Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a few minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, my colleagues and I have been on this floor for the last 7 years talking about the problems with ObamaCare and the need to address them.

In the early days, when ObamaCare was still being cobbled together, we talked about individuals losing their coverage. Promises were made that if you liked the plan you had, you could keep it. That turned out to be a broken promise.

In 2009 and 2010, we talked about premiums skyrocketing. Today, we are still talking about it. Premiums are more than 100 percent higher in Wyoming today than they were when the law was passed. Our insurer has fortunately been more conservative in their approach. So premiums didn't spike the way they did in other States.

I usually enjoy being right, but in this case, I am very sad to have watched the worst possible scenario play out. Time after time, President Obama was faced with problems in implementation and in outcomes, and he would dismiss them by saying: ``It just needs more time,'' or, as this cartoon shows, ``it just needs a tune up.''

We and the American people gave it time and money--specifically, 7 years and hundreds of billions of dollars. We are now left trying to pick up the pieces of health insurance markets all across the country.

You can see here that this ambulance is ObamaCare. Behind it is its engine and other key components, and they have completely fallen apart. That is the private insurance market today. The part you don't see here is that there is a patient in the back of this ambulance. This isn't just about politics. This is about real people and whether they can afford an insurance premium that is in some cases higher than their rent or their mortgage payments each month.

Even before its passage, my Republican colleagues and I talked about the danger that ObamaCare posed to private insurance markets.

Insurers have already left the market in droves. In Wyoming, we are down to one carrier. We lost the others to the economics of ObamaCare, and we will be lucky to keep the one we have. I know many people in our country are going to be in the position of having no insurers offering plans in their county.

How could this happen? It has happened because of politics being put before patients and an unwillingness to take on the hard task of fixing something that you have sold as the perfect solution.

I can tell you that healthcare isn't a simple issue. It is incredibly complex and, really, there is no one right way to tackle it. I was the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee when ObamaCare passed. We worked hard to find common ground. When it became clear that there was not a reciprocal commitment to that from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we did work hard to try to stop it.

Now we are finally in a position to do so. We have a President in the White House who is committed to repealing and replacing ObamaCare with better care before more irreparable harm is done. Republicans have been working on an approach that attempts to address both the short-term and long-term problems caused by ObamaCare.

We have problems to solve right now. We are proposing to stabilize insurance markets in the short term and to get insurance costs on a more manageable trajectory over the longer term. We are striking at the heart of ObamaCare by removing its mandates and taxes while putting Medicaid on a more sustainable footing.

Doing this isn't easy. You may have read a little something about the challenges of moving a healthcare bill forward, but the alternative is to do what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done for 7 years and watch ObamaCare crater. We don't think that is the right thing to do. We think we have an obligation, even if it is not an easy vote, to salvage our insurance system.

Getting something done in Washington isn't always a pretty process, but I am proud to be working with the women and men in my conference who see that there is something larger at stake than themselves and who know that sitting this out means more harm and, perhaps, harm that can't be undone later.

I will keep working. I am committed to passing the best product that we can deliver for the people of Wyoming and for our whole country. I look forward to continuing to work together to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with policies that will truly improve healthcare in America. I hope my colleagues will join me in this worthy endeavor.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the Bernhardt nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in our job, we get a lot of books, probably two or three a week at least, and for the last year most of those have been on

healthcare and healthcare reform. A book I received recently is one called ``Demystifying ObamaCare,'' by David G. Brown, who is a doctor. It was helpful enough to me that I thought I would share a part of it with anybody listening. It always fascinates me when we are here talking and maybe somebody is listening.

Page 7 starts out by talking about, ``How Does ObamaCare Look After Seven Years?'' Incidentally, this one is all well documented and footnoted, which is one of the unusual things about this book. It is not just speculation on his part--it is a lot of research that he has done and shared. He says:

ObamaCare actually reduces insurance market competition by

strict rules, regulations, and mandates.

ObamaCare significantly increases healthcare cost by the

way it attempts to assist those who cannot afford coverage.

ObamaCare does not tackle the underlying causes of

increased costs. Instead, it worsens the factors that drive

up the cost of healthcare with the addition of mandates,

regulations, and taxes. ObamaCare does nothing to decrease

the factors that increase costs.

ObamaCare has increased the total number of healthcare

spending. The cost is not $938 billion dollars, but now is

$2.6 trillion dollars over 10 years, or almost 3 times the

original figure.

