spent, so 
the $1.1 billion was the one that got the vote.
  I was hoping it would be the Cornyn vote that was passed because it 
was offset with health prevention money we already have. Those funds 
can be used for just this kind of need. I don't know why there would be 
an objection to using that for the Zika virus, but there was. Even so, 
we resolved it. We resolved it without offsetting it, adding another 
$1.1 billion to the deficit, and were able to move that project 
forward. So in light of that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, the Senator from Wyoming knows my 
affection for him as a friend. The Senator from Wyoming is a great 
Senator from the State of Wyoming, and Wyoming does not have the threat 
as the southern States do in the United States as the summer comes upon 
us.
  The Senator has referred to the Cornyn amendment. The Cornyn 
amendment allowed for $1.1 billion, which was voted down. It was paid 
for by raiding the Affordable Care Act, and that is just not going to 
happen.
  Whenever an emergency happens, the tradition of the U.S. Congress is, 
in fact, to provide for that emergency on a basis that you don't have 
to go and rob some other piece of funding in order to pay for it. When 
a hurricane hits and if it hits Florida, I certainly hope you all are 
going to appropriate emergency funds. If there is an earthquake or the 
eruption of a volcano, fires--whatever the natural or manmade disaster 
that occurs--that is what a government does. One of the functions of 
government is to protect the health and welfare of the people, and 
sometimes that calls for the funding of an emergency.
  We don't have a lot of children with microcephaly that have been born 
from pregnant women here, but that is coming. We have already seen it. 
Wait until all of the Americans, including in the northern tier of 
States and the western United States, go to Rio for the Olympics. Wait 
until there is a further migration out of Puerto Rico, which is causing 
a brain drain because of the financial condition of that island and 
which we are not helping them with as we continue to dither about their 
financial distress. Wait until that migration of American citizens 
comes more and more from Puerto Rico to the continental United States 
and brings with them those infected with the Zika virus. All of this is 
about to happen, and it is about to explode. This Senator suspects that 
a lot of the people who are objecting to moving on this on an emergency 
basis are going to rue the day when they see the consequences.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have a fondness for the Senator from 
Florida, as well, and recognize that he is further south and that they, 
perhaps, have more mosquitoes than we do, although even Alaska would 
have a competition with that.
  But we did pass emergency money for this. We did declare it an 
emergency and pass $1.1 billion. That is $1,100 million to work on this 
problem.
  Before, we had the Ebola problem. That was the crisis of the year, 
and we allocated money to that. We allocated more money to that than it 
needed. That is why some of that money was brought over as an emergency 
into solving the Zika problem.
  I have been doing some research as the Budget Chairman, and I found 
that we have about $6 billion worth of emergencies every year. We ought 
to budget for what we know is consistent. Unfortunately, I had them 
look it up, and I found that we actually spend $26 billion in 
emergencies every year. That ought to be a part of the budget and not 
just passed on to future generations. They are going to have their own 
emergencies that they are going to need to solve. Somehow we are going 
to have to get control of this. I am pleased we have a bipartisan 
effort going to see if there aren't some solutions that can be built 
into the budget process. But that is not what I came over here for to 
begin with.
  Madam President, we have the right, when a government rule is 
finalized, if we don't agree with it, we can get a petition. If we can 
get enough Senators on a petition, we can get a guaranteed 10 hours of 
debate and an up-or-down vote on that rule. In America, we are trying 
to get people to save more for

[[Page 6938]]

