Floor Statements

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, ensuring that more Americans are secure financially in their retirement years is one of my highest priorities.

Later this week, our Aging Committee will hold a hearing on this very topic, following up on previous work we have done in the last Congress.

Today, I rise to introduce two bipartisan bills that would help to promote greater retirement security. Together, these bills would encourage more small employers to offer retirement plans, provide incentives for employees to save more for their retirement, and make it easier for low- and middle-income taxpayers to claim an existing tax break for their retirement savings.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research, there is an estimated $7.7 trillion gap between the savings that American households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually have saved. Think of that. We are not talking about billions here; we are talking about a $7.7 trillion gap.

A recent Gallup poll found that only 54 percent of working Americans believe they will have enough money to live comfortably in their retirement years. We must, therefore, continue to work to ensure that more Americans will have sufficient resources that they need to enjoy what are supposed to be their golden years.

There are many reasons why Americans have struggled to have sufficient funds for their retirement. One is the shift away from employer-based defined benefit plans, known as pensions, to defined contribution plans in which the risk is placed more on the employee. Another is the severity of the 2008 financial crisis. Yet another is rising healthcare costs, including the need for expensive long-term care. But the No. 1 factor is that Americans are living far longer than they did in the past. Many Americans are also reaching retirement age with more debt than retirees in past generations. Many Americans are worried that they will outlive their retirement savings.

There is another contributing factor, and that is that employees of small businesses, which are the majority of businesses in this country, are much less likely to participate or even have access to employer- based retirement plans. According to a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, more than 30 million U.S. workers lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement, so making it easier for small businesses to offer retirement plans would make a significant difference in the financial security for many Americans. That is why the first of the two retirement security bills that I am introducing today--the Retirement Security Act--would focus on reducing the cost and complexity of retirement plans, especially for our small businesses, and on encouraging individual employees to save more for their retirement.

I am delighted that my friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Hassan, has agreed to be the lead Democratic cosponsor on this bill. My colleague from New Hampshire has great compassion for those who are struggling to make ends meet. She and I both represent States with an aging population, and we know how difficult it is for many older Americans when they are struggling with high healthcare costs, heating their homes, affording their medications, and trying to get by in their retirement years.

Our bill would make it easier for businesses to enter into multiple employer plans, known as MEPs, in order to offer retirement programs to their employees.

MEPs permit small companies to share the administrative costs and burden of a retirement plan, and that helps to lower the costs overall. Current law discourages the use of MEPs, however, because it requires a connection, or a nexus, between unrelated businesses in order to join together as a MEP, such as membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive that nexus requirement for businesses and would prevent employers from losing their tax benefits if one member of the MEP fails to meet the minimum requirements necessary to obtain these tax incentives.

In addition, the bill would reduce the cost of maintaining a plan by directing the Department of Treasury to consolidate notices and other required documentation--in other words, to reduce all of the onerous paperwork.

The Retirement Security Act would also modify the existing safe harbor for automatic enrollment plans to allow employees to receive an employer match of contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay. Employees would be able to contribute more than 10 percent of their wages or salary, albeit without an employer match for contributions above 10 percent. This is an example of a provision that would encourage employees to save more for their retirement by giving them this tax incentive.

I realize that businesses that choose to adopt this plan with the new optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased employer match, and that is why our bill would also help the smallest businesses--those with fewer than 100 employees--to offset this cost by providing a new tax credit equal to the increased match.

What we want to do in our bill is to provide incentives for employees to establish these plans by waiving the requirement that they have to be in a related industry, and we would also encourage both employees and employers to increase, if they can, the amount of money they are donating to these retirement plans.

The new retirement plan options for businesses that are included in our bill are just that--they are options; they are opportunities. No business, large or small, would be required to offer its employees a retirement plan under our bill. This is an opportunity, not a mandate, but it is an opportunity that I would hope that more and more small businesses would consider because I know they share the concern about the financial security of their employees once they reach their retirement years.

I am very pleased to see my colleague from New Hampshire on the Senate floor. I hope the Senate will listen carefully to her words as well.

Mr. President, building on this comprehensive effort to strengthen retirement security, I am also introducing a second bill today with my friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator Mark Warner.

It would provide greater flexibility and access to both employees and their employers seeking to use the popular SIMPLE plans for saving for retirement.

Established in 1996, SIMPLE plans can help small businesses provide their employees with a retirement plan that is less costly and easier to navigate than the 401(k) plan, which many small employers simply cannot afford.

Our bill, the SIMPLE Plan Modernization Act, would help expand access to SIMPLE plans by increasing the contribution limit for most small companies. This would achieve two important goals. First, it would encourage more small employers to offer a retirement savings benefit to their employees. Second, it would allow employees of small businesses to save even more for retirement each year on a tax-deferred basis.

This legislation is also a win-win proposition for retirement security. It encourages small business employers and their employees to take additional steps to save for retirement. For many small employers, this legislation would provide enhanced saving opportunities. At the same time, it is carefully constructed to prevent employers that already have a 401(k) plan from dropping that plan to adopt a SIMPLE plan. In other words, we want to broaden the number of employers who are able to offer retirement plans to their employees. It also preserves strong incentives for small businesses that become more successful to move from a SIMPLE plan to a 401(k) plan as they become bigger, more profitable, and more secure.

In light of the positive effects these bills would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Retirement Security Act of 2019 and the SIMPLE Plan Modernization Act.

This is a crisis that is looming on the horizon. It used to be that we could count on the three pillars that made up the retirement system, Social Security, a pension from an employer, and also personal savings. All three of those pillars are shaky right now. The two bills I have introduced today attempt to strengthen two out of three of the legs of this three-legged stool. We need to do that to ensure that Americans can enjoy a financially secure retirement and not end up retiring in poverty.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, ensuring that more Americans are secure financially in their retirement years is one of my highest priorities.

Later this week, our Aging Committee will hold a hearing on this very topic, following up on previous work we have done in the last Congress.

