what do you think happens in yemen if we put more arms in yemen? more or less refugees? there will be millions of refugees coming. they will be flooding out of yemen if they can get out of there as the war accelerates. does saudi arabia help with the refugees? does qatar help? do any of the gulf states take any refugees? zero. saudi arabia has taken zero refugees. so while they fan the flames, while they send arms into syria and arms into yemen and bombs into yemen, they take zero refugees from yemen or from syria. somehow it always seems to be america's responsibility to pay for everything and to absorb the brunt of the civil wars throughout the middle east. i think there's another answer. i'm not saying that we can'ting

allied with saudi arabia, but i'm saying they need a significant message sent to them. i'm saying they need to change their behavior. and i'm saying that there needs to be evidence that saudi arabia has changed their behavior. this evidence needs to be that they quit funding madrasas that preach hate, that they come into the modern world and quit beheading people when they don't like what they say, that they quit beating and imprisoning the victims of rape. i think that we should think long and hard about war. i think war should always be the last resort and not the first resort. i don't think it should be easy to go to war. i think our founding fathers understood that. they did not want to give one man or one woman the power to declare war, the power to initiate war.

that power was specifically and explicitly given to congress. there is something to be said about the corrupting influence of power. lincoln said that if you want to test a man, give him power. that the true test of whether a man can resist the allure of power. i think this president has on many occasions failed that allure, whether it's privacy or whether it's issues of war, president obama once was a defender of privacy and once was a defender of the constitution. but for some reason the power of the office has caused him to forget, to forget the constitutional restraints that disallow even him from creating, causing, engaging in war without our permission. but there's blame to go around. we in partisan reasons want to

blame the other party sometimes. but if you look at the blame and who's to blame, there's a great deal of blame to go around. the president for taking us to war without our permission, but even more so congress's abdication of our role, abdication of our responsibility. the last vote on going to war was for the iraq war, 2002. we have not voted to go back to war. we have abdicated our responsibility. there's a young man in the military currently who is actually suing over an order he was given to go to war because he says it's not constitutional for me to go to war without the permission of congress. the president once understood this. this is a proxy debate over whether or not congress has a role, whether or not we're relevant in foreign policy and whether we will stand up and do our duty. we should be debating on this

floor with every member present whether or not the president will be authorized to fight a war in syria and iraq. we should also have that same debate in yemen because we are involved in the war in yemen and everyone who loses their life there believes it is not only saudi arabia that's bombing them. they believe that it's us. we are refueling the bombers in midair. we are helping to choose the targets. and we have people embedded within this war zone. so, make no mistake, we are at war in yemen and we're at war illegally and unconstitutionally and without the permission of congress. we should immediately stop everything we are doing and debate a use of authorizational force for the middle east. everybody says they're for it on both sides and yet it never happens because it's messy. it's messy also because i think the american people might wake up to the facts. they might wake up to the facts that you know what? isis grew in the midst of a

syrian civil war. they might wake up to the facts that our involvement in the yemen war may well make al qaeda stronger, may well make isis stronger. this is a twofold debate. it's a debate over whether or not you can go to war without the authority of congress. but it's also debate over selling arms and whether they'll be in our national interest. i think we still do own those arms. those arms are not privately owned bay company. -- by a company. they're owned by the taxpayer and they are by law restricted to where they can be sold. i don't believe that saudi arabia is a ally that we can trust. the fact that they continue to support schools in our country, continue to support schools that preach hatred of our country, preach hatred of israel, preach hatred of civilization as far as i'm concerned. i don't see how we send them the

correct message by saying you can have unlimited arms from us. some say this is too far. i say this is too little. but i think there will be -- there will be something that occurs today. it occurs despite what the majority wants. but this is a debate. but this isn't the end of the debate. if we lose the battle on the vote, we will have begun the debate over whether congress is relevant, whether or not we go to war without the permission of congress. this is the beginning of the debate, and part of the victory is that we are having this debate. but mark my words, we're only having this debate because it's been forced upon congress. no one on either side of the aisle wants this debate. if they could, this would be shuffled under the rug. it's only occurred because the law mandates that they allow it to occur. but this should be occurring on moments of war, on issues of war. and i regret that we don't do it

