[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5935-S5946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1
minute so I can give a short speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
NASA Legislation
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we just passed a NASA bill in the Commerce
Committee, and we are going to Mars. We are going to Mars in the decade
of the 2030s with humans, and the bill sets the goal of having a
colonization of other worlds. This is a new and exciting time in our
Nation's space exploration program and particularly now with the human
exploration program. I thought that would be good news for the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Douglas Wilson
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to raise my
concern about another nominee who has been on hold in this body for
months. I am sad to say that this has been an ongoing issue with the
Senate. People have been nominated--good people who are very well
qualified--and then their nomination doesn't get acted upon.
One of those people is Douglas Wilson, who has been nominated to
serve on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. This is
probably a Commission that most people don't even know exists, and yet
Mr. Wilson has been on hold since June 13, when his nomination was
referred to the floor. He actually was nominated by the President in
March.
He is eminently qualified. He is a noncontroversial nominee. The
Republican Vice Chairman of the Commission, William Hybl, has urged the
Senate to confirm Mr. Wilson, and yet his confirmation remains blocked
for reasons that seem completely unrelated to the nominee or his
qualifications.
I believe it is time for the Senate to confirm Mr. Wilson so that the
Commission can be fully constituted to carry out its important mission.
Surely, these days when there are so many hotspots around the world,
when there is so much going on, it would be helpful to have the
Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy in place and fully staffed up
to be able to help advise on so many of the conflicts that we see going
on in the world.
Doug Wilson has had a distinguished career of more than three and a
half decades in the public and private sector. After graduating from
Stanford University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Doug
became a Foreign Service officer serving in posts throughout Europe and
later with senior positions with the U.S. Information Agency. During
the Clinton administration, he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Public Affairs under Secretary Cohen. Most recently, from
2010 to 2012, he was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs,
serving as a principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense.
He is a three-time recipient of the Department of Defense
Distinguished Public Service Award, the Pentagon's highest civilian
honor. Since 2013, he has been a senior fellow and chair of the board
of advisers at the Truman National Security Project. In 2009, he was
the founding chair of the board of directors at Harvard's Public
Diplomacy Collaborative. I think there is no question that Doug Wilson
is extremely qualified. He has worked in a bipartisan way over the
years.
I have had the great pleasure of knowing Doug for more than 30 years.
When I first met him, he was a foreign policy adviser to then-Senator
Gary Hart. He worked in that role again when Senator Hart ran for
President in 1984.
The fact is that the work of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public
Diplomacy has never been more important and urgent. One of the great
foreign policy challenges of our day is countering the poisonous
ideology of violent extremist groups. Another is countering Russian
propaganda and Russian meddling in Europe and central Asia. The
Commission plays an important role in helping our Nation address these
challenges, and we need people with the right experience and the right
judgment to serve on that Commission--people like Doug Wilson.
I am disappointed that this nomination of someone so eminently
qualified--someone who has support on both sides of the aisle and from
the Republican Vice Chairman of that Commission, Mr. Hybl--continues to
remain on hold before this body. I don't know why. For some reason
someone has objected to this moving forward. We don't know who that is.
We don't know what their objections are.
That is one of the challenges we have in this body that needs to
change if government is going to operate the way the people of this
country expect.
So I am going to keep coming to the floor. I am going to keep trying
to move Doug Wilson's nomination, as I have since June. I am hopeful
that at some point the majority will hear these concerns and agree that
we should approve him and make sure that this Commission is fully
functioning.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized, and following my remarks, Senator Casey from Pennsylvania
be recognized, followed by Senator Sanders from Vermont, followed by
Senator Warren from Massachusetts, and followed by Senator Alexander
from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1878
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, this is somewhat of an unorthodox way to
ask for a UC, but we are going to go through a process this afternoon
talking about a bill called the Pediatric Rare Disease Priority Review
Voucher Act, which expires on September 30 of this year.
All of those names I just mentioned have a stake in this particular
debate and I am going to lead it off. Then, I am actually going to
refer to my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, my friend and
coauthor of this legislation for the purposes of the UC motion, and
then we will go from there.
Mr. President, I fell in love with my wife in 1968 and married her 48
years ago. We have had a great marriage. But in 2004, I fell in love
with Alexa Rohrbach, the young lady to my left who you can see on the
screen here.
Alexa had neuroblastoma, an incurable cancer of the brain. She came
to Washington, DC, lobbying us to try to accelerate the research into
rare diseases for children and to try to find cures for them. I got
interested, and I went to the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, PA,
where Senator Casey is so active. I am active in children's health care
in Atlanta, and I saw many of the breakthroughs for cancer and other
diseases of children. Bob Casey and I got very interested in seeing
what we could do to further the development of new drugs coming into
the
[[Page S5936]]
marketplace to save lives and make the quality of life better. Such was
my desire to be, hopefully, the guy who prompted some researcher
somewhere to develop a new program that would research neuroblastoma
and would correct it so that Alexa Rohrbach could sit by me today.
Five years after I met her, Alexa Rohrbach died, but my passion for
trying to meet the request that Alexa had lobbied for did not go away.
It actually burned brighter. So Senator Casey and I got together and
developed the FDA Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Act,
and passed it 5 years ago. That bill provided, as an incentive for
companies to develop breakthrough drugs, a priority review voucher for
future drugs that would incentivize them to work harder to develop new
drugs. Such has been the case in a number of things that have happened,
and I am very proud that took place.
But that program is expiring September 30. I want to see to it that
it is extended. It is an incentive that incentivizes the right thing to
happen for the right people for it to happen for, and it doesn't cost
the taxpayer any money, but saves lives and it makes their quality of
life better.
There will be objections that you will hear from Senator Sanders and
Senator Warren and maybe others about this--that or the other, in terms
of pharmaceutical companies or in terms of trying to do a package of
bills together--but there is no reason whatsoever to object to a
unanimous consent to adopt the extension for 5 years for this proven
program.
Some of those who will object have written letters to the FDA
encouraging programs like this to exist--one of them being Senator
Warren from Massachusetts, who on the April 15 of this year signed this
letter to the FDA, urging the acceleration of development of a
breakthrough drug for Duchenne disease. By the way, on Monday of this
week the Sarepta Therapeutics company in Boston, MA, was approved by
the FDA for the development of a new drug that is the first drug to
treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a disease that affects 1 in 3,500
boys who are born, limits the quality of their life, and, in many
cases, causes death. That process was developed through the work of a
company. We want to make sure that companies are incentivized to make
those types of breakthroughs again. There are so many companies where,
if given the right incentive and the right opportunity, breakthroughs
can be developed. Lives can be saved, and the quality of life can be
better.
We will hear all kinds of arguments about pharmaceutical companies,
and you will hear arguments about this, that, and the other. The facts
of this matter are clear. This bill is an incentive that for 5 years
has incentivized the development of new breakthrough drugs to cure
diseases and ailments that affect children in America. It is an
incentive that is right, it is not an incentive that is wrong, and it
works.
Any objection to it for any reason whatsoever--such as that it ought
to be included with another package of drugs or that because
pharmaceutical companies develop breakthroughs, we shouldn't do it, is
a bogus argument.
I will be glad to debate anybody, anyplace, anywhere if you are
talking about a philosophical difference, but by golly, I will not
debate them about delaying something that can expedite a cure being
developed in the United States of America for a disease that kills
children.
So when Bob Casey and I ask for unanimous consent today to approve
the bill, it is only approving an extension for 5 years of a bill that
is in place and has worked. It doesn't cost the American taxpayer a
dime but may save the life of an American taxpayer and their children.
That is a good thing for us to be here for. That is the reason I am
still here today at age 71. It is to see to it that I make some
contribution to the furtherance of health and the quality of life for
every child in America.
It is my hope that at some point in time in this debate before we get
to the end of the year, those who have adversarial reasons to object to
a unanimous consent for an extension of 5 years will come to the
reality that we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. It is
not partisan. It is not political. It is practical, and it is right.
I publicly want to thank Senator Bob Casey from Pennsylvania for
being my partner throughout this development, and I encourage every
Member in the Chamber, when they have the opportunity, to vote for the
health of our children, to vote for the extension of their lives, to
vote for the development of new cures coming through and the research
and development and incentives to cause that to happen.
With that said, I yield to Senator Casey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia
for his good work to advance the process. I offer the following consent
request:
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 415, S. 1878; that the committee-reported
substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a
third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, it goes without saying, to pick up on Senator
Isakson's point, that there is nobody in this body who does not want to
see cures as quickly as possible for the terrible diseases that are
taking the lives of children in this country. That is not the debate.
Nor I think is it the debate that we need research and development to
get us a cure of cancer, to get us a cure of Alzheimer's disease, to
get us a cure of diabetes, and so many other diseases that are
shortening the lives of people in our country and around the world. We
must work together to make that happen.