retirement, to invest more--and now this administration makes it harder 
to do so.
  I rise to speak in support of H.J. Res. 88, expressing congressional 
disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor with 
respect to investment advice. How many people do you think are going to 
be willing to seek investment advice if they have to sign a contract 
before they can even see if that is the person they want to work with?
  It is called the fiduciary and conflict of interest rule. We are all 
against conflict of interest. There aren't even a lot of people who 
know how to spell ``fiduciary.'' That is to confuse people about what 
this is about.
  We do have a retirement coverage gap in America. There are tens of 
millions of Americans who are not prepared for retirement. The 
regulation put forward by the Obama administration that we are debating 
today will limit the advice that individuals seeking access to 
retirement plans can receive. That will increase the size of this 
retirement gap.
  This regulation will significantly impede the ability of low- and 
middle-income Americans to save for retirement. They will simply not 
have anyone to answer their questions and provide advice.
  For many years, I have heard the goal of this regulation is to force 
financial advisers to work in the best interest of their clients. I am 
completely in favor of financial advisers doing so. I have cosponsored 
legislation requiring that practice in law. I have cosponsored it and 
tried to pass it. In fact, in my almost 20 years of working on 
retirement policy in the U.S. Senate, I have never met anyone who 
doesn't agree that financial advisers should act in the best interests 
of their customers.
  The problem with this rule is, it goes far beyond requiring a best 
interest standard. It goes so far as to effectively prohibit the means 
by which low- and middle-income Americans receive retirement advice. A 
massive regulatory regime has been created by this rule. It will 
undoubtedly raise the costs in a $24 trillion--or to put it in numbers 
that are easier to understand, a $24 thousand billion industry. Sure, 
large companies and retirement savers with large assets will probably 
be able to deal with the increased costs, but what about the small 
investors, the small advisers, the people interested in retirement 
savings, the ones who have modest assets--like most of the cities and 
towns in Wyoming. This rule will negatively impact the services and 
choices available to investors. I can't imagine why limiting options, 
limiting choices, and limiting services is being touted as a victory 
for anyone.
  My home State of Wyoming is hurting. Our energy-based economy is 
declining significantly, largely due to regulations added by the Obama 
administration. Now that same administration is issuing a regulation 
that will hurt the future savings of my constituents.
  Wealthy Americans across America will not be affected by this rule. 
Yes, wealthy Americans will not be affected. They can go about 
receiving their retirement advice the same way they always have. 
However, many of my constituents will be affected by this rule. Their 
retirement savings will suffer. It is as simple as that.
  There are approximately 28.8 million small businesses in America. 
Those businesses create two out of every three new private sector jobs 
and employ nearly half of America's workforce. I am a former small 
business owner. I know well what it takes to run a small business. This 
rule will hurt retirement coverage among small businesses. It will 
create burdens, limits, and options for small businesses trying to 
offer retirement plans. In my experience, that will result in one of 
two things--either increased costs or no access to retirement advice.
  The Obama administration is going to force small businesses to choose 
between paying increased fees, which could jeopardize the success of 
the business and therefore the jobs of the employees, or not providing 
access to retirement savings for their employees, which jeopardizes the 
lifelong income of those employees. It is a no-win situation for small 
employers that are trying to take care of their employees and grow 
their business.
  I always say to learn from the mistakes of others as there is not 
time enough to make them all yourself. This regulation has been tried 
before. We have precedent to look to when examining the impact this 
rule will have on our economy. A very similar change was made in the 
United Kingdom just a few years ago, but this March the United Kingdom 
released a study which confirmed that there is a very disturbing 
retirement advice gap for low- and middle-income individuals, the very 
ones I am talking about that will be affected here in America.
  I have read how this administration--as well as some of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle--has said that rule is different than that 
issued by the United Kingdom. Here is the thing: it is not all that 
different. The impact will be the same, and this is what has happened: 
Wealthy individuals are getting access to retirement advice while 
middle- and lower income individuals are not. I have not understood, 
nor will I understand, why this regulation was put forward and 
finalized.
  The Department of Labor itself admitted on February 29 that 
relatively little is known about how people make planning and financial 
decisions before and during retirement, but that didn't stop them. The 
Department of Labor, which is the proponent of this rule, does not know 
how people make financial and planning decisions before and during 
retirement. Why would they go ahead with such a disastrous regulation? 
Why should such a seemingly disastrous regulation be put forward when 
it is unknown how many people it will affect? Perhaps they should start 
by finding out how average people make investment and retirement 
savings decisions.
  The regulation we are debating today has been lauded as one that will 
help low- and middle-income individuals save for retirement. I refute 
that claim with two main points. First, an analysis of a very similar 
change to a retirement system has proven that the opposite has 
occurred. Second, the authors of this regulation know little or nothing 
about how many people this will impact or even in what ways. People who 
give investment advice give it just fine right now, but they can see 
what is coming. That is why they have been to my office and visited 
with me about what they are going to have to do with the people who 
come to them for investment advice--or the people they want to provide 
services to.
  There will likely be unintended consequences of this new regulation, 
and as we have seen those will likely be painful consequences. As I 
stated in the beginning of my remarks, we have a retirement coverage 
gap in America. I have been working for almost 20 years in the Senate 
to help close that gap. All this new regulation will do is limit 
retirement advice for the people who need it the most. I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Zika Virus