Today, I rise to introduce two bipartisan bills that would help to promote greater retirement security. Together, these bills would encourage more small employers to offer retirement plans, provide incentives for employees to save more for their retirement, and make it easier for low- and middle-income taxpayers to claim an existing tax break for their retirement savings.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Retirement Research, there is an estimated $7.7 trillion gap between the savings that American households need to maintain their standard of living in retirement and what they actually have saved. Think of that. We are not talking about billions here; we are talking about a $7.7 trillion gap.

A recent Gallup poll found that only 54 percent of working Americans believe they will have enough money to live comfortably in their retirement years. We must, therefore, continue to work to ensure that more Americans will have sufficient resources that they need to enjoy what are supposed to be their golden years.

There are many reasons why Americans have struggled to have sufficient funds for their retirement. One is the shift away from employer-based defined benefit plans, known as pensions, to defined contribution plans in which the risk is placed more on the employee. Another is the severity of the 2008 financial crisis. Yet another is rising healthcare costs, including the need for expensive long-term care. But the No. 1 factor is that Americans are living far longer than they did in the past. Many Americans are also reaching retirement age with more debt than retirees in past generations. Many Americans are worried that they will outlive their retirement savings.

There is another contributing factor, and that is that employees of small businesses, which are the majority of businesses in this country, are much less likely to participate or even have access to employer- based retirement plans. According to a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, more than 30 million U.S. workers lack access to a work-based plan to save for retirement, so making it easier for small businesses to offer retirement plans would make a significant difference in the financial security for many Americans. That is why the first of the two retirement security bills that I am introducing today--the Retirement Security Act--would focus on reducing the cost and complexity of retirement plans, especially for our small businesses, and on encouraging individual employees to save more for their retirement.

I am delighted that my friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Hassan, has agreed to be the lead Democratic cosponsor on this bill. My colleague from New Hampshire has great compassion for those who are struggling to make ends meet. She and I both represent States with an aging population, and we know how difficult it is for many older Americans when they are struggling with high healthcare costs, heating their homes, affording their medications, and trying to get by in their retirement years.

Our bill would make it easier for businesses to enter into multiple employer plans, known as MEPs, in order to offer retirement programs to their employees.

MEPs permit small companies to share the administrative costs and burden of a retirement plan, and that helps to lower the costs overall. Current law discourages the use of MEPs, however, because it requires a connection, or a nexus, between unrelated businesses in order to join together as a MEP, such as membership in the same trade association. Our bill would waive that nexus requirement for businesses and would prevent employers from losing their tax benefits if one member of the MEP fails to meet the minimum requirements necessary to obtain these tax incentives.

In addition, the bill would reduce the cost of maintaining a plan by directing the Department of Treasury to consolidate notices and other required documentation--in other words, to reduce all of the onerous paperwork.

The Retirement Security Act would also modify the existing safe harbor for automatic enrollment plans to allow employees to receive an employer match of contributions of up to 10 percent of their pay. Employees would be able to contribute more than 10 percent of their wages or salary, albeit without an employer match for contributions above 10 percent. This is an example of a provision that would encourage employees to save more for their retirement by giving them this tax incentive.

I realize that businesses that choose to adopt this plan with the new optional safe harbor may face additional costs due to the increased employer match, and that is why our bill would also help the smallest businesses--those with fewer than 100 employees--to offset this cost by providing a new tax credit equal to the increased match.

What we want to do in our bill is to provide incentives for employees to establish these plans by waiving the requirement that they have to be in a related industry, and we would also encourage both employees and employers to increase, if they can, the amount of money they are donating to these retirement plans.

The new retirement plan options for businesses that are included in our bill are just that--they are options; they are opportunities. No business, large or small, would be required to offer its employees a retirement plan under our bill. This is an opportunity, not a mandate, but it is an opportunity that I would hope that more and more small businesses would consider because I know they share the concern about the financial security of their employees once they reach their retirement years.

I am very pleased to see my colleague from New Hampshire on the Senate floor. I hope the Senate will listen carefully to her words as well.

Mr. President, building on this comprehensive effort to strengthen retirement security, I am also introducing a second bill today with my friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator Mark Warner.

It would provide greater flexibility and access to both employees and their employers seeking to use the popular SIMPLE plans for saving for retirement.

Established in 1996, SIMPLE plans can help small businesses provide their employees with a retirement plan that is less costly and easier to navigate than the 401(k) plan, which many small employers simply cannot afford.

Our bill, the SIMPLE Plan Modernization Act, would help expand access to SIMPLE plans by increasing the contribution limit for most small companies. This would achieve two important goals. First, it would encourage more small employers to offer a retirement savings benefit to their employees. Second, it would allow employees of small businesses to save even more for retirement each year on a tax-deferred basis.

This legislation is also a win-win proposition for retirement security. It encourages small business employers and their employees to take additional steps to save for retirement. For many small employers, this legislation would provide enhanced saving opportunities. At the same time, it is carefully constructed to prevent employers that already have a 401(k) plan from dropping that plan to adopt a SIMPLE plan. In other words, we want to broaden the number of employers who are able to offer retirement plans to their employees. It also preserves strong incentives for small businesses that become more successful to move from a SIMPLE plan to a 401(k) plan as they become bigger, more profitable, and more secure.

In light of the positive effects these bills would have in strengthening retirement security for millions of Americans, I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Retirement Security Act of 2019 and the SIMPLE Plan Modernization Act.

This is a crisis that is looming on the horizon. It used to be that we could count on the three pillars that made up the retirement system, Social Security, a pension from an employer, and also personal savings. All three of those pillars are shaky right now. The two bills I have introduced today attempt to strengthen two out of three of the legs of this three-legged stool. We need to do that to ensure that Americans can enjoy a financially secure retirement and not end up retiring in poverty.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with my colleague Senator Casey that would reauthorize the only federally funded programs that are specifically designed to develop a health provider workforce to care for our older Americans. The Geriatrics Workforce Improvement Act would reauthorize the Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program and also reinstate the Geriatrics Academic Career Award Program.