In my view, if we understand that it is imperative that we try to
come up with cures to these terrible diseases, there is no debate, I
would hope, that the U.S. Government and institutions like the National
Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration must play, as
they have historically done, a major role in finding cures for these
diseases, easing suffering and expanding life expectancy. I don't think
there are too many people here who would disagree with that.
But in order to do that, it is clear that we are going to require a
well funded National Institutes of Health and a well-funded Food and
Drug Administration. I must say, it is beyond my comprehension that
year after year, my Republican colleagues appear to work overtime to
provide tax breaks to billionaires yet refuse to adequately fund the
NIH or the Food and Drug Administration. What set of priorities can
anyone have that makes sense to anybody in this country that says: Yes,
we are going to give tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations.
But no, no, we are not going to adequately fund the major institutions
in this country that are leading the effort to find cures of the
terrible diseases that impact our children, our seniors, and everybody
in this country.
I would hope that my Republican colleagues listen to the American
people and get their priorities right. Poll after poll says no more tax
breaks for the rich. Let's invest in health care. Let's invest in cures
for the children's diseases that Senator Isakson talked about--cancer,
Alzheimer's, and all the rest.
Second of all, just ironically and coincidentally, I just asked
through my Web site for the American people to send me information on
what is going on in their lives with regard to prescription drugs.
Every so often, we do that. We sent out an email, and we do Facebook so
they can tell me what is going on with regard to their life and
prescription drugs. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of the comments
we received--and we received about 1,000 comments from people all over
this country--are from people who are outraged by the high costs of
prescription drugs in this country--a cost that is going up every
single day.
People are walking into their pharmacies today and seeing the price
of medicines that they have had for 20 years double, for no explanation
other than the fact that the drug companies can do it and are doing it
so they can make outrageous profits.
[[Page S5937]]
In this country, we pay the highest prices in the world for
prescription drugs. Senator Isakson talked about the terrible diseases
facing our kids. He is right, but do you know that every year there are
thousands of people in this country who are dying because they cannot
afford to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs,
while last year the pharmaceutical industry made $50 billion in profit?
The top five companies made $50 billion in profit.
One out of five people in this country, Senator Isakson, when they go
to the doctor's office and they get a prescription, you know what, they
can't afford to fill that prescription. Talk to the doctors in Georgia.
Talk to the doctors in Tennessee. This is what they will tell you: We
write the prescriptions, but working class people can't afford to fill
them. We have received letters from oncologists all over this country
who tell us their cancer patients cannot afford the outrageously high
costs of the medicines people need to stay alive.
Maybe, just maybe, it might be time for the Senate to stand up to the
pharmaceutical industry and all of their lobbyists here and all of
their campaign contributions and say: We are going to stand with the
American people who are sick and tired of being ripped off by the drug
companies.
Let me read just a few--I am not going to read 1,000 letters, just a
few--to give an indication of what is going on in America.
Mark from Plainville, CT, wrote to us and said that his drug for
Crohn's disease went up from $75 a month to $700 a month. Is anyone
here concerned about that? He is worried that he may die. This is what
he writes to me:
I am no longer treating my Crohn's disease. I am in a lot
of pain and will eventually develop colorectal cancer and
die. I am 39 with a wife and two daughters. We simply cannot
afford this medication any longer. I have had to leave my job
and I am now trying to freelance from home with no success
for 4 months. Our home is about to be foreclosed. Is that of
interest to my Republican friends or is that not important?
Amanda from Bartlesville, OK, shared this story of her husband's gout
medication:
He pays more than $300 a month for a medicine that was $4
in 2010.
Maybe someone can explain to me how a medicine that was $4 in 2010 is
$300 a month now.
He is now disabled because he cannot afford the medicine he
needs.
Heather in Taos, NM, cannot afford her EpiPen. We have heard a whole
lot about the high price of EpiPens. She said:
I basically haven't had one in years that is not expired.
Just hope I don't get stung or I will die.
John in Anchor Point, AK, cannot afford his insulin, which jumped
from $1,400 to $1,600. He said:
I skip buying groceries when picking up meds. Went home and
scraped by. Sold possessions to make ends meet so we can buy
food.
Jerry from Lincoln, NE, cannot afford Gabapentin for shingles. It was
$35, and it is now $75.
Trish from New Jersey stopped taking her breast cancer medication
because it went from $25 to $225 for a 3-month supply. Is anyone
concerned about that?
Of course we want new drugs to cure diseases, but those new drugs
won't do anybody any good if people can't afford them.
We have seen scandal after scandal in the last few months and years.
Gilead sold Sovaldi, a drug for hepatitis C, for $1,000 a pill. Mylan
raised EpiPen prices by 500 percent over the last several years, to
more than $600. Martin Shkreli raised the price of Daraprim, a
lifesaving AIDS medication, by 5,000 percent. Are we concerned about
that? I hope some of us are.
Above and beyond the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is ripping
off the American people, the FDA itself tells us that this voucher
approach doesn't work. The Government Accountability Office released a
report in March that found that there is no evidence this program works
to incentivize drug development. Not only does the program not work, it
actually slows down the review time of drugs that are clinically
important. When one of these vouchers is used, that means FDA staff
must take time away from reviewing priority medication in order to
review drugs that have bought a pass to the front of the line. By
moving one drug faster, more important drugs may move slower.
What we do know is that these vouchers sell for hundreds of millions
of dollars. One recent example from last year is that a drug company,
United Therapeutic, sold a priority review voucher to another major
drug company, AbbVie, for $350 million.
While nearly one in five Americans cannot afford to fill their
prescriptions, the top five drug companies made a combined $50 billion
in profits last year.
There are many reasons why we pay such outrageous prices, but one
reason is we continue passing laws written by the pharmaceutical
industry and their lobbyists year after year after year. I believe the
American people should know that the pharmaceutical industry has spent
more than $3 billion on lobbying since 1998. How is that? Democracy at
work. Drug companies charge us the highest prices in the world, and the
pharmaceutical industry spent $3 billion on lobbying. They are all over
this place, high-priced lobbyists trying to get us to pass pharma
legislation. Just last year the pharmaceutical industry spent $250
million on lobbying and campaign contributions and employed some 1,400
lobbyists. Maybe the working families of this country need some
protection against these lobbyists.
I certainly want to do everything I can to see that this country
comes forward with cures for children's diseases and diseases that
impact so many Americans of all ages, but we are going to have to have
the courage to start taking on the pharmaceutical industry and
representing the American people. So I am offering an amendment, along
with Senator Warren, which I hope will pass, which will extend this
program, which is going to expire at the end of September, to the end
of the year. That will give us an additional 3 months to work together
to come up with some serious legislation that addresses not only
children's issues but the health care and needs of millions of
Americans in general.
I look forward to working with my friends on the other side to come
up with a good solution to protect the American people from the
outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country.
Reserving the right to object, would the Senator modify his request
to include the Sanders amendment which is at the desk?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object, as chairman of the
Senate Health Committee, I will object, but I will work with the
Senators from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Vermont to do
what we need to do during the rest of the day so that the Senate will
be able to adopt an extension of this important program to the end of
the year, which I think we should be able to do.
I will reserve the remainder of my remarks until the Senator from
Massachusetts has a chance to speak.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the modification.
Is there objection to the original request?
Mr. SANDERS. Yes, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Sanders'
objection and amendment. Massachusetts is home to many of the Nation's
best scientists and most innovative biomedical companies. I believe we
have a moral imperative to save money and save lives by expanding
medical innovation in the United States.
I have been here for almost 4 years. I have spent nearly the entire
time working both publicly and privately to try to fix the broken
medical innovation system in this country. I will be blunt: It has been
maddening because we know what we need to do to fix this problem. We
know that medical cures come from taxpayer investments in basic
research, followed by private industry making its investments to turn
that research into viable treatments. Nobody in Congress seriously
disputes that.
Every single person I have talked to here says they support
increasing funding for the National Institutes of
[[Page S5938]]
Health. Yet for over a decade Congress has decimated the NIH's budget.
It has effectively been cut by nearly 25 percent. Those cuts are
singlehandedly choking off support for the projects that could lead to
the next major breakthrough against ALS, Alzheimer's cancer, and rare
pediatric diseases. Those cuts are driving scientists out of the
country or out of research entirely. Those cuts are discouraging a
whole generation of brilliant young researchers who see no path to
launch the work that could save millions of lives. Only in Washington
can every single elected official say they are committed to fix
something and then do nothing.
Newt Gingrich and I do not agree on much of anything, but we teamed
up last year to plead with Congress to address this travesty. Newt
Gingrich said: ``To allow research funding to languish at a time of
historic opportunity when you could be saving lives and saving money
takes a special kind of stupidity that is reserved for this city.'' I
agree.
