Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the Union League Club of Chicago ULCC, and their Salute to Vietnam Veterans event.

As a Nation, we must do everything we can to uphold our commitment to those who have worn the uniform of this great Nation and to their families who have made significant sacrifices on our behalf. On Veterans Day we honor the service of our Nation's heroes and reflect on the debt that we each owe to those who have served this great Nation.

Founded during the Civil War, ULCC has been a leader in providing support for servicemembers and veterans for over 138 years. ULCC, an official DoD Commemorative Partner, operates its own American Legion Posts and collaborates with partner groups that provide support to Active-Duty military personnel. ULCC recognizes that, while servicemembers may come from different backgrounds and different branches, they all hold the same sense of duty and commitment and deserve our full support.

As the daughter of a U.S. marine who fought in Vietnam, our Vietnam veterans hold a special place in my heart. I often say that we must always love the warrior regardless of our feelings about the war. Let us recommit our obligation to Vietnam veterans by ensuring that they have the healthcare, disability support, retirement benefits, and any other resources they have earned.

To all of my fellow veterans, to those still serving, and to all the families that have sacrificed, thank you from the bottom of my heart for your honorable service.

Thank you.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am here to speak out in favor of working families and how we can empower American workers to obtain good jobs, to secure a safe retirement after a lifetime of hard work, and to give them the freedom to join together to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

Unions in the United States are important for our families and for our Nation's economy. Organized labor is one of the greatest forces driving the middle class, which is especially important for our veterans and members of the military. Union jobs help provide our servicemembers and veterans with the economic opportunities that they have earned. Union jobs help working moms and dads put food on the table, and union jobs help power the engine of our economy--our middle class. That is why I am working every day to protect the rights of working people and why I stand shoulder to shoulder with organized labor.

We must work together to combat the assault on the protections that workers have fought so hard to secure. It is more important than ever that we here in Washington work to expand economic opportunity for hard-working Americans, many of whom come from a union home. That means passing labor law reform to make it easier, not harder to join a union. That also means expanding the use of project labor agreements for major construction projects and opposing efforts to repeal prevailing wage laws. It also means defending the Davis-Bacon Act. The Federal Government can and should be a model employer that encourages companies to pay fair wages.

It is important to note the great progress that collective bargaining is making for all people. More families today have two working parents than ever before, and women's growing role in our unions have increased to nearly half of the labor workforce. In Illinois alone, 44 percent of union workers are women. The labor movement, which had a pivotal role in creating national minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, overtime pay, and standards for workplace health and safety, is now also impacting women workers and their families in a significant way.

The collective voice that working Americans have is responsible for improving sick leave and paid family leave policies at the State and local levels. These efforts can also lead to reducing our Nation's long-lasting wage gaps between gender and race. Labor unions tend to raise wages and improve benefits for all represented workers, especially for women, and women of all major racial and ethnic groups experience a wage advantage when they are in a union. There is still a long way to go in the wage gap fight, but unions are leading the way to make those gaps smaller.

Unfortunately, organized labor is under attack. In Illinois, the anti-union surge is on the rise. Nationwide, so-called right-to-work efforts are growing. We need to be clear on one thing: These laws do absolutely nothing to strengthen workers' rights, despite their misleading names and rhetoric.

Make no mistake, opponents of organized labor are well funded and relentless in advancing union-busting campaigns. We must work together and challenge these growing dangers to America's middle class.

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide a case that could determine the future of American unions. A slim majority of conservative Justices may hand down an anti-worker decision that would dramatically undo existing precedent and sabotage the ability of unions to effectively represent hard-working, everyday Americans. Workers should not be able to reap all the benefits of union negotiations while refusing to pay dues that made those efforts possible. Make no mistake, a decision sanctioning this practice would strip away freedom from millions of Americans. It would steal their freedom to join together to bargain for better wages, it would steal their freedom to join together to insist on worker protections, and, ultimately, it would betray middle-class America, which relies on organizing to effectively negotiate with powerful corporations.