ObamaCare increases cost for families, businesses, and

individuals for their healthcare. This includes not simply

ObamaCare exchanges but health insurance across the board.

Associated with this, there has been a marked increase in

healthcare premiums, costs for medications, deductibles, and

copays.

There has been reduction of access to care in ObamaCare

plans, i.e. ObamaCare exchanges (insurance does not equal

access).

ObamaCare, to some extent, has reduced the number of

uninsured but not handled the problem of the uninsured

population.

ObamaCare does not effectively address the problems of the

safety net system, i.e. putting new people into Medicaid has

exacerbated the problems for Medicaid, and removes its

original safety net function.

ObamaCare has reduced funding and thus care for programs

for the elderly, Medicare.

ObamaCare has taken the decision making process out of the

hands of patients and their families. It has done so by

removing their freedom to make those decisions.

This is from the book, ``Demystifying ObamaCare,'' by David Brown, who is a doctor.

It goes on later to say:

The individual mandate was instituted as a way to force

patients into having health insurance or else pay a financial

penalty for not having it. The employer mandate, which was

just instituted in 2016 after several delays, was intended to

move those with employer-based insurance into the government

sector. Additionally, the HHS required all individual and

small group policies to meet the ``essential health benefit''

requirements. These benefits were determined by the secretary

of the HHS and required involvement of not simply government,

but also non-government plans. The individual and small group

policies then had to be sold at a more significant cost to

the consumer.

How is the Employer-Based System changed so employees could

be moved into a government system?

Businesses with 50 or more full-time employees had to

provide health insurance approved by HHS or be financially

penalized.

The cost for businesses for the penalties for not providing

insurance was less than the cost of the insurance.

ObamaCare exchanges were there to take in anyone who needed

to have insurance. Employer based mandates were a way of

moving employees out of the employee-based marketplace into a

government program. It is the back door way of having a

government based healthcare system. It was ingenious but

fortunately, for the American people it was flawed.

Yes, Americans in the individual market lost their

insurance (5 million Americans) but the employer-based

mandate was postponed through the efforts of Congress. Many

of the larger companies have self-insured their employees.

The ObamaCare exchange program has been very expensive for

the consumers. It has also significantly limited access to

care i.e. narrowed networks of providers, (doctors and

hospitals). ObamaCare has increased the numbers in Medicaid

but this program itself has severe flaws.

Again, in ``Demystifying ObamaCare'' by David Brown, a doctor, going to page 18, ``What Are the Facts About Medicaid and Medicaid Expansion?''

Costs of Medicaid (total federal and state spending) will

more than double i.e. more than $427 billion to $896 billion

between 2014 and 2024. The costs of this will be borne by the

taxpayers.

The cost of Medicaid to the states has a tremendous impact

on other services. It is often the second most expensive

budgetary item. With Medicaid expansion, there are increased

costs to the states, even in those states, which have

accepted Medicaid expansion and increased federal funding for

it. Other state services may have to be reduced even in

states who have not accepted Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid is actually a safety net for the poorest and most

vulnerable Americans but expansion changes this. It reduces

the access to care for others who are already in the system.

The single adult able-bodied American is competing for care

with those who need the care as a safety net.

It severely underpays doctors and hospitals, and the number

of Medicaid providers are declining. It compensates doctors

an average of 50% less than private insurance. By CBO

estimates, by the time of full implementation of ObamaCare,

one out of every six hospitals will be in the red because of

severe underpayment from Medicaid and Medicare.

Medicaid expansion does not reduce inappropriate

utilization of emergency rooms. A recent study showed

Medicaid patients utilize the emergency rooms for their

routine care 40% more than those who are uninsured.

Medicaid has the worst clinical outcomes compared with any

other medical program. There are worse outcomes including

conditions such as heart disease, cancer, complications from

major surgery, transplants, and AIDS. These outcomes are

independent of patient factors and reflect the program

itself. It may be no better than having no insurance at all.

A recent study comparing Medicaid patients with those who are

uninsured showed no difference in blood pressure, glucose,

and cholesterol levels after two years of observation.

In short Medicaid expansion reduces access to care,

increases cost of care and places people within the program

that has the worst possible outcomes to care.

Going on in ``Demystifying ObamaCare,'' by David Brown, page 25, ``Medicaid Expansion Update: How Does It Stand Today?''

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have adopted

Medicaid expansion. Three states have considered it but

rejected Medicaid expansion. The other sixteen states have

refused to participate in it.

