[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13201-13213]
[From the U.S. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.

[[Page 13202]]

  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 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

[[Page 13203]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13204]]

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 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 heroes 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

[[Page 13205]]

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 
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

[[Page 13206]]

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 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

[[Page 13207]]

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 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

[[Page 13208]]

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 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

[[Page 13209]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13210]]

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 States. I drive through 
this neighborhood and there are still far too many homes boarded up, 
still far too many

[[Page 13211]]

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.

[[Page 13212]]

  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 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

[[Page 13213]]

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 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.

                          ____________________