Another way we can support our union workers is by making a serious investment in our Nation's infrastructure, which leads to more good- paying jobs and greater economic opportunity for working families. Improving our Nation's infrastructure is really just common sense. That is why I introduced a bill, which was passed into law, to cut redtape and reduce delays on construction projects in Illinois and our surrounding States. Upgrading our transportation systems will help Illinoisans and all Americans who depend on our roads and transit systems to get to work every day, as well as businesses that need our airports, highways, and our freight network to ship their products.

I am working each day to support our hard-working, middle-class families. Through organizing, unions have become champions for working families both in and out of the Federal Government.

I thank our union representatives for all the work they do for our families, our communities, and our Nation.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I join my close friend and colleague, Senator Dick Durbin, to honor one of the magnificent landmarks of Illinois, Chicago's Navy Pier.

Since Chicago architect Daniel Burnham first established his vision of a public pier to transform Chicago's landscape and draw visitors to experience the lakefront, what opened as Municipal Pier in 1916 has been a gathering point for the community. In World War I and World War II, it became central to the war effort and Navy Pier got its name to honor the sailors who served and continued to serve in defense of our Nation.

Many institutions of Chicago began in Navy Pier before finding their home elsewhere in the city, like the University of Illinois' Chicago campus, the Taste of Chicago, and the trade shows that continue to come through Chicago to take advantage of the city's commercial infrastructure. Navy Pier has been a place for people to meet and experience the Great Lakes, city skyline, and various attractions that have sprung up and grown through the city.

Locals, Illinoisans, Americans, and international visitors alike experience the Midwest through the lens of the pier, and it reflects back on our city the multicultural, historical aspects of our city and this Nation. You only have to look at the iconic ferris wheel to see how it has transformed Chicago's skyline and become such an integrated, iconic part of the city.

As a public venue for culture and commerce, Navy Pier continues to revitalize so that it can be sustainable, universal, and accessible to all. I am proud to come before this body with Senator Durbin and honor Navy Pier as it celebrates its centennial anniversary.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I come today to speak out in opposition of this misguided effort to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's arbitration rule, which protects the rights of consumers and protects our brave servicemembers and veterans from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous financial institutions.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that we had the CEO of Equifax here on Capitol Hill, testifying about how his company had failed to protect Americans' private financial information and put more than 140 million consumers at risk of fraud or worse. That wasn't too long after we had the CEO of Wells Fargo here, testifying about how his company had defrauded millions of consumers by forcing them into accounts and fees they had never signed up for and, certainly, had not agreed to.

The American people were outraged by these scandals, and with good reason. Both of these companies had committed serious wrongdoings, and they admitted it. But that still didn't stop either from trying to shield themselves from the legal liability their own actions had risked.

Both of these companies tried to prevent the people they had taken advantage of from holding them accountable in court by using what is known as forced arbitration clauses. They thought--and it seems they were right--that if they could stop people from suing them for their wrongdoing and, instead, force them into private arbitration that heavily favored megabusinesses at the expense of consumers, they would have a better shot at saving money for their company. They didn't care about consumer rights or even justice. They just wanted to make as much money as they could--legally or illegally--and then get out of Dodge as cleanly as possible.

But because the American people were so outraged by these scandals, we noticed what they were trying to do. The actions of both companies caused an uproar that ultimately led them to back down and ensure that American consumers didn't have to give up their right to a day in court just for doing business with these companies. Those sorts of forced arbitration clauses were exactly what the CFPB was trying to stop when it implemented the rule my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to repeal tonight. Wells Fargo's and Equifax's attempts to force consumers into mandatory arbitration clauses should have been a lesson, but I guess those working to reverse this rule here tonight didn't learn it.

It is common to hear stories throughout my State of Illinois--and throughout the military community--of servicemembers being taken advantage of through predatory loans, scams, abuses, and fraud. That is because Active-Duty servicemembers are particularly vulnerable consumers, especially when they are deployed. They get a guaranteed paycheck, but they also have limited time to read their credit card statements and keep up with security breaches to see if their identities have been stolen. They are too busy carrying out their mission.

Servicemembers are also frequently on the move between deployments and base relocations, often separated from their spouses and their families for long periods of time. Despite that, they still need to wire money when emergencies happen. They still need to pay bills, and their focus isn't always on whether a loan they took out has hidden fees or if a company is charging them a higher rate than they are supposed to. What they are focused on, and rightly so, is carrying out their mission, often in places like Afghanistan.