Medicaid expansion has increased the Medicaid number from

58 million to approximately 70 million people, 20% of the

uninsured population. It has caused overall expansion of the

number of people in the program.

ObamaCare has increased the number of individuals insured

by allowing them to participate in the existing Medicaid

program. In order to do so, the inclusion criteria for their

enrollments have changed. Medicaid expansion is now based on

age and financial criteria. That includes both the able-

bodied individuals who are able to work and chose not to and

those who were previously involved in the Medicaid safety

net. For example, the lower income mother with children.

It was thought that the states that accepted Medicaid

expansion would have ``free money'' if they participated with

this Federal program. 100% of the costs of adding new

patients were picked up by the federal government with that

figure gradually being reduced to 90% of the cost starting in

2017.

This was for new patients added to Medicaid and not the

existing patient population. States however found that their

Medicaid programs were flooded with new enrollees, many of

which had met the criteria for Medicaid before the ``woodwork

effect.''

The overall expansion of Medicaid with increasing numbers

of enrollees has led to marked increase in spending on

Medicaid and marked increase in total costs for Medicaid.

It goes on with a lot of numbers which have a lot of significance to accountants, but I will skip over those and continue on with his last two points.

Medicaid is associated with the worst possible clinical

success rate across the board for all medical and surgical

illnesses. It is worse than any other program, including any

government programs such as Medicare or any private program.

In certain studies, it has shown to have worse clinical

outcomes than having no insurance at all. No data has

developed during the course of Medicaid expansion to change

these findings.

Medicaid expansion is associated with a huge financial

burden on the states and the cost to the states with Medicaid

expansion has increased dramatically.

Again, at the end of the chapter it shows a lot of references for where he got this information.

Continuing with ``Demystifying ObamaCare'' and moving on to page 31 is ``What are ObamaCare Insurance Exchanges?''

ObamaCare insurance exchanges are federally constructed and

state run markets where individuals and families can purchase

insurance plans. Private healthcare insurance companies

participate but the insurance companies are only able to sell

plans that are acceptable to the Secretary of the HHS. Many

individuals and families then could receive subsidies

provided by the government, (i.e. taxpayers funded

subsidies). The subsidies are [to] be on a sliding scale,

families whose income is up to 400% of the federal poverty

level can be in the ObamaCare exchange ($97,000 dollars a

year for a family of four). The program is tightly regulated

by the Federal Government. The choice is limited to four

plans (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.) Each state was

required to set up their own insurance exchanges and then

regulate them. If a state

did not set up such an exchange, the Federal Government did

that for them.

``What Effects These Policies Have on Those Inside and Outside the Exchanges?''

The public must know that the exchanges dramatically

restrict patient care by restricting access to care.

Exchanges decrease access by reducing access to doctors and

hospitals. This includes access to some of the most important

specialized care. The exchanges have a limited network of

providers.

The public must understand that they do [not have]

protection from fraud. Some of the most sensitive information

is given to navigators to help enroll people in the

exchanges. The enrollees then become ``fair game.''

The ObamaCare website, ``Healthcare.gov'' does not

automatically verify enrollee's eligibility, i.e., whether

they legally qualify for subsidies. Various sources indicate

that at least 2 million enrollees (some estimates are

significantly higher) are receiving subsidies that they did

not legally qualify for. Douglas Holtz-Eakins, former

director of the CBO, estimates that over the first 10 years

of ObamaCare, overpayments and inappropriate payments could

add up to $152 billion dollars. Who pays the bill? The

American taxpayer. The website, ``Healthcare.gov'' cost

taxpayers $1.4 billion dollars in 2014.

He goes on to explain how that increases the costs for all taxpayers.

I will continue with some of the other lessons in this book at another time. The leader is coming to the floor to speak in a few moments.

What we are trying to do is to find some solutions for the American people so they have access to healthcare--and more extensively than now. I recommend for reading this book called ``Demystifying ObamaCare'' by David Brown. It is very eye-opening. There is a section I will cover later that covers some of the solutions that will be useful.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Nye nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for July 2017. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate approved in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, S. Con. Res. 3. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act (CBA).

My last filing can be found in the Record on June 7, 2017. The information contained in this report captures legislative activity from that filing through July 10, 2017.

Republican Budget Committee staff prepared tables 1 through 3 of this report. They remain unchanged since my last filing.

In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by the Congress.