The number of Americans aged 65 and older is growing rapidly. In my State of Maine, we are reaching an aging milestone faster than are other States. By 2020, the number of Maine seniors is projected to exceed the number of Maine children. This is 15 years ahead of the nationally projected date of 2035, at which point the number of Americans aged 65 and older will outnumber those under the age of 18 for the first time in our Nation's history.

The United States is facing a critical shortage of geriatric health professionals and direct service workers to support our aging population. Today, we need 20,000 geriatricians. However, fewer than 7,300 of our Nation's nearly 1 million physicians are board certified as geriatricians. By 2030, we will need 30,000 geriatricians and even more geriatric health professionals and direct service workers. To achieve this goal, we will need to train 1,600 geriatric specialists per year over the next 12 years.

For the State of Maine, with an aging population of more than a quarter million Mainers over the age of 65 and with only 40 geriatricians, there is an acute need to quickly train more geriatric health professionals and direct service workers to meet the growing demand. The University of New England, College of Osteopathic Medicine has joined the University of Maine this year in proposing the ``Aging Maine Transformation Collaborative.'' I was pleased to lend my support to this collaboration earlier this year. If funded, AgingME would become our State's first Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program and would bring with it much needed assistance to communities and families throughout our State.

Nationwide, our bill would reauthorize this workforce enhancement program at $45 million per year over the next 5 years and would reinstate the Geriatrics Academic Career Award Program at $6 million per year. Together, these programs would train the current workforce and family caregivers while simultaneously developing a cadre of emerging leaders in geriatric education in a variety of disciplines. By doing both, we will ensure that older Americans will be cared for, for decades to come, by a healthcare workforce that will be specifically trained to meet their unique and complex healthcare challenges. This training of using the most efficient and effective methods for older adults will result in improved care while reducing unnecessary costs.

I am pleased to say that our legislation is supported by the leading organizations in gerontology and geriatrics, including the Eldercare Workforce Alliance, the American Geriatrics Society, the Alzheimer's Impact Movement, and the National Association of Geriatric Education Centers.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that would ensure geriatric education for our current workforce while it would optimize resources to bolster academic careers in geriatrics and help to attract the best and the brightest into this field. Together, these programs would develop exactly the kind of highly qualified workforce that we need to care for Americans as our Nation grows older.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with my colleague Senator Casey that would reauthorize the only federally funded programs that are specifically designed to develop a health provider workforce to care for our older Americans. The Geriatrics Workforce Improvement Act would reauthorize the Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Program and also reinstate the Geriatrics Academic Career Award Program.

The number of Americans aged 65 and older is growing rapidly. In my State of Maine, we are reaching an aging milestone faster than are other States. By 2020, the number of Maine seniors is projected to exceed the number of Maine children. This is 15 years ahead of the nationally projected date of 2035, at which point the number of Americans aged 65 and older will outnumber those under the age of 18 for the first time in our Nation's history.

The United States is facing a critical shortage of geriatric health professionals and direct service workers to support our aging population. Today, we need 20,000 geriatricians. However, fewer than 7,300 of our Nation's nearly 1 million physicians are board certified as geriatricians. By 2030, we will need 30,000 geriatricians and even more geriatric health professionals and direct service workers. To achieve this goal, we will need to train 1,600 geriatric specialists per year over the next 12 years.

For the State of Maine, with an aging population of more than a quarter million Mainers over the age of 65 and with only 40 geriatricians, there is an acute need to quickly train more geriatric health professionals and direct service workers to meet the growing demand. The University of New England, College of Osteopathic Medicine has joined the University of Maine this year in proposing the ``Aging Maine Transformation Collaborative.'' I was pleased to lend my support to this collaboration earlier this year. If funded, AgingME would become our State's first Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program and would bring with it much needed assistance to communities and families throughout our State.

Nationwide, our bill would reauthorize this workforce enhancement program at $45 million per year over the next 5 years and would reinstate the Geriatrics Academic Career Award Program at $6 million per year. Together, these programs would train the current workforce and family caregivers while simultaneously developing a cadre of emerging leaders in geriatric education in a variety of disciplines. By doing both, we will ensure that older Americans will be cared for, for decades to come, by a healthcare workforce that will be specifically trained to meet their unique and complex healthcare challenges. This training of using the most efficient and effective methods for older adults will result in improved care while reducing unnecessary costs.

I am pleased to say that our legislation is supported by the leading organizations in gerontology and geriatrics, including the Eldercare Workforce Alliance, the American Geriatrics Society, the Alzheimer's Impact Movement, and the National Association of Geriatric Education Centers.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill that would ensure geriatric education for our current workforce while it would optimize resources to bolster academic careers in geriatrics and help to attract the best and the brightest into this field. Together, these programs would develop exactly the kind of highly qualified workforce that we need to care for Americans as our Nation grows older.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. President, this is the first day in which Americans across the country are eligible to file their 2018 tax returns. I rise today to introduce with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Jones, the Taxpayer Identity Protection Act. Our bill seeks to help prevent American taxpayers, including our seniors, from falling victim to identity theft and tax refund fraud.

Last year, the IRS received nearly 142 million individual income tax returns. Nearly 75 percent of these returns were eligible for refunds. For the most part, these refunds are the return of dollars belonging to taxpayers that were overwithheld from their paychecks in the prior year. Millions of American families eagerly await these tax refunds-- money they may need to pay off debts, settle medical bills, or plug gaps in the family budget.

Unfortunately for some Americans, these refunds never come or are long delayed due to identity theft. Criminals have figured out that, in many instances, it is cheaper and easier for

them to steal taxpayers' identities and hijack their tax refunds than it is to traffic in drugs or rob banks.

Identity theft-refund fraud occurs when a criminal files a false tax return using a stolen Social Security number and other sensitive personal information from sources such as hospitals, schools, or assisted living facilities, sometimes by recruiting employees to steal that personal information. The fraudster then uses the data to prepare fraudulent tax returns. The thieves make sure to file early--as soon as the tax season opens in January--to increase their odds that they can get a tax refund before the real taxpayer who is entitled to the refund files his or her return.