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, on Monday I hosted a roundtable 
discussion at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore to 
review, with experts from my community, the strategy we need to employ 
with regard to the Zika virus.
  I pointed out at the beginning of that roundtable discussion that the 
World Health Organization has labeled the Zika virus as a public health 
urgency of international concern. The World Health Organization has 
estimated that as many as 4 million will be affected in the Americas. 
We know the current numbers of reported cases in the United States. As 
of last week, we had over 1,300 cases in the United States and our 
territories. Almost all

[[Page 6939]]

of those that we have in the United States, in the Continental United 
States, are travel related.
  We have 17 confirmed cases in Maryland. Those cases are going to go 
up dramatically. We know that. As the summer months and the warm, wet 
weather occurs, with the mosquito population occurring, we know the 
number of people affected by the Zika virus is going to go up 
dramatically.
  This is the challenge. We know it is transmitted primarily through 
mosquito bites, through mosquitoes. For example, we know that in Puerto 
Rico, it is going to be very active. We also know in the United States 
the mosquito population could very well act as a major transmitter of 
the Zika virus, but the Zika virus is also transmitted through sexual 
intercourse. Therefore, people who have the Zika virus and who may not 
know they have the Zika virus--because many individuals who are 
infected don't know they have the virus--this could become a major 
problem in the United States.
  What is at stake? We do know the Zika virus is directly linked to the 
birth defect microcephaly. That is a tragic circumstance affecting 
fetuses that could present a lifetime challenge for the child who is 
born with microcephaly. We know it from the small skull. What I learned 
at this roundtable discussion is that the complications from 
microcephaly include lifetime disabilities. The brain is much smaller. 
It is not capable. In many cases, it leads to blindness and death. It 
is not unusual to have not only the human cost involved in this birth 
defect, but the actual lifetime cost is estimated as high as $10 
million for each child born with microcephaly. This is a huge challenge 
to our country with the spread of the Zika virus.
  There are also other conditions that have been associated with the 
Zika virus, including Guillain-Barre syndrome. That is a nervous 
condition, a nerve damage condition that can lead to death.
  What is the answer? In this roundtable discussion, we had the public 
health officers from Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County, Howard 
Country, and Frederick County. We had experts dealing with mosquito 
control. We had experts who were dealing with the development of 
vaccines and treatments. We had a robust discussion as to what can be 
done.
  First and foremost, there was strong understanding that public 
awareness is going to be critically important to dealing with the Zika 
virus. The public needs to know. If you are pregnant or intend to start 
a family, you need to know the risk factors.
  It would be nice if you could have a test done to know whether you 
have the Zika virus, but the problem is the current state of 
development for the tests has produced two tests that the FDA has made 
available upon an emergency basis. One looks at the person's immune 
system that shows certain signs that person has the Zika virus. As I 
said before, it is not clear whether you will have any symptoms, even 
though you may have the virus. This one test looks at your immune 
system and is not 100 percent reliable by any stretch of the 
imagination, but it at least gives some indication. In many cases, you 
have to take the test more than once.
  There is another test that can be given that if you actually have the 
virus in your system, it will show that, but there is a problem. The 
virus does not stay long in your system, but you still have the impact 
of the virus. So that could come back negative, but you still have the 
effects of the Zika virus.
  Also, we are not sure as to how long the Zika virus can be 
transmitted through sexual contact. That issue is still being studied. 
So it is very possible that a person may have been infected by the Zika 
virus, does not realize they have been infected, and several months 