For 2 years, Republicans in the Senate have claimed loudly that they
want to do something about this. For a year they talked to Democrats
about a comprehensive, bipartisan package that would include
investments in NIH and FDA. Then one day they stopped talking and
instead started pushing a bunch of small, piecemeal bills through the
committee, all without a single dime of new money for medical research,
and then declared themselves the conquering heros of medical
innovation.
Now, look, I support some of these bills. I helped write some of
these bills. Others, like the Advancing Hope Act, I have serious
concerns about. But without new funding for medical research, this
bundle of bills will not move the needle on medical innovation. The
Advancing Hope Act is an example. I support getting more transformative
cures for pediatric rare diseases, but the Advancing Hope Act doesn't
put a dime of additional money into medical research or approval--not
one dime. This bill just hands drug companies vouchers so they can jump
to the front of the line at the FDA. The drug companies love it. Most
of them have turned around and sold off their vouchers, sometimes for
hundreds of millions of dollars. But the FDA has said there is no
evidence this program is effective at incentivizing drug development
for rare pediatric diseases.
Who knows what breakthrough cancer or Alzheimer's treatment now takes
longer to approve because some giant drug company uses a voucher to
move something more lucrative but less important to the head of the
line. I am not opposed to these vouchers under any circumstances, but
without more, these vouchers cynically ask people with diabetes and
people with breast cancer to fight the parents of children with rare
pediatric diseases over who gets approved first.
I want cures, and to get them, we need to put more money into the NIH
so that we can cure more diseases. We need to put more money into the
FDA so they can approve everything that is worth approving as quickly
as possible.
Senate Democrats have made their position clear. Whatever our views
on these individual policies, we do not support moving piecemeal bills
without a real, bipartisan agreement on new investments. Every Democrat
on the HELP Committee has cosponsored a serious proposal to provide $50
billion in new mandatory NIH and FDA funding. Republicans have put no
proposal on the table--nothing. Chairman Alexander said publicly that
he understood the importance of getting this done, but it has been
months and we have seen nothing.
The supporters of this expiring voucher program want to extend it to
the end of December. I am willing to do that. I will join Senator
Sanders in that.
I believed Chairman Alexander's promise to work in good faith on a
bipartisan package that will actually fix medical innovation in this
country. Despite months of silence, I still believe it. I want to give
him every opportunity to keep that promise.
If Republicans want to ignore the real problems here and play
political games instead, if they want to cynically use sick children
and desperate moms in the runup to an election as a political football
to avoid actually doing the right thing by these families, I cannot
stop them, but I will not play along.
We are losing an entire generation of scientists and researchers
because Congress will not face the hard fact that medical research
takes money. We are forfeiting cures and treatments that could help
people all across this country because Congress will not make the
investments in basic research. We are losing our mothers, our fathers,
our sons, and our daughters because Congress plays politics with
people's lives. I will not play along, and I will do every single thing
I can to get the funding we need to support real medical innovation in
this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. First, Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Casey and
Senator Isakson for doing a terrific job of being excellent Senators
and coming up with legislation a couple of years ago that has helped
children.
We have now heard from the only two U.S. Senators in the whole body,
so far, who have voted against this bill this year. We have 22 members
on our HELP Committee--Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. We voted
to extend this bill another few years because it has been so
successful. The vote was 20 to 2.
You just heard from those very eloquent Senators. They don't like
Republicans, they don't like drug companies, they don't like
billionaires, and they asked the question: Well, is anybody listening?
I am listening. Whom do we care about? Let's talk about these 7,800
children at St. Jude's Hospital in Memphis. These are children who are
very sick. Many of them will die prematurely. Every single one of them
has free care at St. Jude's Hospital thanks to the contributions of
many people.
This is what the doctors at St. Jude's Hospital say about the
proposal Senator Isakson and Senator Casey have made that has been in
the law since 2012 and received 20 votes in our committee against the
two votes of the Senators who are on the floor.
St. Jude's doctors who are taking care of these very sick children
say:
Priority vouchers (PRVs) provide a very powerful incentive
to stimulate drug development in rare pediatric diseases.
Does anybody care about these children in Memphis--
These aren't some people in Washington, in bureaucracies. These are
doctors caring for dying children.
The doctors continue:
These conditions often lack the market opportunity to
attract significant investment, or may present other
significant development obstacles and costs that may deter
investment from biopharmaceutical companies.
We may not like drugmakers, but if we need new drugs for dying
children, who is going to make the drugs if the drugmakers don't make
them? Some bureaucrat in Washington? Some committee member of the
Senate? No, no--someone who knows how to make drugs.
This proposal that has been on the books for 5 years says that we
will provide an incentive to help these children. It has worked. We
voted 20 to 2 in our committee--which is about equally composed of
Democrats and Republicans--in favor of extending it. It is important
for the American people to know that.
According to the doctors at St. Jude's Hospital in Memphis--remember,
they have 7,800 very sick children they are caring for today. They say:
We have witnessed strong evidence that the programs are
working.
The Isakson-Casey bill is working.
Continuing:
Support for the Voucher Program is key to facilitating
access to new agents important to improving outcomes in
pediatric cancers.
We have considered this the way U.S. Senators are supposed to. We
brought it up in our committee. We debated it. We had amendments when
they were offered. We voted on it, and we voted 20 to 2.
The House of Representatives has also considered this legislation. It
has enacted this. This would be part of our 21st century cures
legislation that we hope the entire Congress will approve before we
leave at the end of the year, but the bill expires at the end of this
month so we need an extension.
Every day we delay creates more uncertainty in the marketplace and
[[Page S5939]]
makes it less likely that some drugmaker is going to create a new drug
to help these children. Now, we may not like drugmakers, some of us; we
may not like markets, some of us; we may not like Republicans, some of
us; we may not like billionaires, some of us, but if the drugmakers
don't make the drugs to help these children, who will do it? When we
have an entire committee that has worked through this, I think it is
very unfortunate that we don't take the time to extend this for a
period of time to create the kind of certainty we need.
On the 21st century cures legislation the Senator from Massachusetts,
a diligent Senator and a good member of the committee, talked about,
apparently, she is not paying much attention to the work we are doing
on the bill. It has been my top priority. I have worked on it daily
with Senator Murray, the ranking Democrat. I have worked with the
President and with the Vice President. We have a bill that the
President of the United States would like us to pass because it
addresses precision medicine, his top priority.
This same bill addresses the Cancer MoonShot, the Vice President's
top priority. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is turning
somersaults to try to find a way for us to be able to find the money
for that, as well as opioids and other important projects we would like
to fund. The majority leader of the Senate has said that if we are able
to agree on this bill, it will be the most important bill we will pass
this year.
We are doing a very good job in our committee of getting to the point
where we can actually turn something into law that the President, the
Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the majority leader would
all like to see happen. I thank Senator Casey and Senator Isakson for
their help in doing this. My hope is that we can work together, finish
our work on this, and pass it shortly after we come back in November.
My last point, regarding doing nothing on funding, is that I don't
know what budgets people are reading. Let's stop and talk about this a
little bit. Let's talk about the Food and Drug Administration.
According to Mercatus, in 2000, the FDA was funded at a little over
$1 billion. In 2015, that number is $4 billion. We are about to look
into a series of agreements next year, which we will have a chance to
vote on, that will add billions of new funding to the FDA.
In our 21st century cures legislation, there are provisions to allow
the Commissioner of the FDA to recruit and hire more of the talented
experts he needs--another reason we need to pass that bipartisan
legislation.
What about funding for research in the United States? According to
the New England Journal of Medicine, today the United States--both
through the government and through our pharmaceutical companies--spends
nearly as much on biomedical research as all of Europe, all of Japan,
and all of China combined.
Let me say that again.
According to the New England Journal of Medicine, the United States
of America--publicly and privately--spends nearly as much on biomedical
research as all of Europe, all of Japan, and all of China, combined. In
addition to that, I think the number is about $32 billion that we now
spend through the National Institutes of Health, mostly on biomedical
research at major universities.
I try not to spend my time talking about Democrats. I notice my
friends on the other side often say Republican, Republican, Republican.
I get a little tired of that because we are working together to get
something done, but we do have a Republican majority. Last year, it was
under the Republican majority that we added $2 billion to the National
Institutes of Health.
Senator Blunt led that, but I want to give credit to Senator Murray,
who is the ranking Democrat on that committee, because without Senator
Murray and Senator Blunt, it wouldn't have happened. But give Senator
Blunt credit for it, he happens to be a Republican, if we are being
partisan about it. How much money is that? That is $20 billion over the
next 10 years.