and i hope in the future this will be a lesson to the american people and to the senate that it is our duty and there is no duty above our duty to decide when and where we go to war. thank you. mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i have great respect for my colleague from kentucky. we've had great conversations about this. i think he's aware that i'm holding up, as chairman of the foreign relations committee, subsidies going to pakistan in their purchase of f-16's. and i do so because i don't believe we should be subsidizing a country that has been so duplicitous with us in so many ways. and so there are some issues that we agree with, including the fact that i'm glad to be having this debate. and i do think that congress is playing a role today. and regardless of how you vote, congress is exercising itself,

and i'm glad that that's occurring. i just think that it's cutting our nose off to spite our face to block a sale. a sale -- this is not being subsidized. saudi arabia is not a perfect ally, but they have chosen to pursue and purchase u.s. equipment versus russian equipment or chinese equipment or some other equipment. this is a sale that benefits us. it benefits our country in a number of ways. and if i could, i'll just lay those out one more time. number one, one of the things that has occurred with the iran deal is that we have upset to agree perceptually the balance of power in the middle east. even the president who brought forth the iran deal that i opposed and the majority of people here on the floor opposed, realized that that was going to be a problem. and so he convenes saudi arabia, u.a.e., some of our

other arab allies at camp david and suggested that we would expedite sales to these countries in order to push back against the nefarious activities that iran we know is conducting. all of us agree with that. they're a state sponsor of terror. so in essence, if we block a sale to a country that we've agreed in order to strengthen our alliance with them and to counter what iran is doing, all we're doing is cutting our nose off to spite our face. mr. mccain: would the gentleman yield for a question? mr. corker: yes,sir. mr. mccain: is it correct that in yemen the houthis are a proxy for iran? mr. corker: no question. mr. mccain: is it true that weapons supplies from iran have been intercepted? mr. corker: we've interdicted them several times. mr. mccain: is it true, would you estimate, given your knowledge of the issue, that if saudi arabia had not intervened in yemen, it would now become a

client state and taken over basically by the iranians? mr. corker: i don't think that's even debatable. mr. mccain: you agree -- mr. corker: that is correct. mr. mccain: isn't it true that in all conflicts that there is tragic, one of the tragedies, one of the great tragedies of conflict is that the innocent civilians have been slaughtered? mr. corker: no question. in fact we felt in some ways using what we call dumb bombs that civilians were being killed in inappropriate ways. they've used to moving p smart bombs and other kinds things to move away from that. we don't think saudi arabia has been perfect in yemen. no doubt civilians have been killed. but the facts that you're stating about pushing back against an iranian proxy is true. and had they not done that, the country would have fallen into their hands. no question.

mr. mccain: could i ask again from the chairman of the foreign relations committee, suppose that unimpeded the houthis, the clients of the iranians, had taken over the country of yemen. what would that do? would that indeed pose a threat, the straits of hormuz where there are already harassing naval vessels? mr. corker: it creates greater instability in a region that already is, had tremendous amounts of it. but no question, i mean it borders the strait. and again, it puts more of that in iranian hands, no question. mr. mccain: wouldn't it be accurate to state that your committee has held hearings on human rights. your mitt has advocated improvements of human rights in saudi arabia. and it is the thinking of almost all of us that we want to see more progress in that direction.

but isn't it true at the same time that when we look at what bashar al-assad is doing, when we look at the slaughter of 400,000 people in syria, 6 million refugees, would one assume that maybe, that this priority of the sponsors of this amendment might be a little bit misplaced? mr. corker: look, i -- again, i was speaking earlier about this issue which no one knows more about than you. one of the basic national interest that we haved we -- he middle east is the balance of power. as you know well, people in our country have been far more he reticent to have our own men and women on the ground in the middle east. that's just a fact. we know that. if that's the case, if you have

a country like saudi arabia that is willing to push back against these efforts which again further iran, it seems to me that we would want to allow them to buy equipment to be able to do that. it helps us from a balance of power. it helps us with an ally. it helps us push back against iran. the thing that i know you care so much about is our own readiness in the united states. it also keeps the lines of building equipment open that could be very useful to us down the road. so i don't understand what policy objective could possibly be achieved by blocking this sale. mr. mccain: could i ask one more question, and that is concerning the so-called 28 pages that recently have been declassified. isn't it true that that information implicates individual saudis as having been responsible for 9/11? isn't it true that no one disagrees with that? mr. corker: that is correct.