later, through sexual intercourse, transmits the Zika virus to his or 
her partner.
  So these are all areas we want the public to know more about, and we 
are developing more and more scientific information on tests that can 
help us identify those who have the Zika virus, and hopefully we will 
develop some way of dealing with those who are infected.
  Obviously, we want people who want to start a family to recognize 
they should try to avoid areas where there is a large vulnerability to 
the Zika virus. That will be particularly important this summer.
  Lastly, we want to develop a vaccine. I must tell you that I was very 
encouraged by the individuals involved in actual vaccine development 
who were at the roundtable discussion I had--I was encouraged about the 
fact that later this summer they will start clinical trials on vaccines 
that they hope will produce a way to immunize a population from being 
subject to the Zika virus.
  That is very exciting, but before we get too excited, I was sobered 
by the discussion in which I was told that the first rounds of these 
vaccines are going to be rather difficult, that you may have to take it 
several times, that it may be of a very short duration, and that it 
will take more time before we can develop the types of vaccines that 
are efficient and where it will be perhaps once in a lifetime that you 
would need to take them to protect you from the Zika virus 
indefinitely.
  And this is also the challenge: The experts who were there on Monday 
said this is not just a one-time-only situation; we can expect that the 
Zika virus will be with us in the future.
  So let me give you some of the takeaways from this discussion that 
took place at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Dr. Wen, who is the health 
commissioner for Baltimore City, made this point when we were talking 
about the money. I went through the $1.9 billion the administration has 
requested. I went through the different agencies, both domestic and 
international, that would benefit from that $1.9 billion. I then 
compared it to the $1.1 billion which has been acted on by the Senate 
and showed the differences.
  For example, if my math is correct, NIH would receive $77 million 
less under the $1.1 billion than the $1.9 billion. We had people from 
NIH at that roundtable talking about the research being done right now 
to develop medicines and treatments that we hope will minimize the risk 
of a birth defect for those who have been affected. No, we don't know 
how to cure it. We don't have a treatment that can cure the Zika virus, 
but we are hopeful that we will be able to develop the medical 
protocols to minimize for those who are infected the risk of having a 
child with a birth defect or developing the neurological damage. We 
certainly don't want to slow that down, and so what I take away from 
that discussion is that we want to make sure they have all the tools 
they need in order to deal with this crisis.
  Dr. Wen pointed out that if you take a look at some of the action in 
the House of Representatives where they are taking additional monies 
away from the funds that go to our local health departments, that is 
counterproductive. Dr. Wen pointed out that the money she receives from 
the public health emergency preparedness funding has been cut--cut--in 
order to pay for the Zika funds. Well, it is the emergency preparedness 
funds that are used by our local health departments to reach out and 
deal with the vulnerable populations, to make sure they understand the 
risk factors and do what they can to prevent the risk factors.
  I must also tell you that I was talking to our representative from 
Maryland at the Department of Agriculture, which does mosquito control. 
Several people talked to me about mosquito control. One of the things 
you want to do is have a comprehensive plan to eradicate mosquitoes 
during the season. That is very effective. The problem is that these 
budgets are capped. They do not have the resources to do what they need 
to do. And they were telling me that we were better prepared a couple 
of years ago than we are today in dealing with mosquito control. So we 
need to coordinate that effort and do a better job on mosquito control. 
We can't take money away from these programs.
  Mr. President, they made this point very clearly: The crisis is now. 
It is here. It is here in America today, and it is going to get worse 
every month. We know that. We need to act now on