Corporations and scam artists know this, and they take advantage of it. The CFPB's forced arbitration rule could help protect our servicemembers from this sort of abuse. It seems that a few of my colleagues want to make it harder for military families to get by, and that is a shame.

Abusive corporate practices, left unchecked, not only cause incredible financial difficulty for servicemembers and their families, but they also have national security implications, directly impacting military readiness. In the military, bad credit can affect your security clearance and advancement. When the DOD loses qualified servicemembers because of financial instability, they also lose mission capability and the significant investments made in that person's training. This is an expensive loss. DOD estimates that each separation from service costs taxpayers more than $57,000.

Corporate abuse also causes personal difficulties. When someone is deployed, the last thing they should have to worry about is whether their house is going to be foreclosed on or their car is going to be repossessed because they were a victim of a scam. When they are going to battle or heading out on a mission, the last thing our troops should be thinking about is how a company took advantage of the fact that they were out of the country--and how there is so very little they can do about it

Unfortunately, this isn't a hypothetical issue. Servicemembers get taken advantage of all the time, and we have seen countless times how their ability to file lawsuits holds bad actors accountable. Not too long ago, the banks Santander and Wells Fargo paid tens of millions to resolve lawsuits that were filed because they were illegally repossessing servicemembers' cars. JPMorgan Chase paid $27 million to settle a lawsuit from servicemembers who were being overcharged for mortgages. And student loan servicer

Navient paid 78,000 servicemembers $60 million after overcharging them on their student loans. In each of these instances, servicemembers, sometimes with the help of government, filed a lawsuit to get relief and hold these financial actors accountable. When companies force our servicemembers--or any consumer--into arbitration, military families lose the right to hold wrongdoers accountable.

That is what happened to Archie Hudson, a disabled veteran, father of two, and husband from Waynesboro, MS. A few years ago, Archie requested a loan from Wells Fargo to replace his home's windows. Instead, he received a Wells Fargo credit card along with sky-high interest rates and a forced arbitration clause hidden in the fine print. He didn't realize it at the time, like the millions of others that Wells Fargo scammed, but it ultimately helped to ruin his credit. When Archie tried to get his day in court, he was, instead, forced into an arbitration proceeding that favors lenders over consumers. He is not alone. The vast majority of people who have been forced into arbitration could tell you that the system is rigged.

When the CFPB first looked into this issue, they found that when consumers file an arbitration claim against a company that takes advantage of them, they have to pay an average of $161 in filing fees, and they almost always lose.

Companies, on the other hand, won a whopping 91 percent of the time that they go into arbitration against consumers. On average, the consumer then had to pay $7,725 in damages to further pad corporate profits.

Banks sometimes try to defend these clauses by saying that the reduced legal liability helps them reduce costs for consumers, but there is absolutely no evidence that is true. In fact, when companies have added these forced arbitration clauses in the past, the evidence suggests that they never reduce costs for consumers. These clauses simply mean bigger profit margins for those banks that break the law.

There is a reason so many military veterans service organizations like the American Legion, the Air Force Association, the Marine Corps League, the National Guard Association, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and groups like the AARP oppose this effort. Remember, arbitration isn't about saving lawyers' fees or decreasing costs to consumers. It is there to protect the interests of banks over consumers.

Look, I am not naive. I get that companies--especially banks--are in the business of making money. It makes sense that they would want to force all their customers into arbitration because that saves them money. But why on Earth would my colleagues in the Senate go along and help them rob servicemembers and consumers of their rights to go to court? Why would we allow bad actors to get off scot-free?

If they believe that our servicemembers are unfairly getting rich off suing companies that wrong them, they should say that. If they believe companies that break the law should be shielded from having to answer for their illegal actions in court, they should say that. We shouldn't let them hide behind cutting regulations. I am all for cutting needless redtape, but the arbitration rule is an example of a regulation that actually helps Americans. It helps our servicemembers and our military families.

A vote to overturn the arbitration rule is a vote against our military and against those who wake up every single day to serve and protect the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth.

Thank you.

I yield back.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the life of Bryan A. Strong, a caring husband, loving father, and dedicated police officer with the Chicago Police Department.