CBO provided a spending and revenue report for fiscal year 2017, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. CBO's estimates show that current-law levels of spending fiscal year 2017 are below the amounts assumed in the budget resolution by $303 million in budget authority and $6.4 billion in outlays. CBO also estimates that revenues are $1 million above assumed levels for fiscal year 2017, but $21 million below assumed levels over the fiscal year 2017-2026 period. Social Security levels are consistent with the budget resolution's fiscal year 2017 figures.

CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. The Senate's PAYGO scorecard currently shows increased deficits of $226 million over the fiscal year 2016-2021 and $227 million over fiscal year 2016-2026 periods. For both of these periods, outlays have increased by $201 million, while revenues decreased by $25 million over the 6-year period and $26 million over the 11-year period. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Finally, included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. No budget points of order have been raised since my last filing.

All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, the Congressional Budget Office released its estimate of H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act of 2017, in May 2017. Information related to this House-passed bill can be found on the Congressional Budget Office's Website with the following link: https://www.cbo.gov/system/ files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr1628aspassed.pdf.

Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for June 2017. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, S. Con. Res. 3. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA.

My last filing can be found in the Record on April 27, 2017. The information contained in this report captures

legislative activity since that filing through June 5, 2017.

Republican Budget Committee staff prepared Tables 1-3 of this report.

Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 13 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations. Legislative activity involving the appropriations process, continuing resolution and omnibus, during the last reporting period includes provisions, such as changes to health benefits for miners and Medicaid funding, charged to the Committee on Finance that caused it to breach its allocation. The other two committees in breach, as previously reported, are the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In total, authorizing committees are estimated to increase outlays by $292 million more than they were allocated over the fiscal year 2017-2026 period. Of that $292 million in violations, $91 million stems from the Finance Committee's violations during this reporting period.

Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations exceeds or is below the statutory spending limits for fiscal year 2017. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, P.L. 115-31, provided full-year appropriations for the current fiscal year. These appropriations, $551.1 billion for defense and $518.5 billion for nondefense, were consistent with the statutory limits imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Table 3 tracks compliance with the fiscal year 2017 limit for overall changes in mandatory programs, CHIMPS, in appropriations bills, established in the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution. CHIMPS in the Consolidated Appropriations Act were consistent with this year's limit of $19.1 billion. This information is used for determining points of order under section 3103 of that resolution.

In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by the Congress.

CBO provided a spending and revenue report for fiscal year 2017, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. CBO's estimates show that current-law levels of spending for fiscal year 2017 are below the amounts assumed in the budget resolution by $303 million in budget authority and $6.4 billion in outlays. CBO also estimates that revenues are $1 million above assumed levels for fiscal year 2017, but $21 million below assumed levels for the fiscal year 2017-2026 period. Social Security levels are consistent with the budget resolution's fiscal year 2017 figures.

CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. The Senate's PAYGO scorecard currently shows increased deficits of $226 million over the fiscal year 2016-2021 and $227 million over fiscal year 2016-2026 periods. For both periods, outlays have increased by $201 million, while revenues decreased by $25 million over the 6-year period and $26 million over the 11-year period. Missing from these levels are the budgetary effects of divisions M-O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 and the miners' health provisions of H.J. Res. 99, the short-term continuing resolution, P.L. 115-30, which are required to be excluded based on language in the acts. The consolidated appropriations bill, however, is recorded as reducing revenues by $24 million and $25 million over the fiscal year 2016-2021 and fiscal year 2016-2026 periods, respectively. That revenue loss is found in the appropriations section of the bill, not covered by the exclusion, which includes provisions related to visa-program extensions and insurance coverage of mammography. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.

Finally, included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. No budget points of order have been raised since my last filing.

All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to deliver a difficult speech. My senior communications adviser, Ron Hindle, is retiring after more than 30 years in the U.S. Senate. If you do some quick math, you will realize that Ron has been part of the Senate longer than I have. I came here in January of 1997 and quickly learned Ron would be an indispensable part of my team. Previously, he had worked for my predecessor, Al Simpson. That meant he knew Wyoming, and he knew how to communicate with Wyomingites.

I am so glad I hired Ron when I came to DC. He has written some of the best speeches I have given over the past 20 years. When Ron told me he was retiring, I went back and looked at a few of his remarks between tears.

When my longtime State director retired, Ron wrote:

There is an old saying we all heard before: Good help is

hard to find. Here is my experience: Good help is not only

hard to find, it is also impossible to replace.