[[Page 6940]]

the funding in an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that can 
get to the President's desk today, not in an appropriations bill that 
has to go through the process, and that usually takes until the fall 
before we can make those funds available.
  I want to just go over a point that was made to me by one of the 
individuals who was at this roundtable and who is an expert on cost 
issues. He was explaining the mathematics to me. Dr. Bruce Lee, a Johns 
Hopkins University associate professor of international health, modeled 
the cost issues. He used the most conservative estimates and said that 
our delay in dealing with the Zika virus will add an additional $2 
billion in cost. As I said, for every child born with a birth defect, 
we estimate the cost to be about $10 million. If we can avoid 100 of 
these children born with a birth defect, that is $1 billion. The first 
issue, of course, is the human cost of the Zika virus and the impact it 
has on families and on those who are directly affected.
  This, as Dr. Lee said, is an investment. The money we are making 
available is an investment. What do we need to do? We need to make sure 
money is available for mosquito control. That is one way we can stop 
the spread of the Zika virus. We have to make sure money is available 
for our local health departments because they are reaching out to 
pregnant women.
  Dr. Wen made a very important point to me: In many cases, we are 
dealing with low-income families. They do not have air-conditioners. In 
some cases, they do not even have screens. And they are going to be 
more susceptible to the Zika virus because of mosquitoes. So they have 
to reach out and do the things local health departments can do. And the 
Baltimore City Health Department has a leader on all of this, but they 
need their resources. So we need to make certain we fund our local 
health departments. We certainly can't cut the funds being made 
available.
  We are also proud of the work done at NIH and the Centers for Disease 
Control. We have to make sure they have the funds they need so they can 
develop the ways we can test to make sure we know who has the Zika 
virus and hopefully develop protocols for people who have the virus and 
develop a vaccine as quickly as possible that is efficient and can be 
widely used to prevent the Zika virus from moving forward.
  All that is possible. I left the discussion in Baltimore with hope. 
There is a way of dealing with it, but we have to express the urgency 
this crisis demands. And, yes, we need to be an international leader. 
Part of this is U.S. leadership globally. This is not the last crisis 
we are going to have. U.S. leadership helped avoid a worse 
international crisis than we saw with Ebola. As a result, we have now 
developed health capacities in many countries around the world to deal 
with the next pandemic. We know there will be another episode in the 
future. We need to prepare today for this.
  There is no more fundamental responsibility of the government than to 
keep our people safe. We have the opportunity to respond in the right 
way to the Zika virus, but it requires Congress to provide the tools so 
that the experts in this area can do their work and develop the medical 
protocols that deal with this, get the information out to the public so 
they can protect themselves in the best way possible using pesticides, 
using insect repellants, using common sense, and not traveling to areas 
that are high-risk areas, particularly if they are pregnant or 
intending to start a family. They can take the right precautions, and 
we can develop a vaccine that will protect people not only in this 
country but globally from this health care crisis. I am convinced we 
can get it done. Let's start today by passing the funding necessary so 
our agencies can do the work.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Department 
of Labor's fiduciary rule.
  Over the past year Nebraska's small business owners, retirees, 
insurance and financial professionals, and individuals in a wide range 
of other industries have expressed their concerns regarding this 
fiduciary rule. Unfortunately, the negative feedback I hear has only 
grown since the final version of this rule was published last month.
  This dense and complicated rule would change the definition of a 
fiduciary and what constitutes investment advice. In short, the rule 
could make it more difficult for many individuals to open and to 
maintain IRAs. It could also lead to fewer companies offering 401(k) 
plans for their employees.
  If the rule is implemented, lower income savers may face a 
disadvantage compared to wealthier consumers with higher account 
balances. It is often convenient for regulators in Washington to claim 
they are protecting the middle class, but that is the very segment 
which stands to lose the most from this new rule. Wealthier consumers 
and larger businesses often have the resources to comply with costly 
regulations, but small businesses are already struggling to stay 
afloat. This rule could further hamper their operations by pricing them 
out of the market.
  Because of these and other concerns, I joined my colleagues to 
cosponsor the Senate version of the joint resolution of disapproval of 
this rule. An identical resolution passed the House on April 28 by a 
wide margin, and later today the Senate will vote to pass the House 
resolution and send it to President Obama's desk.
  Congress has already offered responsible solutions to the problems 
this rule is trying to address. For example, I am a cosponsor of 
legislation introduced by Senator Mark Kirk, the Strengthening Access 
to Valuable Education and Retirement Support--or SAVERS--Act, as well 
as legislation introduced by Senator Isakson, the Affordable Retirement 
Advice Protection Act. Both of these bills would protect Americans who 
are saving for retirement without forcing them into the fixed-fee 
arrangements the fiduciary rule would, in many circumstances, mandate. 
These arrangements could create new roadblocks, making it harder--it 
will make it harder for consumers to receive financial advice.
  Nebraskans depend on this financial guidance to plan their futures 
and also to provide for their families. Washington bureaucrats should 
not be dictating whom you can hire and what investments you can make. 
It is time to draw the line and to stop this injection of government 
into the free market.
  I am proud to fight on behalf of Nebraskans and their families for 
their freedom to make the best financial decisions for their own 
future, and I urge my colleagues to vote with me in support of this 
resolution of disapproval.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               Zika Virus

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, a poll last month found that 4 in 10 
Americans had heard little or nothing about the Zika virus, and many 
others were unaware that it was a risk to the United States. The likely 
reason for this is that the virus isn't yet being transmitted locally 
here in the United States.
  But for all of us in Congress, this is not an excuse for inaction. 
Our job is to anticipate threats, not just to respond to them. We have 
all the information we need to know that the Zika virus is bad and is 
potentially about to get worse.
  In fact, I believe it won't be long before virtually all of our 
people have heard of this virus, are concerned about it, and want to 
know why their leaders aren't doing more to fight it. They want to know 
what we are doing now. Sadly, the answer is not enough. Even though the 
problem has been steadily getting worse, Congress has refused to treat 
it with the urgency I believe it deserves.