This year, the same committee, Senator Blunt of Missouri and Senator
Murray of Washington, added another $2 billion for the National
Institutes of Health. Over the next 10 years, that is $20 billion more
dollars. We are up to $38 billion of new money for the National
Institutes of Health over the next 10 years.
If anybody has been paying attention to anything I have said over the
last 6 months or any of the discussions I have been having with the
President, the Vice President, and the House of Representatives in our
committee, we have been talking about $6 billion, $7 billion, or $8
billion additional dollars for Cancer MoonShot, for precision medicine,
for the BRAIN initiative, for regenerative medicine, and for a number
of things that need to be done. This is the most exciting time in
biomedical research we have had. What I just added up was $20 billion,
plus $18 billion, plus $6 billion or $7 billion. That adds up to $44-
$45 billion of new dollars for the National Institutes of Health over
the next 10 years.
While it took bipartisan cooperation, let's say it: We do have a
Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, and that is our agenda. That is
what we want to do. We just don't talk about it in a partisan way
because we usually get better cooperation and better results when we
give credit to the other side, which I am pleased to do.
Maybe you don't like drug companies. Then who is going to make the
drugs?
We are not talking about drug companies today. We are talking about
7,800 children who are very sick at St. Jude's Hospital and receiving
free care. Their doctors have told us that if we don't pass the
Isakson-Casey legislation for several more years, we are going to make
it less likely that these children will live--less likely that they
will live. That is what we are talking about.
We could have a big debate about drug companies. We can raise taxes
on billionaires. We can talk about Republicans and Democrats. Let's do
that another day. Let's get back to business. Let's do our quiet work
in a bipartisan way, which is the way we try to do it in our committee
and we have done it. We have had 45 hearings. Forty-one of them have
been bipartisan hearings where we have agreed on the witnesses. We get
more results than about anybody, but we don't get results by making
speeches about each other and making speeches about subjects that
aren't the real subject of the day. The real subject of the day is
7,800 very sick children at St. Jude's Hospital.
Their doctors are telling us that if we don't continue incentives
that are already working, according to these doctors, if we don't
provide more incentives to drugmakers to make the drugs for rare
diseases that will keep these children alive, then we aren't doing our
job.
I thank Senators Isakson and Casey. By the end of the day, I hope we
have accepted Senator Sanders's motion to extend the program until the
end of the year.
What I also hope is, when we come back in November, we will have an
agreement--as we are perfectly capable of doing--that begins to move
treatments and drugs through the FDA more rapidly so they can get into
the medicine cabinets and the doctors' offices at a lower cost and more
quickly; that we will have several more billion dollars of funding for
the National Institutes of Health; that we will focus on the
President's Precision Medicine Initiative with some of that money, on
the Vice President's Cancer MoonShot with some of that money, on the
BRAIN Initiative with some of that money; and that we will give each
other a little bit of a pat on the backs for this past year,
appropriating $20 billion more over the next 10 years for NIH and
putting another $20 billion in appropriations bills this year.
I look forward to the end of the day, when hopefully Senator Sanders'
motion will be adopted and the Isakson-Casey program, which has worked
so successfully for these children, will be extended for long enough to
create enough certainty in the marketplace so drugmakers will make rare
drugs to help these children live. Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me say to Chairman Alexander, I
certainly look forward to working with him over the next several months
to
[[Page S5940]]
come up with a package that makes certain we do everything we can to
cure childhood illnesses, which otherwise would be fatal, but that we
also understand it is not just 7,800 beautiful kids in that hospital,
but there are millions of people in this country who are suffering
today because they cannot even afford the medicine that is on the
market at the same time as five drug companies--it is not a question of
disliking drug companies. It is a question of fact. Five drug companies
made $50 billion in profits last year, charging our people, by far, the
highest prices in the world for medicine. One out of five Americans who
are sick cannot afford the medicine they need.
An example, one small example, this is the chart of drug prices in
the United States versus Canada, with EpiPen, which is on the front
pages today. In the United States, it is $620; in Canada, it is $290.
Why are we paying twice as much for the same product as a country 50
miles away from where I live?
Crestor, for high cholesterol, is $730 in the United States, $160 in
Canada. Premarin, for estrogen therapy, is $421 in the United States,
$84 in Canada.
Look, I have been around the country in the last year, and there are
few Americans--very few--who do not understand that the greed of the
pharmaceutical industry is causing terrible health problems for
millions of people. I read some examples. There are people who are
dying because they can't afford the medicine they need. People are
cutting their pills in half, which should not be done.
So I do look forward to working with Senator Alexander in the next
couple of months to see how we can, in fact, come up with legislation
that begins to address one of the great health care crises facing this
country, and that is the high cost of prescription drugs and the need
to make medicine available to all of our people at an affordable price.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I see other Senators on the floor who
wish to speak, and I will let them do that. Maybe Senator Casey wishes
to conclude.
I look forward to working with Senator Sanders. He and I have some
different points of view, which I guess is obvious, but we can talk
about drug companies. We can talk about the fact that one drug company
has spent $3 billion since 1989 on Alzheimer's and is about to offer to
the American people a way, for the first time really, to prevent the
progression of Alzheimer's, we hope. This is public information
currently in clinical trials. Another drug company is about to offer,
hopefully, medicine that may actually help Alzheimer's before the
symptoms are shown, which would be terrifically important in terms of
the grief that we will avoid for Americans and the cost that terrible
disease is causing. But that is $3 billion spent without any ``profit''
yet. That is what a marketplace allows. Now, in marketplaces there can
be abuses. My point of view is that, generally, what you want to do is
have the most amount of competition in the marketplace possible, and
that is what we can talk about as we go forward.
I don't think we gain much when we give these speeches about
Republicans and Democrats. I don't think people like to hear it; maybe
they do. I don't give them, but I am doing it today just because I have
heard so much of it from the other side. I don't like it, frankly; I
don't like it at all. I mean, I never got a result by talking about my
opponents' political party. I never moved an education bill through
without giving credit to the other side, and a genuine amount of
credit.
I didn't mention that the President himself, with whom I am working
on 21st century cures, proposed in his budget to cut the National
Institutes of Health by $1 billion. I could come down here and say
that. I could have gone to the committee hearing and said that. I never
mentioned it in the hearing because my goal was not to embarrass the
President or make a political point. My goal was to see if we could
find some consensus to move ahead at the most exciting time of
biomedical education. And 20 of the 22 of us voted for this bill.
So I would like to ratchet down the partisan rhetoric. If people want
to point out the difficulties with drug companies and with the
marketplace and with Republicans and billionaires, there is a time and
place for that. But today we are talking about these children--the
7,800 children at St. Jude Hospital. Doctors have told us that if we
extend the Isakson-Casey bill for a period of time to give enough
certainty so that drug makers will make more drugs to deal with rare
diseases, these children will live longer. And 20 of the 22 of us
agreed with that, and we would like to see it move forward.
So I am delighted to work with the Senator from Vermont and the
Senator from Massachusetts. I am glad we have a temporary solution that
will take us through the end of the year, but that is not the best
solution because it still provides a lot of uncertainty and will not do
as good a job as the doctors say we should do.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my colleagues
for being here today to debate these issues. I appreciate Senator
Isakson's work with us--Senators Sanders, Warren, and Alexander.
I think we agree on two things, believe it or not. No. 1, both sides
of the aisle here want to make progress as it relates to curing rare
pediatric diseases. That is No. 1. I think there is agreement on that.
No. 2, there is agreement to extend the existing program, which has
already helped enormously to advance that first cause. We are in
agreement to extend that until the end of the year. That is a
bipartisan agreement. We will work out the details for that, and we
will keep working on these issues when we get back.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Democrats control the next 30 minutes and the Republicans control the
following 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
St. Cloud, Minnesota, Stabbings
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Central
States Pension Fund crisis and a proposal to address that, but before I
do, I want to take a moment to talk about the horrific events that
unfolded in St. Cloud, MN, this past weekend.
The investigation is ongoing, but we know that last Saturday evening
a man dressed in a security guard uniform took to the Crossroads Mall
in St. Cloud, MN, and senselessly stabbed nine people. Fortunately,
they have all been treated and discharged. This was a heinous attack,
and I hope that all the victims and their families know that
Minnesotans are thinking of them.
Mr. President, I also want to commend the actions of Jason Falconer,
the off-duty police officer who bravely stopped the attacker before he
could hurt anybody else. If it weren't for him, we could have seen many
more injuries and even the loss of life.
I also want to thank the St. Cloud police force and the police chief,
William Blair Anderson, who set an example of how to lead during a
crisis. I also thank the first responders and the doctors and the
nurses for taking care of the victims.
This event has shaken the city of St. Cloud and our entire State.
Such senseless and hate-filled acts have no place in our society.
Minnesota law enforcement and the FBI are investigating this event to
see whether there were connections between the suspect and terrorist
groups and what the motivations of the attacker were. We are going to
get to the bottom of what happened.