The criminals are known to hold what they call make it rain parties, where they bring stolen laptops to a motel room with internet access and work together churning out scores of these fake tax returns. These criminals work under the premise of ``file early, file often.'' Once the thieves file the fraudulent tax return, the IRS processes it and issues the tax refund. With each refund worth on average $2,778, the money can add up pretty quickly for these criminals.

This is by no means a victimless crime. In 2017, the Federal Trade Commission received more than 371,000 complaints of identity theft, including 82,000 complaints related to employment or tax refund fraud. Taxpayers who have their refunds hijacked by fraudsters often have to wait for years to get everything straightened out and to get the refunds to which they are legally entitled. Many, sadly, are revictimized year after year. A substantial number become victims of other forms of identity theft.

Worst of all, victims are often the most vulnerable. The inspector general estimates that 76,000 very low income senior citizens were victims of tax fraud-identity theft in the year 2010 alone.

In 2016, the Lewiston, ME, Sun Journal published a story about Rick Zaccaro and Bonnie Washuk, a married couple who were the victims of tax fraud. They had filed their taxes in late January of 2015, and Rick, a retired financial analyst for the Postal Service, was checking the status of their return online in early February. That is when he learned they were the victims of identity theft. Someone had filed a tax return and claimed a tax refund using their names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. That fraudulent claim was paid by the IRS while their legitimate tax filing, with their appropriate W-2s, was stuck in limbo.

It took months of worrying, frozen bank accounts, and many calls to multiple government offices for this couple to straighten things out. When they finally received their overdue tax refund, they also received something called an identity protection personal identification number, better known as an IP PIN.

To provide relief to some victims of identity theft, the IRS began issuing IP PINs to eligible taxpayers in fiscal year 2011. An IP PIN is a six-digit number assigned to eligible taxpayers that allows tax returns and refunds to be processed without delay and helps prevent the misuse of an individual's Social Security number on fraudulent income tax returns.

Here is how it works. If a return is filed electronically with an individual's Social Security number and an incorrect or missing IP PIN, the IRS's system automatically rejects that tax return until it is submitted with the correct IP PIN or it is filed on paper. If the same conditions occur on a paper-filed return, the IRS will delay its processing and any refund that may be due while the Agency determines if the return actually belongs to the taxpayer.

In 2013, the IRS began a pilot program in which it offered IP PINs to all taxpayers--not just those who were victims of identity theft--who filed their Federal tax returns as residents of Florida, Georgia, or the District of Columbia. According to the IRS, these three locations were chosen because they have the highest per capita percentage of tax- related identity theft in the country. Taxpayers in these three jurisdictions may opt in to the IP PIN program if they want that extra layer of identity protection, even if they have not been victims of identity theft.

In preparation for last year's filing season, the IRS issued nearly 3.5 million IP PINs to taxpayers. That is a substantial increase from the 770,000 in 2013. According to the IRS, within just a month, it had rejected nearly 7,400 fraudulent tax returns that had been filed electronically. As of March 15, 2018, it had stopped nearly 1,500 paper-filed tax returns. This shows that this system works.

If a taxpayer has a special PIN number that has to appear on his or her or their tax return before the IRS will process the form electronically and issue the refund, it will stop a criminal, who would not have access to that special, individualized PIN number, from receiving someone else's tax refund.

The bipartisan Taxpayer Identity Protection Act of 2019 that the Senator from Alabama and I are introducing today would expand and make permanent the IRS's IP PIN pilot program to help combat identity theft- refund fraud across the Nation. Specifically, our bill would authorize the IRS to expand its pilot program nationally in phases over a 5-year period. Expanding the program would give all taxpayers, ultimately, the opportunity to further protect themselves from falling victim to tax refund fraud and identity theft while also saving taxpayers billions of dollars every year in tax refunds that are paid not to the taxpayers who deserve them but, rather, to criminals who are impersonating the taxpayers who deserve the refund.

Having an IP PIN has proven to protect against identity theft. I am pleased to report that the IRS supports expansion of this vital program over the next 5 years.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the adoption of the Taxpayer Identity Protection Act of 2019. This is a concrete action we can take to help protect taxpayers and to ensure that tax refunds go to the taxpayers who deserve these refunds, who are entitled to these refunds, and that they don't get misdirected to a criminal who is seeking to rip off a taxpayer.

Mr. President, this is the first day in which Americans across the country are eligible to file their 2018 tax returns. I rise today to introduce with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Jones, the Taxpayer Identity Protection Act. Our bill seeks to help prevent American taxpayers, including our seniors, from falling victim to identity theft and tax refund fraud.

Last year, the IRS received nearly 142 million individual income tax returns. Nearly 75 percent of these returns were eligible for refunds. For the most part, these refunds are the return of dollars belonging to taxpayers that were overwithheld from their paychecks in the prior year. Millions of American families eagerly await these tax refunds-- money they may need to pay off debts, settle medical bills, or plug gaps in the family budget.

Unfortunately for some Americans, these refunds never come or are long delayed due to identity theft. Criminals have figured out that, in many instances, it is cheaper and easier for

them to steal taxpayers' identities and hijack their tax refunds than it is to traffic in drugs or rob banks.

Identity theft-refund fraud occurs when a criminal files a false tax return using a stolen Social Security number and other sensitive personal information from sources such as hospitals, schools, or assisted living facilities, sometimes by recruiting employees to steal that personal information. The fraudster then uses the data to prepare fraudulent tax returns. The thieves make sure to file early--as soon as the tax season opens in January--to increase their odds that they can get a tax refund before the real taxpayer who is entitled to the refund files his or her return.

The criminals are known to hold what they call make it rain parties, where they bring stolen laptops to a motel room with internet access and work together churning out scores of these fake tax returns. These criminals work under the premise of ``file early, file often.'' Once the thieves file the fraudulent tax return, the IRS processes it and issues the tax refund. With each refund worth on average $2,778, the money can add up pretty quickly for these criminals.