Mr. Strong passed away from a heart attack on March 27, 2014. We remember him for his compassion, sympathy, and love of life. As a policeman, Mr. Strong put the needs of others above his own. He served his community with pride, selflessness, and honor.

Mr. Strong leaves an admirable legacy in his community and family. His son, Brian, and wife, Janette, remember him as their adventurous best friend who filled their lives--and many others--with excitement and love.

I am grateful for Mr. Strong's service. May his life and legacy serve as an inspiration to all.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the life of Grace Shu Tsao-Wu, a dedicated entrepreneur and activist.

Ms. Tsao-Wu passed away on August 10, 2017. She is remembered for her entrepreneurial spirit and unyielding passion in her work.

As the founder of a successful company, Ms. Tsao-Wu brought her creative energy to Chicago. She was steadfast in her community leadership and always challenged others to be their best.

Ms. Tsao-Wu leaves behind not only a great legacy, but also a shining light that serves as an inspiration to many.

Thank you.

Mr President, today I wish to recognize the Elgin Fire Department's 150th anniversary and congratulate the brave men and women who protect the 100,000 residents living in Elgin, IL.

For more than 100 years, the Elgin Fire Department has worked to preserve the safety and well-being of Illinoisans. Firefighters are the first responders who often put themselves in danger to rescue citizens from emergency situations involving extensive smoke and fire. The medical treatment responders save numerous lives, which may have been lost without prehospital care.

The Elgin Fire Department continues to serve its community by providing fire safety education, fire inspection, and domestic preparedness planning, among other community outreach efforts, to increase community readiness. The department's stellar service ensures that the families and friends of Elgin are prepared for any emergency.

I extend my best wishes for a remarkable and memorable anniversary. Thank you for your selfless work to Elgin, IL.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the distinguished career of Marshal Don Slaznik of O'Fallon, IL. Don is retiring as U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of Illinois, a position that he has the distinction of having held under three Presidents, being first nominated by President Bush and confirmed in 2002 and retained by President Obama in 2009.

Don has served his country with dignity and honor as an Active-Duty member of the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Army in the 1960s and 1970s.

Since then, he has been the chief of police in Poplar Bluff, MO, Storm Lake, IA, and O'Fallon, IL, and served in leadership positions with the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, the Southern Illinois Police Chief's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police.

In 2015, under Don's leadership, the Southern District of Illinois received the highest award given by the U.S. Marshal's Service: the Distinguished District Award.

While he will be missed, we will remember this public citizen for his tireless, dedicated, and honorable commitment to service Many thanks to U.S. Marshal Slaznik and his family for their sacrifices and contributions to our community.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these motions to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Casey's motion protecting people with disabilities.

Mr. President, I speak in support of Senator Casey's motion protecting people with disabilities.

It is appalling that the Republican Party is working to strip healthcare from the disability community on the very anniversary of the day when we passed monumental legislation that improved the lives of Americans with disabilities.

It was 27 years ago that the Americans with Disabilities Act--one of the most important pieces of legislation of our time--was signed into law, and it is a shame that as we celebrate our great achievement for equality, we are moving backward rather than building on the progress our community has worked so hard on to make it so Americans with disabilities can live healthy, productive, independent lives. We cannot afford to move backward, and I will not sit quietly by and let that happen and neither will my constituents.

I have heard from thousands of Illinoisans who are struggling to understand why lawmakers are considering ripping away the care that is keeping them alive and allowing them to be independent and productive members of our community. I want to share just one of their stories with you.

It is about a woman by the name of Jessica Baker, from Mascoutah, IL. Nearly 10 years ago, when she was a healthy and young 19-year-old, her entire life changed. Jessica was driving on the highway on a foggy morning. Because of the lack of visibility on the road, a truckdriver ahead of her ran through two cars. Jessica, just feet behind the truck, never saw the brake light go off. She struck that semi-truck and became part of a 20-car pileup. This young, healthy woman's life completely changed in an instant.

Jessica is now 29 years old and is a quadriplegic. She depends on Medicaid for her healthcare needs. She is living an independent life and has done well under the ACA. Now she fears she will lose her care that the law has helped her to receive. Jessica was a healthy, vital person whose life changed in an instant.