Central States Pension Fund
Now, Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues to
highlight a very important issue, the multiemployer pension system,
which is facing severe funding shortfalls, and what that means for
hundreds of thousands of retirees who will get their pensions cut if
these funds fail.
Over the last year, a number of my colleagues came to the Senate
floor to talk about protecting the pensions of the United Mine Workers
of America, the miners who toiled for years in dark, dirty, and
dangerous mines to power our country. I am pleased the
[[Page S5941]]
Committee on Finance has now taken action to begin moving a bill to
address that issue.
But today we are here to talk about another group of retirees who
face drastic pension cuts. The Central States Pension Fund provides
pensions for 22,000 blue-collar workers in Minnesota and nearly 400,000
nationwide. However, it faces a funding shortfall that means those
retirees, including elderly workers and widows and the disabled, could
face draconian cuts in less than a decade if Congress fails to act.
Mr. President, those who work hard and are promised retirement
security ought to be able to retire with dignity. That is a promise
Congress made in 1974 when it enacted a law that guaranteed pensions
would not be reduced, and that is what workers thought they could count
on after years of hard work. But now that promise may be broken.
If we break that promise, workers like Ken Petersen of South St.
Paul, MN, will face spending the rest of their lives in poverty. Ken
spent 30 years driving trucks as a Teamster before he retired in 2003.
If the Central States fund is allowed to fail, Ken and his wife's
retirement plans will be shattered and they will face financial
uncertainty for the rest of their lives.
It is wrong for us to abandon the blue-collar Americans who earned a
modest retirement after a lifetime of work, and I am not going to stand
idly by while those workers have their retirement and their dignity
taken away from them.
My approach would be to close a tax loophole that no one defends. It
is called carried interest and allows Wall Street bankers and private
equity fund managers to pay lower tax rates than most of the Central
States Pension Fund members who drive trucks for a living pay. Again,
to be clear, no one defends this loophole--not Democrats, not
Republicans, and neither of their Presidential candidates. And closing
it is one way we could help make sure our retirees get the pensions
they have earned.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this loophole will cost
taxpayers $15.9 billion over the next 10 years. That is enough to make
sure Central States' retirees are able to have a secure retirement, and
I think is a much better use of that money than giving an indefensible
tax break to a relatively small group of already very wealthy people.
Here is how carried interest works. When most workers, such as those
in the Central States fund, earn a paycheck, their income is subject to
tax at ordinary income tax rates. But private equity fund managers have
been claiming their income is different simply because their job
involves managing money. As a result, they pay taxes at the special low
rate reserved for capital gains even if they are risking no money of
their own. The same is true for managers of hedge funds if, say, a
stock their fund has held for a year--stock bought with their
investors' money--is sold for a profit. The manager gets a percentage
of the profit, but they pay capital gains on that income even though
they didn't risk any of their money.
People who worked hard--like those truck drivers--were guaranteed
their pensions would be there. It is up to us to keep faith with those
people by closing this loophole. Again, no one defends this.
Let's not forget what happened on Wall Street less than a decade ago.
Risky bets by hedge funds, private equity funds, and big banks caused
the biggest financial crisis of our lifetimes. And when that happened,
Congress bailed out the banks with $700 billion of taxpayer money.
Today, those banks and private equity funds are back to business as
usual, but retirees from funds like Central States, which was fully
funded before the financial crisis, haven't received the same support.
Instead, they are going to be facing devastating cuts at times in their
lives when they can least afford them.
The hypocrisy is clear, but so far, my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle haven't been willing to propose real solutions to fix the
pension crisis. Instead, they are offering paper solutions that put the
burden entirely on beneficiaries or simply kick the can down the road.
We need a real solution, and that is going to require us to take a
good look at our priorities. Do we want to continue to subsidize Wall
Street or do we want to help the hard-working men and women who
dedicated their lives to driving our trucks, keeping us safe, and
maintaining our roads?
I think we need to acknowledge that Federal funds are going to be
needed to keep the promises made to our retirees. Our Tax Code is
riddled with loopholes that could be closed to fix this problem, but
let's start with the most obvious and absurd tax loophole. We should
close the carried interest loophole that helps private equity fund
managers and hedge fund managers, and invest that money in the
hardworking Americans whose retirement is being threatened.
I yield to Senator Klobuchar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to also speak about the
Central States Pension Fund, and I acknowledge my other colleagues
speaking on it, Senator Franken and Senator Brown as well as Senator
Wyden. I appreciate your being here, as well as the ranking member on
the Finance Committee.
St. Cloud, Minnesota, Stabbings
Mr. President, before I address that, I also want to address the
horrific act of violence that occurred at the Crossroads Center mall in
St. Cloud. This is a mall that I have been to many times. It is a
thriving mall. A lot of people in that area go there, and, in fact,
their sense of safety was shattered that evening. There were 10
victims. At first they thought there were 9 victims, but a video showed
there were 10. One is a pregnant woman who was nine months along. By
some grace of God, no one was seriously injured, and no one died.
It was terror that I don't think any of us can imagine. People were
there with their families shopping, and this happened. The first thing
we know is that the mayor and the chief--Mayor Kleis, whom I have
worked with for many years, a former Republican legislator who has been
a very strong leader of this town, and Chief Anderson, who has been the
chief there for many years--have shown that kind of strength in leaders
that you would like. Immediately, they came out and explained to the
community what happened and told them the honest truth--that they were
still gathering the facts. They got the FBI involved, and this is being
investigated as a potential act of terrorism. We still do not know all
the facts. We hope to have them soon. Mostly, they were able to bring
some calm to the community. They were shopping at the mall--I talked to
the mayor last night--to show their citizens that they are not going to
let this act of violence bring down their town.
We are well aware that ISIS sent out a statement claiming some
responsibility. We do not know if that is true. We do know that the FBI
is investigating any terrorist connections that this man has had, and
we await the outcome of this investigation.
The one thing we do know is that due to the courageous actions of the
off-duty officer, Jason Falconer, lives were saved. Because of the good
work of the first responders and the reaction of those present at the
mall, lives were saved and no one died. This particular officer was
there off-duty and had the presence of mind to come to the rescue of
all these people, and we thank him for that.
The last thing I would say about this is, talking to the mayor and
having been in the community, I know how hard they have been working to
bridge divides. There was a beautiful picture in the Star Tribune, and
I am sure in the St. Cloud paper as well, about the rally of unity that
they had in the community. They have now had two. One was in the
college, and the Somali community spoke and strongly condemned this
violence in a way that was very heartfelt.
This community is an important part of the fabric of life in our
State and an important part of the fabric of life, as Senator Franken
knows, in St. Cloud. We will continue to work with them. We thank the
mayor, the chief, Officer Falconer, and all those involved for their
leadership.
Central States Pension Fund
Mr. President, back to the issue of the Central States Pension Fund,
I was pleased to see that the Finance Committee addressed some
retirement and
[[Page S5942]]
pension issues today in their markup. We must also address the Central
States Pension Fund. I believe that promises made are promises kept.
The promise made to the workers in the multiemployer pension plans
like those in the Central States Pension Fund is simple; that is, the
pension that they have earned through their decades of hard work will
be there when they retire.
Saving for retirement is often described as a three-legged stool--
Social Security on one leg, a pension on one leg, and personal savings
on another. A stable and secure retirement relies on all three legs
being strong, but some multiemployer pension plans are facing funding
challenges that could weaken one of those legs.
Over 10 million Americans participate in a multiemployer pension plan
and rely on these benefits for a safe and secure retirement.
Multiemployer plans are set up as part of a collective bargaining
agreement between workers and many employers generally in one industry.
The Central States Pension Fund is such a plan. It was established in
1955 to help truckers save for their retirement. Today, the Central
States Pension Fund includes workers from the carhaul, tankhaul,
pipeline, warehouse, construction, clerical, food processing, dairy,
and trucking industries.
About 70 multiemployer pension plans are facing funding challenges
and do not have sufficient plan assets to pay all of the benefits
promised. The Multiemployer Pension Relief Act was added to the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, in the
House. I voted against the Multiemployer Pension Relief Act because I
was concerned that this bill would lead to severe pension cuts for our
retirees and, in fact, disproportionately impact certain workers in
certain States, including Minnesota.
I believe we need to work together to find solutions that maintain
the solvency of these multiemployer pension plans without severely
penalizing current retirees, active employees, and beneficiaries. I,
too, am in favor of closing the carried interest loophole, and I
appreciate my colleague's work on this particular solution.