This is by no means a victimless crime. In 2017, the Federal Trade Commission received more than 371,000 complaints of identity theft, including 82,000 complaints related to employment or tax refund fraud. Taxpayers who have their refunds hijacked by fraudsters often have to wait for years to get everything straightened out and to get the refunds to which they are legally entitled. Many, sadly, are revictimized year after year. A substantial number become victims of other forms of identity theft.

Worst of all, victims are often the most vulnerable. The inspector general estimates that 76,000 very low income senior citizens were victims of tax fraud-identity theft in the year 2010 alone.

In 2016, the Lewiston, ME, Sun Journal published a story about Rick Zaccaro and Bonnie Washuk, a married couple who were the victims of tax fraud. They had filed their taxes in late January of 2015, and Rick, a retired financial analyst for the Postal Service, was checking the status of their return online in early February. That is when he learned they were the victims of identity theft. Someone had filed a tax return and claimed a tax refund using their names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. That fraudulent claim was paid by the IRS while their legitimate tax filing, with their appropriate W-2s, was stuck in limbo.

It took months of worrying, frozen bank accounts, and many calls to multiple government offices for this couple to straighten things out. When they finally received their overdue tax refund, they also received something called an identity protection personal identification number, better known as an IP PIN.

To provide relief to some victims of identity theft, the IRS began issuing IP PINs to eligible taxpayers in fiscal year 2011. An IP PIN is a six-digit number assigned to eligible taxpayers that allows tax returns and refunds to be processed without delay and helps prevent the misuse of an individual's Social Security number on fraudulent income tax returns.

Here is how it works. If a return is filed electronically with an individual's Social Security number and an incorrect or missing IP PIN, the IRS's system automatically rejects that tax return until it is submitted with the correct IP PIN or it is filed on paper. If the same conditions occur on a paper-filed return, the IRS will delay its processing and any refund that may be due while the Agency determines if the return actually belongs to the taxpayer.

In 2013, the IRS began a pilot program in which it offered IP PINs to all taxpayers--not just those who were victims of identity theft--who filed their Federal tax returns as residents of Florida, Georgia, or the District of Columbia. According to the IRS, these three locations were chosen because they have the highest per capita percentage of tax- related identity theft in the country. Taxpayers in these three jurisdictions may opt in to the IP PIN program if they want that extra layer of identity protection, even if they have not been victims of identity theft.

In preparation for last year's filing season, the IRS issued nearly 3.5 million IP PINs to taxpayers. That is a substantial increase from the 770,000 in 2013. According to the IRS, within just a month, it had rejected nearly 7,400 fraudulent tax returns that had been filed electronically. As of March 15, 2018, it had stopped nearly 1,500 paper-filed tax returns. This shows that this system works.

If a taxpayer has a special PIN number that has to appear on his or her or their tax return before the IRS will process the form electronically and issue the refund, it will stop a criminal, who would not have access to that special, individualized PIN number, from receiving someone else's tax refund.

The bipartisan Taxpayer Identity Protection Act of 2019 that the Senator from Alabama and I are introducing today would expand and make permanent the IRS's IP PIN pilot program to help combat identity theft- refund fraud across the Nation. Specifically, our bill would authorize the IRS to expand its pilot program nationally in phases over a 5-year period. Expanding the program would give all taxpayers, ultimately, the opportunity to further protect themselves from falling victim to tax refund fraud and identity theft while also saving taxpayers billions of dollars every year in tax refunds that are paid not to the taxpayers who deserve them but, rather, to criminals who are impersonating the taxpayers who deserve the refund.

Having an IP PIN has proven to protect against identity theft. I am pleased to report that the IRS supports expansion of this vital program over the next 5 years.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the adoption of the Taxpayer Identity Protection Act of 2019. This is a concrete action we can take to help protect taxpayers and to ensure that tax refunds go to the taxpayers who deserve these refunds, who are entitled to these refunds, and that they don't get misdirected to a criminal who is seeking to rip off a taxpayer.

Madam President, government shutdowns are never justified, and I have opposed every one of them. This shutdown--the longest in our Nation's history--has caused real harm to 800,000 Federal employees and their families.

Just today, I heard from a Federal employee in Belfast, ME, who has worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 32 years. He has two children with type 1 diabetes, and with the soaring costs of insulin, he was beginning to worry about how he would be able to afford insulin for his children. He was concerned that a prolonged shutdown would have an adverse impact on his insurance coverage.

The shutdown has also hurt Americans' access to Federal Agencies and threatened housing assistance for low-income families, our seniors, and people with disabilities. It has harmed small businesses that have contracts with Federal Agencies for certain services but that have not been getting paid. Thus, their employees have been at risk of being laid off.

That is why I voted twice this week to end the shutdown and reopen the government. Although neither proposal received enough votes to pass, we saw glimmers of hope that have produced results. I note that after the failed votes, a bipartisan group of 16 Senators came to the floor, and each one of us indicated a willingness to compromise.

I am pleased that today there is real progress. The President and Senate Republicans and Democrats have come together and agreed to reopen government until February 15, while negotiations on border security issues continue. That is so important. As the Presiding Officer is chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of Homeland Security, I know she will be playing a key role in this area.

Let each of us on the Democratic side of the aisle, on the Republican side of the aisle, and in the administration pledge that we will negotiate in good faith and work to hammer out a compromise on border security so we will not face the same situation again on February 15.

I, for one, will keep working with my colleagues and with the White House to ensure that hundreds of thousands of hard-working, patriotic public servants will stay on the job; that this will not just be a temporary reprieve that will allow backpay to be made to them as early as the beginning of next week but rather that it will lead to a permanent solution so we can reopen government beyond February 15 and through the end of the fiscal year--that is, until September 30--and so that in the future, we can avoid ever resorting to the shutdown of government again. It is never good policy.

Let us work together over these next 3 weeks to come up with a compromise on border security, and let us show the American people that we can govern effectively.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, this shutdown, the longest in our history, must come to an end. It has already caused far too much harm for 800,000 dedicated Federal employees and their families who are struggling to pay bills without paychecks and are on the verge of missing yet another paycheck. It has hurt the American people who need to interact with Federal Agencies, including seniors, low-income families, people with disabilities who worry about their housing assistance. It is damaging our economy, causing a drop in consumer confidence and consumer spending.