mr. mccain: but isn't it also true that the government of saudi arabia has not been implicated by the so-called 28 pages that were going to reveal the vast conspiracy that the government of saudi arabia allegedly for years had the adversaries had alleged that somehow the saudi government was involved. isn't it true that the 28 pages show that they were not? mr. corker: one of the things that's sad about this in some ways is everything you've said is true. but in addition to that, there are some intelligence community affidavits that go on top of these and explain even more fully that that is the case. and yet, those documents, because they are classified, likely will not be made available to the u.s. public. i've seen them, you've seen them. others here have seen them. there is a lot of, huge, huge machine understanding, if you will, about what these 28 pages

contain. and then what has come after that by other intelligence agencies here within our own country that further state with even greater strength some of the things you just said. there is just no evidence. mr. mccain: so if this amendmenl or this piece of legislation were passed, i would ask my friend, what message is sent? what message would we send? suppose that we voted in favor of this misguided resolution that we are now debating. not only to saudi arabia. mr. corker: i think it sends a signal -- look, i don't think anybody can debate -- we have had these discussions in our foreign relations committee. i know you have had them in the armed services where you are the distinguished chairman. i think everyone understands what a blow to our credibility on both sides of the aisle, this is not a pejorative statement,

has occurred to us since august, september, 2013. people understand that in the region and in the world, our credibility has diminished over the red line. this is just sending a signal to people even more fully that we cannot be counted upon, that the objectives that we lay out to achieve that balance of power to help our friends, to counter the nefarious activities that iran, everyone acknowledges is conducting cannot be trusted, and so it's another stake in the heart of the thing that we value most about our nation, and that's our credibility to others, and i hope this is defeated. i appreciate my friend from kentucky and his feelings about this particular issue. i don't look at this as a proxy for some other issue relative to the declaration of war. that to me is a stretch. this is about a direct

relationship be and other relationships that you are referring to and basically us demonstrating that we as a nation cannot be counted upon. mr. mccain: i want to thank my senator and chairman of the foreign relations committee for his stewardship of the foreign relations committee, for his in-depth knowledge and advocacy for a strong america and strong alliances, and i think your voice that you have added to this debate should have an effect i hope on both sides of the aisle, and i thank the senator for that. mr. paul: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: there is probably no greater issue before congress at any time in our lives or any time in our service than whether or not we should go to war, and i think it's a mistake to slide into war. i think it's a mistake to allow the power to declare war to fall

to one person. our founding fathers were very, very clear throughout the federalist papers, explicitly in the constitution that the power to declare war shouldn't go to one person, that the power to declare war should be determined by a vote of congress. we have abdicated that role, and the vote today is a vote over whether or not we should try to reclaim that power. now, some will say well, it's just arms, and if we don't sell them, somebody else will. well, you know, i don't think of national security as a jobs program. i don't think of whether we create jobs here at home. i think about the young man who lives down the road from me that lost both legs and an arm, okay. i think about the human toll of war. i think about whether or not there is a national security interest, but i think nothing at all about whether any jobs are created. if we make weapons and we have a weapons industry, that's good

for our country when we make them for ourselves, but when we're selling weapons around the world, by golly, we shouldn't sell weapons to people who are not putting them to good purpose. what we have found is that saudi arabia is an irresponsible ally. one of the great ironies that nobody here can quite explain is that this body has voted unanimously to let the people of 9/11 sue saudi arabia. so we're going to let the person that we think might have had something to do with somebody have more weapons? what kind of signal is that to saudi arabia? would saudi arabia be bereft of weapons if we held one billion out? no. we have already sold them $99 billion worth. they've got enough to blow up the middle east ten times over. i think it might send them a message. you know what? stop the sale. send them a message. do you know what the message might be?

quit funding madrases that teach hate in our country. don't tell us you're going to stop doing it. saudi arabia, tomorrow stop funding madrases in america that teach hatred, that teach-in tolerance. stop putting christians to death. stop putting people who convert to christianity to death. stop beheading protestors. the one young man that's a protester in saudi arabia is scheduled to be beheaded and crucified. does that sound like somebody who is a great ally with a great human rights record? the young woman who was raped by seven men, she was put in prison. she was told it was her fault for being alone with the men. she was publicly whipped. poets have been picked up around the world and brought back to saudi arabia to be whipped for what they write.