[[Page 6941]]

  There was a time when Zika was considered a foreign virus, but that 
is no longer the case. As of today, there are now 544 cases in the 
mainland United States, with more being confirmed almost daily. All of 
those so far are travel related, but there are also 832 cases locally 
transmitted in American territories, mostly in Puerto Rico. If the 
problem is there, it won't be long before it is here on the mainland.
  Just this week, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, which is the government's top authority on these issues, 
warned that mosquitoes carrying Zika will begin infecting Americans in 
the next ``month or so.'' Once those mosquitoes are here, they are 
going to reproduce. As soon as we have one case of Zika transmitted 
locally by a mosquito, there will be others that will follow shortly 
thereafter.
  Just a few days ago, the Centers for Disease Control announced that 
157 pregnant women in the United States and another 122 in U.S. 
territories have shown signs of infection from the Zika virus. This 
should be another wake-up call for the Congress. Knowing that there are 
at least 279 pregnant women in the United States with likely Zika virus 
infections means we also potentially have at least 279 unborn children 
at risk of microcephaly, and we should be doing all we can to save 
these human beings.
  So we have a limited amount of time to brace ourselves and get a 
headstart on confronting this threat. Keep in mind that there is not 
yet a vaccine for Zika. There is no cure for the conditions and for the 
birth defects it causes. So for all of us as Americans but especially 
for all of us as elected leaders, it is long past due to take this 
virus seriously, because the virus is not just serious; this virus is 
deadly serious, and so far the Congress is failing this test.
  I am proud of the work done here in the Senate to pass a funding 
measure. It may not have been as much as we may ultimately need, but at 
least at $1.1 billion, a significant amount of money is going to go 
toward fighting this threat.
  To date, in the House, the story is different. Last week, the House 
passed a $622 million package. This is about a third of what was 
originally requested. The funds were secured by redirecting money 
approved to respond to the Ebola outbreak in 2014. I want to be wrong 
about this, but I fear that $622 million is simply not going to be 
enough to deal with this problem if it heads in the direction that the 
doctors and the experts are telling us it is headed.
  So I come here on the floor of the Senate today to urge our 
colleagues in the House and its leadership to realize that this threat 
is knocking on our door and the opportunity to get out ahead of this 
problem is quickly slipping away. Within a month, we are likely to have 
a very different situation on our hands with regards to Zika. Not only 
have we delayed action for far too long already, but we are not 
expecting any action this week before Congress goes into recess next 
week. In other words, it is likely Congress will let at least--at 
least--another 2 weeks go by on this issue without any action.
  So I urge the American people to make next week a tough one on those 
who are home from Congress who have refused to take meaningful action 
to confront Zika because they need to hear from you.
  To any Members of Congress who don't receive pressure at home next 
week, you should know that you soon enough will. While only a portion 
of our constituents are currently concerned about Zika, that will 
change the moment the first case locally transmitted by a mosquito is 
confirmed in the mainland United States. Then we are going to have to 
answer to those who want to know why we didn't act, and, quite frankly, 
we are not going to have a satisfying answer. Waiting to act until we 
have a panic on our hands is not leadership.
  So I encourage the House to act on the scale the American people need 
it to act, and I urge Congress to send a bill to the President as soon 
as possible regarding this matter. I hope we will properly fund this 
fight so we can win it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:45 
p.m., all time be expired on H.J. Res. 88.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. For the information of all of our colleagues, we 
expect two votes at 4:45 this afternoon. The first vote will be on the 
passage of H.J. Res. 88, and the second vote will be on the motion to 
proceed to S.J. Res. 28.
  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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, today Americans have enough to worry 
about. Questioning the advice they get for their retirement savings 
accounts should not have to be one of them.
  We finally have a new protection on the books that would help protect 
seniors' retirement savings from biased retirement advice. It is called 
the fiduciary rule, and it is pretty simple. It says if financial 
advisers are giving people advice on their retirement accounts, they 
should put their clients' best interests ahead of their own. But with 
the resolution that is before us, Republicans want to prevent that rule 
from ever helping people to save up for retirement. Instead, they are 
dead set on saving the status quo that has allowed financial advisers 
to line their own pockets at the expense of people trying to save for 
their retirement. After a lifetime of hard work, all seniors should 
have the chance to live out their golden years on firm financial 
footing and with peace of mind.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  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. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, all time has expired on H.J. Res. 88.
  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. RUBIO. Madam 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) 
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi

[[Page 6942]]


     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--41

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Carper
     Cruz
     Sanders
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________