Ironically, shutdowns always end up costing the government more money than if we had operated as we should.

I see a glimmer of hope here. We at least have had two votes today on two different plans. Like the Senator from Alaska and others, I supported both plans because my priority is to reopen government, but where I am really optimistic is the fact that 16 Senators are on the floor, equally divided between the two parties, and willing to compromise. Compromise is not a dirty word. It is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of strength.

Let us compromise to reopen government, address border security, and get on with the business of this country.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, government shutdowns, regardless of which party controls Congress or the White House, are always harmful to Federal employees and their families, who struggle to pay their bills without paychecks, to Americans who need help from closed government Agencies, and to our economy, which is damaged by the decline in consumer spending and consumer confidence. Ironically, they also always end up costing taxpayers more money than if government had been funded on time. That is why I have always worked to end shutdowns.

In 2013, for example, I convened a bipartisan group, of which the Presiding Officer was the very first member, that produced the plan that led to the reopening of government after a 16-day shutdown.

During the past month, I have had numerous discussions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as with White House officials, on what we can do to reopen government. At the same time, I have been working to mitigate the impacts of this shutdown as much as possible for the hundreds of thousands of Federal employees and their families. These families are being unfairly and seriously harmed, and they have no idea when they will receive their next paycheck.

Right around Christmas, I worked closely with the White House to ensure that the Coast Guard received pay for their work prior to the shutdown, when an anomaly in the pay system put their paychecks at risk. In addition, Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and I sponsored a bill to guarantee backpay to Federal workers affected by the shutdown. Our legislation was passed by both chambers and was signed into law by the President.

I have also joined Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin in introducing the Shutdown Fairness Act, which would ensure that Federal workers who are deemed essential and required to come to work each day are paid on time despite the partial government shutdown. It is simply not fair to force employees to work and not pay them, and I hope that this bill, too, will become law.

As the Presiding Officer is well aware, after 33 days--the longest shutdown in history--it is long overdue for all sides to come together to engage in constructive debate and compromise to end this standoff. Shutdowns represent the ultimate failure to govern and should never be used as a weapon to achieve an outcome.

Here is what does not reopen government. Political ads do not end shutdowns. Overheated and inflammatory statements do not end shutdowns. An unwillingness to budge and a lack of specific proposals do not end shutdowns. What will end this shutdown? Remembering the real harm that this shutdown is causing, putting specific proposals on the table so that the administration and Republicans and Democrats in both the Senate and the House can see signs of good faith and compromise, voting on specific proposals and trying to get to yes--that is what is necessary to end shutdowns.

Finally, over the weekend, the President submitted a plan to end the shutdown, which the Senate will consider tomorrow. His legislative package avoids the chicken-and-egg dilemma of whether we should reopen government first or whether border security measures should be considered first. It combines all of those issues in one package that would reopen government, strengthen the security of our borders, change some immigration rules for the better and some, in my judgment, for the worse, and provide disaster relief funding. The administration's package would reopen government for 800,000 Federal employees, including hundreds of thousands who work at the FBI, the TSA, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, and the DEA, who have been working without pay to protect us from terrorists, drug cartels, and other criminals. It provides disaster funding to address devastating hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, and volcanoes. The bill also makes border security investments and includes some immigration changes.

It is important to note that all of the remaining appropriations bills are incorporated into this package, and, thus, this bill would fully reopen government until September 30, the end of the fiscal year.

I would also note that these seven bills either passed this Chamber or the Appropriations Committee last year with widespread bipartisan support. The Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development bill that I offered with my good friend and colleague Senator Jack Reed, the ranking member, is a great example. At its core, this is a bill that creates jobs, strengthens communities, improves our infrastructure, and helps low-income families, veterans, seniors, and those who are homeless with their housing needs. This bill passed the Senate in August by an overwhelming vote of 92 to 6 as

part of a four-bill package. It should be law.

This shutdown is harming low-income families and seniors across the country. Funds for housing repairs and disaster recovery have been stopped from being allocated to areas of critical need. Public housing agencies and multifamily property owners in Maine and across the country are scrambling to line up short-term loans and other financing to try to fill the gap caused by a lack of HUD funding.

Since the shutdown began, nearly 42,000 households, most of which are comprised of low-income seniors or disabled individuals, have not had their rental assistance renewed, and millions more are at risk the longer the shutdown continues.

Just this morning, the city of Portland contacted me to express alarm over the 1,700 housing vouchers serving 3,500 people who will be affected on March 1. Statewide, that number is in the vicinity of 10,500 vouchers, affecting many thousands more vulnerable individuals and families.

The problems, unfortunately, go well beyond HUD housing vouchers. Because most HUD staff have been furloughed, HUD has been unable to correct computer errors that are keeping local shelters and small nonprofit groups across the country that assist the homeless and victims of domestic violence from accessing their grants. Maine's eight domestic violence shelters are about 75 percent funded by the Federal Government. If this shutdown continues, how can they continue to serve the women and children who are escaping abuse and violence?

While there is never a good time of the year to be at risk of losing one's housing or to be unable to find a shelter if one finds oneself homeless or to be able to escape domestic violence and abuse, the middle of the winter is an especially cruel time to face a housing crisis.

The shutdown is also challenging for our Nation's air traffic controllers, who remain on the job, dedicated to the safety of every flight, despite missing paychecks. Our Nation's air traffic controllers and safety professionals work in a system that has no room for error. Regrettably, they are now enduring financial strain in jobs that are already very stressful.

So many other important functions of the Federal Government-- operating our national parks and the tourism they support, ensuring the safety of the food that we eat, preventing hunger, avoiding drug shortages, processing tax refunds, addressing the opioid epidemic, providing access to loan guarantees for small businesses and homeowners--all would be addressed by reopening government.

Let me provide just a few examples from my State of Maine. I have heard from physicians in Portland about emergency shortages of critical drugs. We cannot reach the FDA, which is where we would normally turn for assistance because of the furloughs. Instead, we are contacting the manufacturers to try to get help.