do you trust saudi arabia to do the right things with their represents? these weapons are owned by the american taxpayer. we built them, we did the research into them. private companies make money off of them, but it isn't about them making money. it isn't about them getting to sell weapons instead of russians selling weapons. it's about our national security. saudi arabia's indiscriminate placement of weapons into the syrian civil war has led to the rise of isis. isis grew stronger as saudi arabia was flying weapons to al-nusra and al qaeda and some of them likely to isis. we now have a war in yemen, and yes we are directly involved in the war, and yes this is a vote not just about weapons, this is a vote about whether we should be at war in yemen. we are refueling the saudi

arabia bombers in midair. our military planes are in a sophisticated fashion refueling their planes. do you think the yemenis think oh, no big deal. you know, 3,000 citizens have died. when you go to a wedding in yemen and you get a bomb dropped on you from saudi arabia, do you think you have warm, fuzzy feelings for our great ally saudi arabia? absolutely we should be telling saudi arabia what to do. these are our weapons. you know when they will listen is when we argue from a position of strength. do you know what is the ultimate weakness? give them what they want. give the arms industry what they want, is the ultimate weakness. we look weak and we look bowed before and cowed before the saudi arabians. as they sit back in their long road sipping tea, people are

starving and displaced in yemen and not one of them will come to saudi arabia, not one of them will be allowed in the country. so yes, this is a debate about war, and this is a debate about whether you want to be at war in yemen. it's not just a debate about sounding and selling another billion dollars of weapons. it's about whether we should be at war in yemen. it's about should we be at war anywhere without the permission of congress? this is not a small occurrence. this is not a small happening. this is a big deal. this is the most important vote that any legislator will ever have. should we be at war, shouldn't we be at war? and those who want to make this about a jobs program, about we're going to get some sales of tanks, no, it's not a jobs program. it's about young men and women dying in a war, and it's about whether it's in our national interests. it's about whether we are going to be safer.

shouldn't we have a debate over whether or not the war in yemen is making us safer? we certainly should have had a debate about the war in libya. did that make us safer? once qadhafi was gone, chaos ensued, isis controls a third of libya. after the war, as a result of the war. we are now bombing in libya. we are bombing the replacement to the government we bombed. so we bombed qadhafi into oblivion. the people that replaced him we don't like either, so we're bombing them. does anybody think that maybe it's a mistake? that's what this debate is about. what should american foreign policy be? should congress lay down and be a lap dog for the president, let him do whatever he wants? that's what a vote on this will mean. if you let the president have what he wants, if you let the arms industry have what they want because they can make a buck selling tanks into a war that is a catastrophe.

simon henderson wrote in "the wall street journal," he said that the chaos and violence in yemen is such that it would be an improvement to call it a civil war. it is hard to know who is friend and foe. even our former ambassador to syria has said in syria, it's almost impossible to know friend from foe. but people have written repeatedly that saudi weapons in syria have gone to the wrong people. it's not like whoops, saudi arabia is sometimes wrong and they're not that bad. they have a horrific human rights record. there are people who believe them to be complicit in 9/11. this body voted unanimously to let the 9/11 victims sue them, and now this body wants to give them weapons. does no one sense the irony? so as we move forward on this vote, everyone should understand that this is a proxy vote for whether we should be at war in the middle east because neither

side, the leadership on neither side will allow a vote on whether or not we should authorize force. neither side will let the constitutional debate occur on whether or not we should be at war. i see my colleague from connecticut. would you like to have the last word? mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. i do think this is an important moment. as i said in my opening remarks, i don't think that a vote in favor of this resolution mutomboly breaks the alliance with saudi arabia. they remain an incredibly important partner. we will still cooperate with them with respect to other counterterrorism measures. we understand the importance role that they play in the middle east with respect to providing some sort of detente between sunni nations and

israel. but friends also have the ability to part ways. friends have the ability to call each other out when their friend isn't acting in their interests. and as we have talked about over the course of the last few hours, there is no way to read the war in yemen as in our national security interests. there is no way to understand how the growth of al qaeda and isis inside yemen as a result of a bombing campaign that is funded by the united states is in our national interests. and so i hope that we have a good vote on this because i think it will send a strong message to the saudis that their behavior has to change, but i hope that we are able to find other ways where republicans and democrats can come together to talk about these issues, because senator paul is right. we are not doing our constitutional duty.