I understand how that feels. I went from being a soldier--one of the most physically fit people among my peers--to becoming wheelchair bound. So many of our brave men and women take that risk every single day, and we must be completely honest with ourselves as any American's life can change in the blink of an eye. The healthy can become sick, and the able-bodied can become disabled in a single moment. Any one of us can end up at the mercy of our healthcare system.

After her accident, Jessica had to fight for her life and relearn how to live as a thriving young person. Now Senate Republicans and President Trump are threatening her life by eliminating her access to care. As proud as I am to be a part of the Senate Chamber, which passed the monumental ADA, I am also appalled by what the Republicans in this body are doing today.

Yesterday's vote to proceed on a debate on a bill that would rob tens of millions of their health insurance is utterly shameful. It would jeopardize a program that 1 in 10 veterans, 2 out of 3 nursing home residents, and children with autism, Down syndrome, and special needs depend on. That is simply unacceptable. Senate Republicans have done everything they can to hide their legislation from the American people, crafting it in secret, behind closed doors. However, one thing remains clear; that the fight to protect healthcare is not over.

This is the time for the American people to keep speaking up, to make their voices heard, and Senate Republicans must listen. They must listen to their constituents and to the most vulnerable among us, like the members of the disability community who have been here day after day, literally, fighting for their lives. Day after day, I see people who come into my office who say: Save me. Save my child. Save our lives.

That is why I am working every single day to not only push back against these Republican efforts to strip away care from those who need it the most

but also to bring people together on commonsense improvements to our current healthcare system. We cannot be a nation that says: If you are sick or ill, we are going to leave you behind. That is simply not who we are. We are the greatest democracy on the face of the Earth, and we do not leave our most vulnerable behind.

Thank you.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my motions to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I intend to object to proceeding to the nomination of Steven Gill Bradbury, of Virginia, to be General Counsel for the Department of Transportation.

Mr. President, over the past few years, the Affordable Care Act has made tremendous strides in expanding healthcare coverage for hard-working Americans and the families who need it. I thank my colleague for his stories, and I would like to add some of my own.

While the law could certainly be improved, the way to do it is not by passing TrumpCare, which even President Trump has admitted is a ``mean'' bill. Unfortunately, Republican Senate leadership has indicated whatever it is that the Republicans are crafting in secret, behind closed doors, is going to be very similar to the version of TrumpCare that has passed the House. That is simply bad news.

The version of TrumpCare that passed the House could cost 23 million Americans, including 385,000 Illinoisans, to lose healthcare coverage. It would make it more expensive for older Americans and working people, especially those with preexisting conditions, to purchase insurance.

TrumpCare would cause their premiums and their out-of-pocket costs to simply skyrocket. The premiums of the average Illinoisan would increase by $700.

TrumpCare would also make critical services like maternity care for new moms and mental health and substance abuse services significantly more expensive, even though they are desperately needed. That is extremely mean-spirited.

Making matters worse, it would also put veterans on the chopping block. Specifically, TrumpCare would prohibit veterans who are eligible for VA healthcare from receiving tax credits to help them afford insurance in the individual marketplace. However, there is a big difference between being eligible for VA healthcare and being enrolled in VA. Oftentimes, that is not even a choice you can make.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as many as 7 million of our veterans are eligible for VA care but are not enrolled. Preventing them from receiving tax credits would amount to a massive tax hike that would force them to pay thousands of dollars extra each year. That is not just mean; it is unacceptable.

There has been ample reporting indicating that Republicans knew exactly what they were doing. They could have included a fix to this but purposefully did not because that would have made their bill ineligible to be considered under the Senate's budget reconciliation process, which requires only 51 votes. That is because to remedy this huge flaw, the veterans tax credit language would need to be considered in committees of jurisdiction. That would entail holding public hearings and markups in committees, which would then reveal to the American people what exactly is in the Republican bill.

Apparently, the cost of public scrutiny is too high for Senate Republican leaders who are willing to raise taxes on veterans so they can hide this bad bill from the American people. As a result, the appalling flaws in their bill remain unfixed, and up to 7 million veterans remain on the chopping block.