A small Maine-owned architecture and engineering business in Western Maine has contracts with 10 Federal Agencies. It will very soon not have enough work for its employees because it is not being paid by these Agencies. A smoked salmon facility in Hancock, ME, cannot operate because it lacks a vital certificate from the FDA. Seniors at the Maine Maritime Academy are unable to take their licensing exams, which will delay their job searches significantly, and current merchant mariners who need to renew their licensees cannot do so.

The Coast Guard, which is so important to my State and to the State of the Presiding Officer, is not being paid, and yet its members are required to work to perform absolutely vital tasks, and they cannot be absent to take on another job to pay the bills.

Of course, like many of my colleagues, I have talked with so many TSA employees in Bangor and in Portland who are having difficulties paying their bills, having to take out loans or rely on family or friends, and yet they are so devoted to their important mission that they show up for work day after day, despite not being paid.

In addition to reopening government, the legislation also includes investments and policies to lessen the problems at our southern border. Ninety percent of the heroin that is flooding into this country is coming from Mexico, some through legal ports of entry that lack the technology to detect these drugs and some smuggled across the border outside of ports of entry.

Physical barriers have proven to be an effective deterrent in many areas where they have been built, such as San Diego and El Paso. That is why Congress and two previous administrations, on a bipartisan basis, authorized and built more than 600 miles of walls, fences, and other barriers by January 2017, an often overlooked fact.

In fact, to listen to this debate, you would think that there were no barriers along our southern border, and that is not true. There are more than 600 miles of physical barriers. In some places, they don't make sense, but in some places, they have proven to be an effective deterrent. Republicans and Democrats voted to support the construction of these physical barriers in 2006.

As recently as last June, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed--again, on a bipartisan basis--a Homeland Security funding bill that would have provided the money for additional physical barriers at the border. The package before us that we will vote on tomorrow would supplement this existing infrastructure by providing funding for an additional 234 miles of barriers at high-priority locations identified by the experts at Customs and Border Patrol.

We already have more than 650 miles of physical barriers. What this bill would provide is funding for 234 additional miles of fences, walls, and other kinds of physical barriers that have been specifically identified as needed by the experts at Customs and Border Patrol.

The bill would also provide $800 million to meet the urgent humanitarian needs of those who are crossing the border, as well as additional funding for new Border Patrol agents, immigration judges, and Customs officers. Again, you rarely hear any discussion that this package includes $800 million for humanitarian assistance, as well as funding for personnel, for technology, for K-9, and for sensors. This has to be a multipronged approach to be effective.

The package also takes some preliminary steps to alter our broken immigration system. We need to focus on the Dreamer population, those young people who were brought to this country by a parent usually at a very young age.

I so remember a conversation I had with a Dreamer who lives in Portland, ME, and attends the University of Southern Maine. He was brought to this country by his parents when he was age 4. He had no idea that he was not an American. He thought he was born in Portland and had lived his whole life there. It was only when he was going to apply for his driver's license that his parents told him the truth. The fact is, like so many other Dreamers, this young man has known no other country but America.

Many of the Dreamers are going to school, working, serving in the military, or otherwise contributing to our country. This legislation does not go as far as I would like, but it would at least provide relief for 3 years to the 700,000 young immigrants who are enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA Program. Frankly, I would prefer giving these young people a path to citizenship, provided that they have abided by and continue to abide by our laws.

We also need to help those legally receiving temporary protected status, the so-called TPS population. Many of these immigrants have been in the United States for years--even decades--working hard, creating jobs, and becoming established and valued members of their communities.

On the other hand, some of the asylum changes proposed in the President's bill are problematic. Allowing people to apply for asylum in their home countries appears to me to be a good idea, but raising the bar to qualify for asylum needs much more study.

The plan put forth by President Trump is by no means ideal, but it would result in the reopening of government--my priority--and the outlines of a compromise are before us. I urge my Democratic colleagues to also put forth a specific plan that addresses all of these issues.

Compromise is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of strength, particularly when hundreds of thousands of families are being harmed.

The administration and Senate Republicans and Democrats have the opportunity to resolve the stalemate before 800,000 Federal workers and their families--dedicated public servants--miss yet another paycheck, and our economy is further damaged. Shutdowns harm too many innocent Federal employees and their families as well as vulnerable citizens, homeowners, small businesses, and rural communities. This shutdown must end.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would ensure that we have accurate, detailed information about the extent of mercury pollution in the United States.

The issue of mercury emissions is growing in importance around the world. In 2013, the United States was the first country to join and sign the Minamata Convention on Mercury, a global agreement to reduce mercury pollution. The Minamata Convention has since been signed by more than 125 countries, demonstrating the widespread concern that mercury poses a global threat to human health. At present, however, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require a comprehensive long-term solution. It requires much more information. A system for collecting such information, such as we have for acid rain and other pollution, does not currently exist for mercury, a much more toxic pollutant.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is estimated that approximately 200,000 children born in our country each year have been exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair their neurological development. Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined, and over the last decade coal-fired power plants in the United States have reduced their mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent, but emission levels remain far too high, given how potent a neurotoxin mercury is.

A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard our fisheries, and track the effect of emissions

reductions. This tracking is important in light of increasing mercury emissions from other countries, including a substantial amount of mercury emissions from China. Mercury can be transported around the globe, meaning emissions and releases can affect human health and environment even in remote locations.

This network is particularly important after the Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Last month, the EPA released a proposal that determined it is no longer ``appropriate and necessary'' to regulate mercury and toxic air pollution from coal- and oil-fired plants. I just do not understand why EPA would send that signal. While the EPA has not proposed to change the current emission standards on mercury and the toxic air pollutants in this regulation, the EPA's action has put the standards in legal jeopardy and could block future efforts to strengthen this standard that is so important to protecting human health and our environment.

By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, a monitoring network would help policymakers, the EPA, scientists, physicians, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in mercury pollution in the United States. We must have more comprehensive information and data. Otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions.