Hundreds of thousands of participants in the Central States Pension
Fund still face the real possibility that their hard-earned pensions
could be reduced. As I noted, they are mostly in the Midwest. That is
why it is called the Central States plan. This affects workers and
retirees from these States: nearly 34,000 workers and retirees in Ohio,
nearly 31,000 in Michigan, over 21,000 in Minnesota, over 18,000 in
Wisconsin, and nearly 1,500 in North Dakota. In fact, seven of the top
States in the Central States are Midwestern States.
In September, 2015, Central States submitted a proposal to the
Treasury to reduce pension benefits for workers and retirees. Treasury
reviewed the proposal, which would have resulted in benefit cuts for
over 270,000 retirees and workers. In May, the workers and retirees
narrowly avoided these cuts when the Treasury Department--after going
around the country listening to the workers and looking at the plan--
rejected the proposal because they felt it did not meet the test under
the act.
That doesn't mean this is over. It is far from over. The Central
States Pension Fund still faces insolvency by 2025. The current and
future retirees could still face cuts. I voted against the act because
I was concerned that under this act we might see exactly the kind of
cuts that were proposed. What we saw were deep benefit cuts to our
workers and retirees, and what we saw was that the size of the
potential cuts for the workers, retirees, and beneficiaries was not
fairly distributed.
Retirees who are 80 and older and disabled individuals were
protected. That was the right thing to do. For everyone else, the
possible cuts would leave them with a pension that did not reward their
years of work. While many faced cuts of 30 percent, 40 percent, or even
50 percent, I think people would be shocked to learn that over 44,000
people faced pension cuts of over 60 percent and nearly 2,500 people
faced possible cuts of over 70 percent.
I do not believe that when my colleagues voted for this, they thought
they were actually voting for 70-percent pension cuts, but that
actually is the result of that proposed plan. While we understand that
there may be changes and that there may be more cuts, or some cuts,
there must be a better way to do this than what was proposed.
I heard from people across my State who were trying to figure out how
they were going to make ends meet as they faced these drastic cuts.
Michael from Shoreview wrote to me about how he was facing a possible
cut of 40 percent. Thomas from Sandstone is 71 years old and, after
paying into the Central States plan for 30 years, was facing a 60
percent cut. Steve from Maple Grove wrote me to let me know that he is
69 years old and is unable to return to work, but his pension would be
cut by 37 percent.
Those are a few examples. Many of these people are in their 60s and
70s, and they should be able to secure in their retirement what they
have worked for their entire lives. While we temporarily averted this
with the proposal being rejected, we know it is not going to go away.
The Central States Pension Fund filed its petition to reduce pension
benefits. Since then, an additional eight plans have also filed
petitions.
Congress needs to work together to find a bipartisan solution to help
pensioners across Minnesota and our country--people who depend on their
pensions being there for them in their golden years. We owe it to all
Americans who played by the rules and worked hard throughout their
lives for a secure pension.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Franken-
Klobuchar request to speak on this issue?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes remain.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know Senator Brown
feels very strongly about this, as well, so I am going to make a few
remarks and leave time for him. I want to commend Senator Franken and
Senator Klobuchar, who have talked to me about this issue many times.
Today in the Finance Committee, with a significant bipartisan vote,
we were able to pass the miners legislation to address the health care
and retirement needs of those miners. As my two colleagues have pointed
out, at its heart, this is the same emergency. Today it is the mine
workers. Tomorrow it could be the truckers. The next day it could be
the construction workers and the woodworkers in my part of the United
States. As my colleagues have said, the reason that is the case is that
for generations of Americans, getting a good-paying job came with a
simple bargain: You worked hard, you earned a wage and benefits, and
those benefits wouldn't be taken away.
Today, bit by bit, that bargain is crumbling. There are two points
that I would touch on so that Senator Brown can have some time, if his
schedule permits. I think Senator Klobuchar has made a very good point
about how important it is that Congress address this issue because,
with respect to troubled systems like Central States, Congress is
partially responsible for creating the problem.
As Senator Klobuchar noted, 2 years ago Congress passed a bill--a
bill that I was very much opposed to--the Multiemployer Pension Reform
Act. It was slipped into a must-pass government funding package, and it
gave a green light to slashing benefits in a lot of struggling
multiemployer plans. In effect, for a generation of workers, it said:
Sorry, times have changed. The benefits that you earned are no longer
going to be protected, and the weight of this economic transformation
in America is going to fall on you.
It wasn't fair and it wasn't practical. I certainly share the view of
my colleagues who said it was a good thing Treasury rejected the
proposal that would have cut benefits earlier this year. Obviously we
are going to have to take more steps to shore up the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, which is a financial lifeline for 10 million
workers, and we are going to have to look at a variety of approaches.
I very much share the views Senator Franken spoke about, which
Senator Klobuchar supports as well, when he talked about this rotting
economic carcass known as the Federal Tax Code and how unfair it is to
working families. My colleagues have just pointed out one example.
[[Page S5943]]
Let me say that at the heart of the bipartisan tax reform proposals I
have written over the last decade is my sense that we now have a tax
code that really represents a tale of two systems. If you are
influential and well connected, you can pretty much decide what kinds
of taxes you are going to pay and when you are going to pay them. A
fortunate few basically have that kind of opportunity. But the people
my colleagues have been talking about--for example, truckers--don't
have a tax code like that. Once or twice a month, those truckers have
taxes extracted from their paychecks. They see it on their paychecks.
There are no loopholes or anything that states about whether it is
carried interest or derivatives or half a dozen other things; they just
have their taxes extracted and there are no writeoffs or any kind of
figuring out what you are going to pay and when you are going to pay
it. It comes right off your paycheck.
We have a lot of heavy lifting to do. Today, it seems to me that
Congress began the task. I can tell my colleagues that there is so much
work to do to modernize these pension and retirement systems.
Chairman Hatch agreed to a proposal that I made today to allow people
to contribute to their IRAs after they are 70\1/2\ years old. That
proposal was adopted, as Senator Franken may know, sometime in the
early 1960s. I won't pretend to be anywhere near as humorous as my
colleagues, but I finally said--I thanked Chairman Hatch for adopting
my proposal that let's people over 70\1/2\ contribute to their IRAs
because people are living longer and feeling better. It doesn't seem
that it makes much sense to have so many Senators and working Americans
younger than the retirement laws that were adopted for a different
time.
We have a lot to do. First and foremost, we have to shore up Central
States. We will be looking at a variety of approaches on how to do
that, and, as both of my colleagues have said, a fundamental part of
what we are going to have to do is fix this broken tax system.
When I start talking about the Tax Code as a rotting economic
carcass, my wife always says: Will you just stop there, dear, because
you are frightening the children? We have small children. The reality
is, this Tax Code is infected with loopholes and the inversion virus.
It just goes on and on.
As my colleagues have said, it is not right for working families--
particularly those who are depending on Central States pensions--to
sort of hang in suspended animation, hoping that somehow there is going
to be a piece of legislation that will pass through here so that they
will get something resembling what they were promised--a dignified
retirement based on the pension they earned.
I commend my colleagues for doing this. This comes at the end of the
day where at least we began the long push to pension reform with a
successful bipartisan effort on miners, but, as my colleagues have
said, this work has just begun.
I thank Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar for their commitment
and their eloquence.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, it has now been 4 months since the U.S.
Treasury did the right thing and rejected the Central States Teamsters
pension fund plan to cut the premiums they had earned through a
lifetime of hard work. That was a win for all of us who urged Treasury
to reject these cuts. Most importantly, it was a win for the thousands
of retirees who worked so hard to protect what they had earned.
However, that win did not solve the underlying issue. It was not even
close to the end of this fight. It was the first necessary step. The
Central States Pension Fund is still in the red and on a path where in
a few short years it will be unable to pay out the benefits it owes to
our retirees.
If a pension fund is in bad shape, it is our job to fix it, not to
break promises to Americans who have worked their whole lives to earn
those pensions. This is retirement security these Teamsters have worked
for, fought for, and sacrificed raises for.
I remind my colleagues--especially those who spend much of their
effort here fighting organized drives for unions, oppose any effort to
strengthen unions, and attempt to pass legislation to weaken unions--
that at the negotiating table time and time again since the Wagner Act
passed 75 years ago, workers have given up wages in order to fund
pensions and health care in their later years. That is good for them,
it is good for their families, it is good for their communities, and it
is good for our society because it means they are prepared in their
older years and won't rely on the State to keep them going. Of course,
they still get Social Security and all of that, but they are prepared
because they have given up wages today for benefits in the future. We
should applaud them instead of criticizing the UAW, the Teamsters, and
the steelworkers for their ``legacy costs.''