That is not the only way TrumpCare would harm veterans either. Its massive cuts to Medicaid would have a direct impact on veterans, since nearly 2 million veterans across our country, including 60,000 veterans in my own home State of Illinois, rely on Medicaid for their healthcare coverage. That is 1 in 10 veterans.

For nearly 1 million of these veterans, Medicaid is their only source of coverage. Many of them are eligible for VA care only for the injuries they sustained in the military but not for any of their other health needs.

I shouldn't have to remind my colleagues that veterans are at a higher risk for serious health issues because of the sacrifices they made for our Nation. Yet, if TrumpCare becomes law, many of them will lose the coverage they gained from Medicaid expansion under the ACA.

Right now, 13 Republican Senators are sitting behind closed doors in some secret room on Capitol Hill, gambling with the lives of millions of Americans and people who have honorably served their country. One of those lives belongs to Robin Schmidt, a veteran from the North Side of Chicago.

Robin served during Desert Storm in Army military intelligence. Robin loved her job in the military because it had always been her dream to serve her country. As a 13-year-old girl, Robin

stood at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington, DC. She knew that serving her country was her true calling. However, she was eventually forced to end her military career because, in her words, ``the Army refused to allow my husband to come back overseas to live with me.''

When she was pregnant with her child, she was forced to leave the military in order to return home to Arkansas to be with her husband to raise their children. When she was stateside, the VA denied her benefits because they were not service-connected, thus forcing her and her husband to pay the costs of maternity care and childbirth out of pocket.

She faced medical complications and developed endometriosis, a preexisting condition, and had to have a Caesarean section during delivery. After she delivered her baby, she ended up with $500,000 in hospital debt.

This enormous debt followed Robin and her husband throughout their marriage, and it eventually left them in divorce, medical bankruptcy, and with all of the repercussions that come from extreme financial hardship. She was also blocked from accessing affordable healthcare coverage because she now had a preexisting condition and could not afford good coverage on an $8.50-an-hour wage, so she went without care.

Robin remained uninsured for a total of 22 years, until she remarried and gained healthcare coverage under her husband's insurance. This was especially devastating because in 2007, Robin was diagnosed with cancer. Even though Robin was covered by her husband's insurance, insurance companies were not required to cover chemotherapy in 2007, and chemotherapy was too expensive for Robin and her family to pay for out of pocket. Instead, she had to choose debilitating surgeries.

After her cancer diagnosis, Robin developed severe autoimmune arthritis. Her autoimmune treatments started at $5,000 a month and soon increased to $14,000 a month. Insurance companies wanted Robin to pay for her medication upfront, with no guarantee of reimbursement.

As her medical costs grew and grew, Robin had to choose between her medical care and her mortgage payment. After the Affordable Care Act became law, insurance companies were mandated to cover Robin's medications and treatments. They were no longer able to refuse her the medications she needed. Her insurance premium prior to the Affordable Care Act was $1,600 a month, which was more than her family paid for their monthly mortgage and household bills. Now she pays just $300 a month for her entire family. There was no more redtape, constant stress, or fear that she might not be able to work--or worse, might not be able to stay alive.

Unfortunately, the coverage, relief, and peace of mind the ACA brought to Robin and her family is now under attack by congressional Republicans. Robin is afraid that if TrumpCare becomes law, she will once again become nothing more than an uninsurable preexisting condition. She is afraid she would be considered a high-risk pool patient who will be able to have insurance but will not be able to actually afford any of her treatments. She is afraid that if Republicans push through TrumpCare, she will not be able to walk, work, and will have absolutely no quality of life.

Her dream was to serve her country in our Armed Forces. She took two oaths to serve this country, and she kept those oaths--promises that she would defend this great Nation.

Robin may not be in uniform anymore, but she certainly deserves that we in Congress and here in the Senate defend her right to access quality healthcare.

For Robin and for nearly 7 million veterans, middle-class families, our seniors, and some of our most vulnerable Americans, I urge my Republican counterparts to stop these secret negotiations, take repeal off the table, and work with Democrats to improve our healthcare system. Just like Robin, each of these Americans has a story, a family, and a valued place in society. Robin's family and all Americans deserve better than having their coverage stripped away from them behind closed doors.