we are not performing our constitutional responsibility when we acknowledge multiple conflicts in the middle east that are unauthorized today, when we don't come to the floor of the united states senate and do what we used to do, which is debate matters of war and peace. maybe war looks different today than it did 20 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago when conventional armies marched against each other, but this smells, this looks, this sounds like war. we are providing the ammunition. we are providing the targeting assistance. the planes couldn't fly without u.s. refueling capacity. we may not be -- american pilots may not be actually pulling the trigger to drop the bombs, but we're doing pretty much everything else that is necessary for this war to continue. it sounds like we should have a say as a co-equal branch, as the article 1 institution, as to

whether this is in u.s. national security interests or not. and at the very least, by saying that it's time to put a pause on these arms sales -- which, by the way, are happening at a pace that is unprecedented, unprecedented levels of arms sales. not just to saudi arabia but to the region at large. by saying it's time to put a pause on arms sales, that we send a strong message to our ally saudi arabia that if the conduct for this war doesn't change inside yemen, if their continued export to the world doesn't change, then we all have to rethink this partnership. friends occasionally disagree. i think this is a moment of important disagreement. this doesn't fracture the partnership with saudi arabia. ultimately it may make our partnership stronger, and i thank senator paul for leading this, and i encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.

mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i -- i think it would be wonderful to debate many of the things that -- at any time that any senator here wishes to debate them, but to use this as a proxy for something totally unrelated to me is the most unusual way of approaching the other issues that have been discussed. this has nothing to do with decoration of war. this has nothing to do with any of those things. this is about whether we want to consummate a sale, a purchase, an arms-length purchase between two countries that, by the way, we have set as a -- said as a national policy would help strengthen our own u.s. national interests. if those will rerks the president actually -- if those will remember, the president actually convened -- in a bipartisan way we supported this

-- convened these countries to share with them that we were going to be able to expedite the sale of arm to counter iranian spliewns in the region and -- influence in the region and to inhave the balance of power in the region. i think we are today based on just the conversations i've had i think republicans and democrats are going to come together overwhelmingly today to table this motion that is definitely, from my standpoint, not in u.s. national interest. so i do think that what they're speaking to is going to occur. my sense there's going to be an overwhelming vote to table this because people realize that while, you know, the optics of it -- saudi arabia, people are wondering about them; which is true -- but, at the end of the day, a vote to table this, again, cuts our nose off despite our face. we're here to do those things that are in our own country's national interest, and i hope today we will find together and

continue to do that by tabling this motion. with that, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceeding under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to table the motion to discharge and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 71. the nays are 27. and the motion to table is agreed to. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that i be given one minute. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that i be given one minute. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. nelson: mr. president, we just passed the nasa bill in the commerce committee. we are going to mars. we're going to mars in the decade of the 2030's with humans, and the bill sets the goal of the 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. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire.

mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i came to the floor today -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i am on the floor today to raise my concerns 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, that people have been nominated, good people who are very well qualified and then their nomination doesn't get acted upon. well, one of those people is doug wilson who has been nominated to serve on the u.s. advisory commission on public diplomacy. this is probably a commission that most people don't even know exists, and yet mr. wilson has been on hold since june 13. when his nomination was referred to the floor, he actually was

nominated by the president in march. he is imminently qualified. he's a noncontroversial nominee. the republican vice chair of the advisory commission, william hibble, 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's time for the senate to confirm mr. wilson so that the commission quarterback fully constituted -- can be fully constituted to carry out its important mission. surely, these days when there are so many hot spots around the world, when there is so much going on, it would be helpful to have that commission on public diplomacy in place, fully staffed up to be able to help advise on so many of the

conflicts that we are seeing 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 sectors. 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 in senior positions with the u.s. information agency. during the clinton administration, served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for public fairs under secretary cohen. most recently in public service from 2010 to 2012, he was the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, serving as a principal advisor 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. and since 2013, he has been a senior fellow and chair of the