Specifically, our legislation would direct the EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other appropriate Federal Agencies to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial organisms across the Nation.

Second, it would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of this monitoring program.

Third, our bill would establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the internet and is comprised of data that are compatible with similar international efforts.

The bill would also require a report to Congress every 2 years on the program, including trends, and an assessment of the reduction in mercury rates that need to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects, and that report would be required every 4 years.

Finally, the bill authorizes $95 million over 3 years to carry out the Act.

I am pleased to report that this legislation--this bipartisan bill-- has earned the endorsement of the American Lung Association, the Biodiversity Research Institute, the Environmental Health Strategy Center, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. A comprehensive, robust national monitoring network for mercury would provide the data needed to help make the decisions to protect the people--particularly, pregnant women and babies and children--and the environment of Maine and the entire United States.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, government shutdowns are never the answer. No matter how difficult the problem, we should never resort to shutting down government. It harms too many innocent Federal employees--in this case, 800,000 Federal employees and their families-- and it hampers the ability of American citizens to deal with their government.

At the same time, we do have a problem at our southern border. We do need to strengthen our border security and fix our broken immigration system. We need to address the issue of the Dreamers population, those young children brought to this country through no decision of their own who are now, often, young adults and who are going to school or working or otherwise serving in the military or contributing to our country.

The outlines of a compromise are evident, but in order to get there, I believe we need to assure the President that we will seriously consider his supplemental request for border security, a request that includes not just funding for additional physical barriers to supplement the more than 600 miles of physical barriers--walls, fences--that were built during two previous administrations but also includes $800 million to meet the humanitarian needs of those who are crossing the border. It also includes additional funding for Border Patrol agents and for Immigration and Customs and Border Enforcement.

This simply cannot continue. We need to come together in good faith, reopen government for a limited period of time at least, and negotiate a package that will strengthen security on our borders, and that is what I would urge the President, his administration, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do.

In the meantime, we also need to get back to the work of the Senate. That, too, is important, and today I rise to introduce a bill that would help Americans who are struggling with high healthcare expenses. The tax deduction for certain unreimbursed, out-of-pocket medical expenses affects many taxpayers significantly.

Regrettably, the threshold to claim this important tax deduction rose from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of income at the end of 2018, ending its value for many American taxpayers who simply will no longer qualify.

Today, I reintroduce legislation, which I have sponsored with my colleague Senator Cantwell, that would reinstate and make permanent the lower income threshold for the medical expense deduction. Our bill, the Medical Expense Savings Act, would once again allow taxpayers to deduct unreimbursed healthcare costs that exceed 7.5 percent of their income.

For those who suffer from preexisting medical conditions, have chronic illnesses, experience unexpected sickness or injuries, or require long term care, out-of-pocket healthcare expenses can quickly become an unbearable burden. Too many Americans are forced to choose between medical services and other equally necessary expenditures or they find themselves going deeply in debt.

The Affordable Care Act increased the income threshold for taxpayers to deduct their medical expenses from 7.5 percent to 10 percent. I very much opposed that provision of the ACA. For individuals under 65, the increase went into effect in 2013, but for those over 65, individuals would have been exposed to this higher threshold for the first time in 2017. Fortunately, we were able to remedy that for those over age 65.

When the ACA increase was phased in, many individuals struggling with serious health conditions saw their financial health worsen. For example, a 2016 study estimates that parents, including many with limited means, already provide nearly $36 billion annually in uncompensated medical care at home to children with special healthcare needs, such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis.

A 2016 survey of cancer survivors showed that one-third go into debt, and of those, more than half incurred more than $10,000 in unreimbursed expenses.

For seniors with significant long-term care needs, the deduction helps with the cost of home health or personal care services or, when needed, the cost of a long-term care facility, such as a nursing home. The deduction can also be used for other expenses that Medicare generally does not cover, including dental treatment, vision care, and certain transportation costs. Seniors can also use the medical expense deduction for expenses like wheelchair ramps, installing railings and support bars in bathrooms, and lowering or modifying kitchen cabinets and equipment and other home modifications made for medical reasons. These improvements can allow seniors with medical conditions or disabilities to live at home in the safety, comfort, and familiarity of their own home.

Some seniors find that their savings become rapidly depleted. They may spend down their financial resources in order to receive the services and support they require through the Medicaid Program. According to Genworth's 2018 Cost of Care Survey, home health aide services can cost $50,000 annually, while a private room at a nursing home can cost nearly $100,000. By retaining a lower threshold for the medical expense tax deduction, some families would be able to continue to pay these essential costs themselves.

Some erroneously believe that this deduction only benefits the wealthy, when, in fact, it is mainly lower and middle-income Americans who have been hurt. According to AARP, nearly 70 percent of taxpayers taking the deduction in 2014 reported income of $75,000 or less, and nearly half reported incomes of $50,000 or less. In Maine, according to AARP, almost 36,000 of our residents claimed this deduction in 2014, and nearly 19,000 of these individuals reported an income of $50,000 or less.

That is why, during the tax reform debate in 2017, I introduced a successful amendment that rolled back the income threshold to 7.5 percent for taxpayers to deduct their medical expenses in 2017 and 2018. My amendment expanded upon the efforts of Senators Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown, who had worked to prevent this increase from going into effect for individuals over 65. As I said, my amendment was incorporated into the new tax law, and thus, for 2017 and for 2018, the threshold for deducting these out-of-pocket medical costs was 7.5 percent of income. But at the end of last year, that expired.

The AARP and 44 other consumer groups have strongly endorsed the effort undertaken by Senator Cantwell and me, stating that ``it provides important tax relief which helps offset the costs of acute and chronic medical conditions for older Americans, children, pregnant women, disabled individuals, and other adults as well as the costs associated with long-term care and assisted living.''

This is a step we can take to reinstate an expired tax deduction that will make a real difference to people who are struggling with high out- of-pocket medical costs.

I urge my colleagues to support our legislation that will help our families cope with high medical costs by making sure that this important deduction remains available for future tax years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from AARP dated January 15, 2019, endorsing the Collins- Cantwell legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.