That was true about Robin, and it is equally true of Ron. In a speech to the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies, Ron called the library card ``our passport to adventure.'' For a speech to the Young Entrepreneurs Academy, Ron referred to books, ``especially biographies and autobiographies--as `How To' manuals for success.'' When I spoke to my grandson's graduating fifth grade class, Ron wrote me an example comparing the Supreme Court to grandparents: ``If they say no, there is no one else to turn to.''

I hope this sampling of Ron's work can convey why he has been an important part of my team. He has a way with words that few people have and, more importantly, he knows what I want to say and how I want to say it. Ron does more than help me with speeches. If there is a student in Wyoming who has achieved an important goal, Ron helps me with a laudatory note. When an organization like Daughters of the American Revolution has their annual convention, Ron works on the statement commemorating that event. When a Wyoming business celebrates an important anniversary, Ron has helped me congratulate that success.

My staff and I will miss Ron, not only for the help he gives us but for the person he is. He is kind, considerate, and generous. He is also willing to lend a helping hand in everything we do, from hosting our holiday cookie party to organizing trivia, and building games for our staff planning sessions. This isn't goodbye, as Ron will remain my neighbor and my friend.

Today I want to celebrate all that Ron has done for me, for my office, for Wyoming, and for America. It is appropriate for me to once again quote Ron in describing the word ``celebrate'' to Wyoming Cowboy Challenge Academy graduates, Ron wrote:

Celebrating is much more than the things we do--it's the

feelings we get from the great accomplishments of our life.

It is the joy and happiness that comes from the heart when we

have reached one of our goals. It's the sense of satisfaction

we feel that comes from the knowledge that we have taken on a

difficult challenge and mastered it. It is the increase in

self-confidence and self-esteem that comes from learning to

trust in ourselves to make the right choices and the right

decisions.

Ron, Diana joins me in celebrating you today. You have been a great example of the importance of public service, and your legacy will continue in my office and in Wyoming as business owners, students, and others reread the words you wrote over more than 30 years. I thank you for devoting so much of your life to making my office a better place to work and, more importantly, Wyoming a better place to live. Thanks for all you have done for all of us and America. I wish you the best.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits, while sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. The Senate is considering H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. This measure provides full-year appropriations for Federal Government agencies and contains spending that qualifies for cap adjustments under current statute.

This measure includes $93,470 million in budget authority that is designated as being for overseas contingency operations/global war on terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. Of that amount, $76,985 million is for spending in the security category, and $16,485 million is for nonsecurity spending. CBO estimates that this budget authority will result in $41,444 million in outlays in fiscal year 2017.

Division F includes $6,713 million in nonsecurity discretionary budget authority that is designated as being for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of BBEDCA. This designation makes the spending associated with this provision and its associated outlays of $336 million eligible for an adjustment.

This legislation includes language that increases nonsecurity discretionary budget authority by $1,444 million this year and designates it as emergency funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates this budget authority will result in $497 million in outlays in fiscal year 2017.

Finally, division H provides $1,960 in nonsecurity discretionary budget authority for program integrity efforts. This funding is designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(C) and section 251(b)(2)(B) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates that this budget authority will result in $1,635 million in outlays this year.

As a result of the aforementioned designations, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $76,985 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $26,602 million, and increasing outlays by $43,912 million in fiscal year 2017. Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2017 by $103,161 million in budget authority and outlays by $43,541 million.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, while the Senate is on the topic of retirement savings, I would like to call attention

to a policy that I have worked to advance for many years. I believe policies permitting the existence of pooled provider plans, which passed the Senate Finance Committee to this past September by a vote of 26 to 0, should be enacted as soon as possible to ensure the ability of Americans working for small businesses to have quality access to retirement savings.

A critical challenge in enhancing the retirement security for all Americans is expanding plan coverage among small businesses. To address this, I believe we need to make retirement plans less complicated, less intimidating, and less expensive for those entities. That is exactly what pooled provider plans accomplish.

This proposal is nonpartisan. In the past Congress alone, I held bipartisan HELP Committee roundtables with the junior Senator from Vermont and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and in a prior Congress, I worked with Senator Harkin--all to discuss the best way to craft and implement this proposal. I am very proud of the bipartisan work that has been done to this point, and I thank my colleagues on both the HELP and Finance Committees for their support, but now it is time for the full Senate to pass the measures allowing the existence of such plans.

I look forward to the day in which the retirement gap in America is closed. I believe we will take a very large step towards closing that gap with the passage of policies that permit pooled provider plans.

Thank you.