I yield back.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider H.R. 1628 or any amendment offered to H.R. 1628 unless the Director of the Congressional Budget Office certifies that H.R. 1628 or any amendment offered to the bill will not cause a single veteran to lose health insurance coverage as a result of the bill's Medicaid cuts, potential loss of marketplace tax credits for veterans, or removal of critical patient protections.

Madam President, I would like to take this time to discuss a critical public health crisis affecting constituents in Illinois and all across the country. Each day, 46 people die from overdose of prescription painkillers in the United States. In Illinois, that number is only growing.

Overdose deaths in Illinois from opioids rose about 275 percent from 2008 to 2014. There are an estimated 460,000 nonmedical prescription opioid users in Illinois alone. A major portion of the total number of drug-poisoning deaths between 2013 and 2015 were a result of opioid and prescription drug abuse. Over 4,000 people died as a result of opioids and prescription drugs, and 2,000 people died due to heroin. Illinois also had the third fastest rising death rates from synthetic opioids in the Nation, with overdoses rising by 120 percent from 2014 to 2015. Unfortunately, Illinois is third from the bottom for treatment of substance abuse because of lack of funding and resources to healthcare providers and law enforcement partners in the State.

These numbers are alarming, but I would like to share a story behind those numbers--a face. Laura Fry is a mother whose family has experienced the worst of the opioid epidemic. Her son, Alexander, is 29 years old and in remission from heroin use disorder.

Alexander was just a normal kid growing up in Wauconda, IL. He had his entire life ahead of him. Then, when he was 17, he had a snowboarding accident and was taken to the emergency room after he lost consciousness. That is when doctors found a mass on his cerebellum and he had to undergo major brain surgery. It was after this surgery that Alexander became addicted to morphine, and his drug abuse began.

When Alexander graduated from high school, he began working at a hospital, where he was able to steal drugs to fuel his abuse. Over time, his drug abuse spiraled out of control. He was fired from his job for stealing narcotics and was arrested for possession of heroin. But because this was his first offense, he was given a very strict 2-year probation. Over the next 4 months, he tested positive for heroin several times, and then he simply disappeared. Laura did not know where her son was or whether he was even alive for 10 months. Finally, he was arrested and taken into custody.

In Lake County, IL, we thankfully have a criminal justice system that recognizes addiction is a disease. The court gave Alexander the opportunity to continue his probation, and he was allowed to perform hundreds of hours of community service and to attend an intensive outpatient program.

In the spring of last year, Laura and her son Alexander appeared in court for the last time. Alexander is now a volunteer for Live4Lali, a substance abuse program in Illinois. He attends community outreach events, shares stories, and offers trainings in naloxone use--a lifesaving drug that reverses opioid overdoses. He has gone from being a user to someone who is transforming lives.

Alexander's story is a reminder that Congress must focus on enhancing recovery efforts, and we are beginning to take steps in the right direction. For example, I was a proud supporter of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, also known as CARA, when I served in the House. CARA, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, establishes, supports, and strengthens a number of programs to fight the opioid crisis in communities. It provides opportunities for rehabilitation, like the outpatient program Alexander attended, and expands access to drugs like naloxone, which are saving lives on the frontlines of this epidemic.

I applaud these efforts, but I have serious concerns about the majority's commitment to actually funding these essential programs to rehabilitate our fellow Americans who are suffering from opioid addiction because, while we can all agree that CARA's intent was to transform our opioid crisis, the bill failed to provide any actual funds to enact these effective programs.

I, along with many of my colleagues, have asked for CARA to be fully funded and to provide additional funding to the drug courts and veteran treatment courts, which essentially reduced crime, saved taxpayer dollars, and saved the lives of more than 1.25 million civilians and veterans. In addition, we must also make sure families have access to medicine that can save lives during an overdose by calling on manufacturers to offer naloxone to rein in the costs.

I share this story because the turmoil that the Fry family faced is not unique. Millions of Americans are experiencing the impact of opioid abuse, and many of these American stories have much more tragic endings. We can and must do more for these families.

I ask that we take the time, consider the story of Alexander and his family, and step up and do the right thing. Let's fund CARA fully.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, our Nation faces a retirement savings crisis. Too many seniors live in poverty after a lifetime of hard work, and too many people are facing retirement who have not been able to put away the adequate savings they will need. That is a problem not only on a human level and on a moral level but on an economic level.