These are pensions that they gave up health care packages for and
were promised they would earn over a lifetime of hard work. Just ask
Rita Lewis. She is a friend of mine from Westchester, OH, in southwest
Ohio. She knows a thing or two about hard work. Her husband Butch
worked as a trucker for 40 years with the promise that the pension he
earned would be there to care for his family after he retired. When the
pension came under threat, he worked to protect it for himself, his
beloved Rita, and hundreds of thousands of other Teamsters. Rita has
been left to continue Butch's fight alone. He passed away on New Year's
Eve due to a stroke, which some have attributed, at least in part, to
the stress he faced in fighting for his Teamster brothers and sisters
in support of their pensions.
Butch told us that the cuts being forced on retirees amount to a war
against the middle class and the American dream, and he was right. That
war has already claimed enough victims.
We used to have a compact in this country that promised that if you
work hard, play by the rules, and do what people expect you to do, you
will be able to spend time with your grandchildren and not worry about
how to make ends meet. Workers have more than held up their end of the
bargain. It is time for both parties to come together and hold up our
end before we leave town.
This Senate, as we have heard repeatedly, has not done its job. Under
Leader McConnell, this Senate has been in session less than any Senate
in the last 60-plus years. It is simply not doing its job. We are not
doing what we should on Zika. We are not doing what we should on the
coal miners' pension. We are not doing what we should on Central
States. We are not doing what we should to confirm a Supreme Court
Justice. It will be the longest time since the Civil War that a Supreme
Court spot has been vacant.
We owe it to our constituents on this one and on others not to leave
town but to support a bipartisan, long-term solution to protect the
benefits they earned and they were promised. This fix needs to be
sustainable from now into the future, not the piecemeal plan that
addresses problems with current policy but does nothing to solve the
underlying issues.
Our Teamsters and their families need the peace of mind to know this
nightmare is finally behind them. We need a plan that is bipartisan so
we can get this done.
I was encouraged this morning when we held a markup on a plan to deal
with the mine workers' pension, which is also under threat. We have had
some good bipartisan work to find possible solutions to this crisis. We
need the same spirit of cooperation on behalf of our Teamsters.
My wife and I live in Cleveland, OH, in ZIP Code 44105. The ZIP Code
where my wife and I live, in 2007, had more foreclosures in the first
half in 2007 than any ZIP Code in the United
[[Page S5944]]
States. I drive through this neighborhood and there are still far too
many homes boarded up, still far too many families dislocated, still
far too many children just pulled from one school district to another.
The pages sitting here--I assume most of them have pretty stable
lives, where they are able to go to school year after year with the
same friends, same classrooms, same schools, same teachers, but think
about it. What we all do on this floor we are all paid well for. We
have good benefits. For some reason, we don't think other Americans
should have the same health care benefits we do, and that is a whole
other issue. We don't think enough about people who struggle, who might
have their house foreclosed on, who might have been evicted. We don't
think about those kids who go from one school district to another. We
don't think about these Teamsters families. You are 65 years old and
you are retiring. You have planned your life in a way that your Social
Security--$1,100, $1,200 $1,300 a month--your retirement pension from
the Teamsters, from Central State, you have calculated that. You know
you are not going to be rich, but you are going to be comfortable
enough, and you start having sleepless nights thinking about what is
going to happen to your pension.
Lincoln used to say he wanted to get out of the White House. Staff
said: Stay here. Win the war. Free the slaves. Lincoln said: No, I have
to get out of the White House and get my public opinion baths. Pope
Francis exhorted his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock,
with all the Biblical connotations of that.
In this body, we don't think very much. We don't go enough to a labor
hall or to a church basement or to a veterans hall and just sit there
and listen to people's problems.
The person who sat at this desk right before I did was Jay
Rockefeller, the Senator from West Virginia. He used to go out by
himself with no media and spend 2\1/2\ hours speaking to the miners in
West Virginia. He said: I learned to listen to them with soft nods and
soft eyes, to really listen and look in their eyes and pay attention to
what their lives were like. He was a Rockefeller and had no financial
struggles, but he recognized he needed to talk to people who did.
That is whom I want my colleagues to think about, not to go to
another fundraiser at a fancy restaurant or spend their time at a
country club in Dallas or wherever they live but instead start thinking
about what these Teamsters' lives are like, when they expected this
pension and are not getting it. Think about these widows of mine
workers, understanding that mine workers are more likely to die younger
from illness or from dangerous work or from injury than most workers in
this country and certainly younger than Senators. Think about those
mine workers' widows who might lose their pensions because the
Republican leader in this body doesn't like unions and he doesn't like
the mine workers and he has blocked us from doing this. This is not
personal. I was just on the stage with Senator McConnell. He is a nice
man. I like him, but he is not doing his job. The Senate is not doing
its job to take care of these workers who have huge numbers of veterans
among the Teamsters, a lot more than there are veterans in the U.S.
Senate.
We have a lot of work to do, and we shouldn't be leaving here without
doing our jobs.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Merrick Garland
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it has been 189 days since President
Obama nominated a distinguished jurist, Merrick Garland, to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
I know there are a lot of issues on people's minds every day because
they are working hard and taking the kids to school and putting food on
the table and all of the hard work that goes on every day for families,
and sometimes talking about the Supreme Court may seem a little
abstract to people. I want to speak a little bit about why Americans
should care, beyond the fact that we all care about the fact that we
have three branches of government under our Constitution, and we need
them all fully functioning.
That was the point of our Founding Fathers, to make sure we had three
functioning branches, and right now we have one that is not fully
functioning. In fact, when they sit, starting October 3, there is going
to be a vacant chair because we will not have fulfilled the
responsibility of the U.S. Senate of confirming someone for that ninth
seat.
Why does that matter to people? Well, over our lifetimes, great
debates have gone on about quality education and equal access to
schools regardless of where a child lives. It is very important not
only for children and for families but for an economy that can function
and a country that can function.
Very important decisions have been made that affect every
neighborhood in America, every family in America. We have seen issues
related to equality in the workplace and in housing and access to
credit, if you want to buy a house or you want to start a business. We
have seen a whole range of issues that directly affect all of us.
Frankly, the third branch of government, as we know, is a check on us,
a check on Congress, and on the Presidency to make sure we have the
watchdog looking at what we are doing from the lens of the U.S.
Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and making sure we are all living
up to that document that is the cornerstone of our country.
So the Supreme Court matters. What happens matters.
Years ago, in 1937--I don't think any of us were here; if we were, we
weren't very old at that time--but there was a case called West Coast
Hotel v. Parrish. It happened in 1937. Elsie Parrish worked as a maid
in Washington State and she sued to be paid the $14.50 a week she was
owed under the Washington State law. Her case made it all the way to
the Supreme Court, and it was settled in a 5-to-4 decision. Obviously,
it was a very close vote, and without that majority, we wouldn't have a
minimum wage today. That was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-
to-4 decision.
Today we all understand that everybody who works hard every day ought
to be able to be above the poverty line. I certainly believe that, and
we certainly have much to do to make sure our minimum wage keeps up,
but if we didn't have that case, people would have a much lower
standard of living. We wouldn't necessarily have a minimum wage that
sets a floor for everyone's wages in America, as well as addresses
equal pay as it relates to wages across the country.
There are so many ways in which the Court impacts our lives. We have
had multiple health care decisions, certainly, as it relates to the
Affordable Care Act and whether we will have competitive health
exchanges so people can purchase insurance at lower rates, and whether
we are all in this together so that if we all have insurance, then we
are able to have important policies fulfilled, such as no preexisting
conditions, so that if you have cancer or your child has diabetes or
you have had a heart attack or some other chronic disease, you can
purchase health insurance. This is all tied up in implications from
Court decisions that relate to health care, and multiple other
decisions that relate to health care, and whether 20 million people who
now have health care in our country would be having health care if it
were not for a Supreme Court decision or decisions as it relates to
health care policy.
So workers and families across America need nine Supreme Court
Justices. We need to make sure that when October 3 comes along and the
picture is taken of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is not a vacant seat
here.
We have heard Justice Kagan, for example, who said: A tie does nobody
any good. Presumably, we are here for a reason. They are there to
resolve cases that need deciding and answer hotly contested issues that
need resolving. They can't do that with a tie vote.
The fact is, unfortunately, the Republican majority is refusing to
even give Judge Garland a hearing despite the fact that he has been
praised over the years by Members on both sides of the aisle for his
integrity and his commitment to the judiciary. It makes one
[[Page S5945]]
wonder why it is that this seat is being left open. There can be really
only one conclusion, and that is that the seat is being left open for
the Republican nominee, even though Republican colleagues are stepping
away at every turn from the comments made by the nominee and distancing
themselves. They are basically saying: We think the Republican nominee
should make that appointment. Even though he has no respect for the
judiciary, they believe he should be appointing the new Supreme Court
Justice. That can be the only conclusion as to why we would see the
majority waiting right now. I realize it makes no sense. We will see
the third branch of government effectively go for a year, maybe more,
without being able to fully function because of people not being
willing to do their job because they are waiting to have Mr. Trump fill
that seat. I find that embarrassing and extremely concerning for all of
us.
