[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6387-6388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT RESOLUTION

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me talk about the retirement CRA, the 
vote that is coming before us quite soon.
  So far this Congress, the Republican majority has passed 13 CRAs--
Congressional Review Act resolutions--all on party-line votes. Far from 
being a major accomplishment, these CRAs just overturn rules passed at 
the very end of the Obama administration. To make them a major 
accomplishment of the first 100 days misreads what they are and 
history, when compared to many other Presidents. Most of them, to boot, 
even worse, rather than benefiting the American people, just benefit 
large, wealthy, special interests--not just this one but just about all 
of them. They are not for working people. They are not for middle-class 
Americans. If there is some narrow special interest that doesn't like 
it, then this Republican-led Congress goes along. It is not right. Let 
me give a few examples.
  The Republicans passed a CRA that removed protections for our waters 
and streams from the harmful pollution that comes from the runoff of 
mining sites. Why? Large mining companies wanted it. The American 
people weren't crying out for it.
  This Republican Congress passed a CRA that would make it easier for 
the adjudicated mentally ill to purchase firearms--a priority of the 
gun lobby, certainly not of the American people. They even passed a CRA 
that allowed large oil, mining, and gas companies to make payments to 
foreign governments--essentially bribes--without even having to 
disclose them.
  That is not the America we know. That is not the Shining City on the 
Hill. That is not the lady in the harbor with a torch.
  Today, the Republican majority is going to have a vote on another 
CRA. This one may be the worst of all because it would block 
initiatives by States to provide alternative retirement savings options 
for millions of Americans. Is that because Americans are clamoring: 
Take away my ability for retirement if my company doesn't give me one. 
No, we haven't heard a peep about that. It is because the private 
financial institutions--Wall Street--that manage retirement plans don't 
want to see any competition from city or State retirement plans. This 
is just another giveaway to the wealthy special interests that will 
hurt working Americans who should have more low-cost choices when it 
comes to their retirement.
  We all know our Nation faces a serious retirement security problem. 
Pensions, often a guarantee for large numbers of Americans, are 
vanishing. New employers often don't provide pensions. Older employers' 
pension plans are running low. People who used to feel, when they 
retired, there would at least be something there so they could live 
their final years in dignity, are worried, as they should be. Fifty-
five million working Americans do not have a way for retirement to save 
through their employer. That is nearly half--half--of all private 
sector workers aged 18 to 64. It is a huge concern.
  So what did the Obama administration do in its last few months? 
Wisely, they said States could set up initiatives for employees to save 
through their employers' payroll systems. The Obama administration 
acted to allow States to pursue these initiatives by exempting them 
from overreaching Federal regulations and then provided necessary 
consumer protections. That is what people want. Now, maybe some of 
these big financial interests don't want it because the plans the 
States head up will be a lot cheaper than the private sector plan, but 
we have to adapt to the 21st century. Any way we can help people with 
security in their golden years with retirement savings, we should.
  Here is another issue. We hear a lot from our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle about States' rights. This regulation doesn't force 
the States to do it. It allows the States to do it. It gives them a 
choice. This CRA vote would re-regulate the States.
  My Republican friends--who spare no opportunity to decry regulation 
and exhort States' rights--will impose a new regulation on States from 
Washington. My Republican friends talk about increasing Americans' 
freedom of choice in all sorts of matters. What about their choice in 
terms of retirement, one of the most important things to the American 
people. Middle-class incomes are squeezed in so many different 
directions. It is harder to scrape and save for retirement when the 
cost of college, medicine, and other essentials go up while take-home 
pay is stagnant. It makes sense to give Americans a choice to start 
saving earlier, at a lower cost, for retirement. That is

[[Page 6388]]

why 23 State Treasurers from States across the political spectrum--
across Utah and Kentucky, our two speakers before me--have written to 
their Senators opposing this CRA. Red States and blue States alike want 
to pursue this option. Polling shows that across party lines, 77 
percent of voters support State-facilitated retirement savings, but 
Republicans want to block it. We haven't heard one good reason--one 
good reason. We know the real reason. Financial institutions don't want 
competition, particularly if it is a little cheaper for the worker.
  Another example of special interests taking hold of the Republican 
agenda: Almost every one of these CRAs has been at the behest of a 
narrow special interest over the interests of working Americans. 
Unfortunately, it is a metaphor for both the new Trump administration 
and how our Republican colleagues are marching in lockstep to support 
the wealthy--people doing great--over the middle class and working 
people who need help.
  President Trump promised over and over again in his campaign to stick 
up for working Americans. He said he would be their voice and their 
champion. Since he has taken office, President Trump sure hasn't 
governed that way. He is pursuing policy after policy that would help 
the wealthy and hurt the middle class, breaking promise after promise 
after promise to working Americans. I ask him to veto this legislation.
  Leader Pelosi and I are putting out a statement that asks just that. 
Stand up for working people. There is no good argument against what the 
Obama administration did. There is no good argument against letting 
workers decide on their own volition that they want a retirement plan 
and are willing to put some money into it.
  This CRA is another test. If our President and our Republican 
colleagues were truly a champion of working men and women, they 
wouldn't support this resolution. If President Trump were truly a 
champion of working men and women, he would veto this resolution. We 
call on him to do so.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________