When seniors are forced to live in poverty, that hurts all of us and is a strike against our Nation's values. As more people have to spend money to take care of their retired parents and relatives, that hurts our economy. Millions of seniors do not have family

members who can spend those resources, so it is taxpayers who will have to make sure seniors have a place to live, food to eat, and medicine to keep them healthy. That is why we must do everything we can to help people save for retirement themselves and not have to rely on the taxpayer, to help them put a little bit of money away while they still can.

At the very least, the Senate should stay out of the way of our States that are taking action to address this looming crisis, but that is not what the Senate is doing here today. Instead, we are debating a resolution that would make it harder for people to save for retirement. We are debating whether to limit the ability of State governments to help people save for their retirement.

While some Americans are fortunate enough to work at companies that offer their employees retirement plans, many more do not. That is significant because research shows that the best way for people to save for retirement is through a retirement plan at work. Without one, workers are less likely to invest in an IRA or a 401(k) savings plan. That is why it is so worrisome that there are 55 million Americans right now in this country who do not have access to a retirement plan through their jobs. As the baby boomer generation approaches retirement, that is a serious problem.

President Obama proposed establishing a national individual retirement account program to help these 55 million Americans, but Republicans said no. In the absence of congressional action, both red States and blue States took the lead. They did so by coming up with a way for Americans to better save for retirement. One solution that has gained momentum over the last few years is to establish retirement programs at the State level to give people the chance to have retirement contributions deducted out of their paychecks into that plan if their company doesn't already offer a retirement program. It would give every worker across this Nation the same access to the tax breaks those lucky enough to have access to an employer-sponsored plan receive.

In my home State of Illinois, we were one of the first to do this. A few years ago, our State created the Secure Choice Program. It is an innovative program that is poised to give 1.3 million Illinoisans the opportunity to save for retirement when it launches next year. It is important to note that not only is Secure Choice innovative, it does not impose any burdensome mandates. It is optional. People can deduct up to 3 percent of their wages, and it applies only to businesses with at least 25 employees that have been in existence for 2 years. Secure Choice is also portable, so people can take their savings with them if they switch jobs. It is estimated that it will save taxpayers almost $243.8 million in the first 10 years because retirees will not need to rely as much on Medicaid spending.

It is a pragmatic solution to address a real-world problem. Other States have since followed our lead in establishing other similar programs. That is why I find it so ironic that my Republican colleagues, who frequently speak about the need to protect States' rights, are using this resolution we are voting on today to try to block States as culturally and politically different as Illinois and Arizona from offering or even having the freedom to offer these plans. Instead of allowing States to be the laboratories of democracy they so often talk about, Republicans are trying to limit States' flexibility and, in the process, increase regulatory burdens on employers. That is quite a role reversal.

Why is there this push to block the States from trying to help their residents better save for retirement? One reason could be that it would pad the financial industry's bottom line. That is because many investment brokers don't want increased competition, and they are worried that programs like Secure Choice that are run by States will offer people who are saving for retirement a better deal.

News reports have indicated that mutual fund companies are worried that they will lose customers to State-based plans, even though the entire purpose of efforts like Secure Choice is to help the millions of Americans who are not currently saving for retirement. Other news outlets have reported that financial analysts on Wall Street are worried that State plans will be transparent about hidden fees, which means that financial analysts may be forced to reveal that they are charging fees that are perhaps a little too high and will have to lower how much they charge.

Instead of encouraging greater competition that will help 55 million Americans save money for retirement, some of my colleagues are listening to Wall Street lobbyists who want less competition and who want to take away a retirement savings option from hard-working Americans. And here I was thinking that the conservatives believe competition produces better outcomes for the American people.

At the end of the day, we as Senators must do everything we can to make it easier for people to save for retirement, not harder. We must look out for the constituents who sent us here to represent them, not for Wall Street or for special interests. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand by the States that have led the Nation in creating retirement plans, States as different as Illinois, Arizona, California, Maryland, Oregon, Connecticut, Washington, and New Jersey. Please do not take the opportunity to save for retirement away from 55 million hard-working Americans.