It is time for Senate Republicans to do their job. It is very simple.
We all have a job to do. None of us would be able to just tell our
employer that a major part of our job is something that we just don't
feel like doing for a year, so we are not going to do it. We could say
that, but when I talk to people about that, they say: Yeah, chances are
I would be fired. I certainly wouldn't be paid if I didn't do my job.
Yet here, despite our constitutional responsibility to fill that spot,
the Senate Republican majority is not doing its job.
Doing our job doesn't mean we have to vote yes. We can vote yes; we
can vote no. You can vote yes or no in a hearing, yes or no on the
floor. But we have a constitutional responsibility to consider a
nominee from the President, to meet with him, to consider his record,
to ask questions, to have a hearing, to have a vote, and then people
can vote yes or no. You can vote yes or no, but we do have an
obligation to vote.
From my perspective, there is no way I can explain to people back
home in Michigan why that seat has been left open for any valid reason,
unfortunately, other than politics, and that is just not good enough
when it comes to fulfilling our job and making sure the third branch of
government can fully do its job.
Mr. President, I am calling on the Republicans to hold a hearing. We
still have time to hold a hearing, and we can hold a vote before we
leave. This is a choice by the majority--a conscious choice--but there
is time to hold a hearing and there is time to have a vote so that when
October 1 comes, there will be the full nine U.S. Supreme Court
Justices sitting, ready to do their job.
Do your job. That is what we need to have happen.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Special Immigrant Visa Program
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to once
again urge that we extend the Special Immigrant Visa Program for Afghan
interpreters who put their lives on the line while serving alongside
Americans in Afghanistan. Unless we act, Congress is going to let this
program lapse in just a matter of months. We will abandon thousands of
Afghans who helped our men and women on the ground during the long
conflict in Afghanistan. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a
matter of life and death. Afghan interpreters who served the U.S.
mission are being systematically hunted down by the Taliban, and we
must not abandon them.
The United States promised to protect these Afghans, who served our
mission with great loyalty and at such enormous risk. It would be a
stain on America's national honor to break this promise. It would also
carry profound strategic costs. U.S. forces and diplomats have always
relied on local people to help us accomplish our mission. We continue
to need this assistance in Afghanistan. We need the support in other
places in the future. So we have to ask why anyone would agree to help
the United States if we abandon those who have assisted us in the past.
That is exactly why the former commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan,
GEN David Petraeus, and his predecessor, GEN Stanley McChrystal, have
pleaded with Congress to extend the Afghan SIV Program.
In a recent letter to Congress, more than 30 prominent generals,
including Gen. John Allen, the former commander in Afghanistan; GEN
George Casey, the former commander in Iraq; and two former Chairmen of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Richard Myers and GEN Hugh Shelton, also
urged the Congress to extend the program.
In addition, our soldiers and marines are very interested in
protecting the interpreters who served with them in Afghanistan. Many
of them owe their lives to the interpreters who went into combat with
them.
In recent years, I have gotten to know former Army CPT Michael Breen.
He is a Granite Stater who served with the infantry in Iraq and led
paratroopers in Afghanistan. He speaks with admiration about one
interpreter in particular, an Iraqi woman in her early twenties named
Wissam. On one occasion, Captain Breen and his soldiers were at a small
forward operating base in Iraq. A man approached them, frantically
pointing to his watch and indicating an explosion with his hands. The
Americans didn't speak Arabic, so they couldn't tell if the man was
trying to warn them or threaten them. Wissam hurried toward Captain
Breen to assist. Wissam was beloved by her American comrades, always
cheerful and always willing to help. She listened to the man and said
that he was warning of an IED on the main road.
Captain Breen later said: ``A trusted interpreter can be the
difference between a successful patrol and a body bag.'' He noted that
every night he and his fellow soldiers would hunker down in their
heavily guarded perimeter, but Wissam would leave the compound and go
home. One evening after she left the American compound, three gunmen
ambushed her car. She was killed--one more interpreter who paid the
ultimate price for serving the American mission.
Captain Breen later said: One day there will be a granite monument
with the names of all the American servicemembers who died in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Wissam deserves to have her name on that monument because
she took great risks and gave her life while serving the United States.
As many of our colleagues know, the SIV Program allows Afghans who
supported our mission and faced grave threats as a result to seek
refuge in America. To be eligible, new applicants must demonstrate at
least 2 years of faithful and valuable service on the ground with
Americans. To receive a visa, they must also clear a rigorous screening
process that includes an independent verification of their service and
then an intensive interagency security review.
A typical example is an Afghan interpreter who served with U.S.
forces from 2008 to 2015. Because he is in danger, I am not going to
use his name. Last December, he was gravely wounded in an IED attack
that robbed him of one eye and it destroyed his vision in the other. He
applied for a special immigrant visa after being wounded, and he is in
the early stages of the interagency vetting process. But unless
Congress acts, there may not be a visa available for him once he
completes that vetting.
We know that the service of these individuals has been critical to
our successes in Afghanistan. In some cases recipients of special
immigrant visas have continued to serve the U.S. mission after arriving
in this country. One promptly enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces and
later worked as a cultural adviser to the military. Another graduated
from Indiana University and Georgetown. He has worked as an instructor
at the Defense Language Institute. A third, who worked as a senior
adviser in the U.S. Embassy, now serves on the board of a nonprofit,
working to promote a safe and stable Afghanistan.
These many contributions help explain why senior U.S. commanders and
diplomats have urged Congress to extend the Afghan SIV program.
Appearing last week at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Army
Chief of Staff GEN Mark Milley added strong support. Speaking of Afghan
interpreters he said: ``Those are brave men
[[Page S5946]]
and women who have fought along our side and there are American men and
women in uniform who are alive today because a lot of those Afghans put
their lives on the line.''
At that same hearing, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller also
stressed the importance of the program and the need for Congress to
extend it. Their view is shared by our senior diplomats.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who served in Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012
recently wrote:
Taking care of those who took care of us is not just an act
of basic decency; it is also in our national interest.
American credibility matters. Abandoning these allies would
tarnish our reputation.
Well, I agree. Indeed, I think there is overwhelming bipartisan
support in both houses of Congress for extending the Afghan SIV
program. Yet, because of the opposition of a handful of Members,
Congress, by default, could allow this program to expire in a matter of
months. This would put in jeopardy the lives of thousands of Afghans
who have served alongside our fighting forces.
Make no mistake, it would also jeopardize our reputation as a country
that keeps its promises and stands by those who assist our missions. In
past years, Senators have overwhelmingly supported the authorization of
additional special immigrant visas for Afghan interpreters.
On both sides of the aisle, we have agreed that it is important to
make good on our promise to these Afghan allies. But sadly, this year
has been different. Several Members have objected. It is evident to me
that the anti-immigration passions that have been stoked during this
Presidential campaign by Donald Trump have contributed to this impasse.
The irresponsible rhetoric about immigrants is offensive to American
values and it ignores what makes America great. Across nearly four
centuries, immigrants have brought their energy and talents to our
country, building the most successful and dynamic economy on Earth.
Our Nation has always been welcoming to immigrants. In fact, all of
us here are immigrants, unless we are Native Americans. We should be
especially welcoming to those who served alongside American soldiers
and marines in combat and have been so essential to carrying out our
mission in Afghanistan.
The Iraq and Afghan Veterans of America and other organizations
representing hundreds of thousands of veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces
recently addressed a letter to Members of Congress. In that letter,
they respectfully but forcefully urged Congress to reauthorize the
special immigrant visa program.
I want to quote from this letter, because I think it reflects the
words of these American veterans:
Military service instills in a person certain values:
Loyalty. Duty. Respect. Honor. Integrity. . . . Breaking our
word directly violates these values. Many of us can point to
a moment when one of our foreign allies saved our lives--
often by taking up arms against our common enemies. . . .
Since our first days in boot camp, we accepted and practiced
the value: ``leave no one behind.'' Keep our word. Don't
leave anyone behind.
If we fail to extend the SIV program, Congress will have one more
opportunity and only one more opportunity this year. That opportunity
will come in the session following the election.
We must seize this opportunity to do the right thing for our country
and for the Afghan interpreters whose lives are at risk. We would never
leave an American warrior behind on the battlefield. Likewise, we must
not leave behind the Afghan interpreters who served side by side with
our warriors and diplomats. We made a solemn promise to these brave
people. I am going to do everything I can to ensure that we keep this
promise.
I urge my colleagues, when Congress returns in November, to join me
on a bipartisan basis for a program that has had bipartisan support. We
can extend the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program. We must do that.
It is in our national security interests to keep this promise that we
have made.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________