board of advisors at the truman national security project. in 2009 he was the founding chair of the board of directors at harvard's public diplomacy collaborative. so i think there's no question that doug wilson is extremely qualified. he has worked in a bipartisan way over the years. i've had the great pleasure of knowing doug nor than 30 years -- for more than 30 years. when i first met him, he was a foreign policy advisor to then-u.s. senator gary hart. he worked in that roll 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, the right judgment to serve on that commission, people like doug wilson. i'm disappointed that this nomination of someone so eminently qualified, swhown has support on both sides of the aisle from the republican vice chair of that commission, mr. hib ibble, continues to remn on hold for -- i don't know what reason. for some reason someone has objected to him moving forward. we don't know who that is. we don't know what their objections r it's one o -- we dt know what their objections are. it's one of the challenges we have in this body if government is going to operate the way the people of this country expect. so i'm going to keep coming to the floor. i'm going to keep trying to move

doug wilson's nomination, as i have since june. and i'm hopeful that at some point the majority will hear these concerns and agree to that we should approve him -- and agree that we should approve him and make sure that this commission is fully functioning. so, thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. isakson: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized and following my remarks senator casey from pennsylvania be recognized sphold by senator sanders -- followed by senator sanderses ss from followed by senator warren from massachusetts followed by senator alexander from tennessee. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president, this is somewhat of an unorthodox way of asking for a u.c., but we're going to go through a process here this afternoon talking about a bill called the pediatric rare disease priority review act which expires on september 30 of this year. all of us of the names i just

mentioned have a stake in this particular debate. and i am going to lead it off. then i am going to defer to my friend and coauthor of this legislation, mr. casey, for the purposes of the u.c. legislation and then we'll go from there. mr. president, i fell in love with my wife in 1968, married her 48 years ago, and we've had a great marriage, but in 2004 i fell in love with alexa rohrbach, on the chart you can see here. she came to washington lobbying us to try to accelerate research into rare diseases for children, try to find cures for them. i got interested and i went to the pittsburgh, pennsylvania, children's hospital where senator casey is so active. i'm active in children's health care of atlanta, and i saw many of the breakthroughs going on. and both bob casey and i got reinterested in -- very interested in seeing what we could do to further the drugs coming to the market to make the

quality of life better. such was my desire to prompt researchers to develop a treatment for neuroblastoma. five years after i met herks alexa -- five years after i met her, alexa died. but my passion did not go away. it was actually burned brighter. so senator casey and i got together and developed the f.d.a. pediatric rare disease priority review act voucher and passed it five years ago. that bill provided as an incentive for companies to develop breakthrough drugs a priority review voucher for future drugs thafs that would incentivize them to develop future drugs. umvery proud that that took place. that program is expiring on september 30. i want to see to it it is extended. is it incentivizes right thing to happen for the right people for it to happen for and doesn't confirm the taxpayer money but saves lives and makes the

quality of life better. there will be objections that you'll hear from senators sanders and warren and maybe some others in terms of pharmaceutical companies or in terms of trying do a package of bills together, but there is no reason whatsoever to object to a unanimous consent to adopt the extension for five years of this proven program. in fact, some of those that will object have actually written letters to the f.b.i. encourage -- to the f.d.a. encourage programs like this to exist, one being mrs. warren from massachusetts, who on april 16 -- april 15 signed this letter to the f.d.a. urging the acceleration of duchenne's development on a breakthrough drug which by the way on monday of this week, a therapeutics company in massachusetts was approved by the f.d.a. forvestment a new drurk the first drug that treats duchenne's multiplduchenne-- mu.

that process was developed through the work of a company we want to make sure the companies are incentivized to make those type of break 13 throughs again because there are so many diseases that have given the right -- that if given the right incentive and opportunity, breakthroughs can be developed and the quality of life can be bemplet you'll hear all kinds of arguments about pharmaceutical company, all kind of arguments about this, that, and the other. the facts are clear. this bill is an incentive that for five years has incentivized the development of new breakthrough drugs. it is an incentive that's right. it is not an incentive that's wrong. it is an incentive that works. any objection to it for any reason whatsoever, like it ought to be included with another package of drugs or because farm suipharmaceutical companies devp breakthroughs, we shouldn't do it. i'll be glad to debate anyone anywhere if you are a talking about a philosophical difnlts but i will not debate if you're

talking about -- when bob casey and i asked for unanimous consent today to approve the bill, it is only approving the extension for five years of a bill already in place. it doesn't cost the american taxpayer a dime. it just might save the life of an american taxpayer. that's a good thing for us to be here. that's the reason i'm still here at age 71, to see to it that i make some contribution to the furtherance of health and quawment of life for -- quawflt life for every -- quality of life for every child in america u it is my hope that before we get to the end of the year, those who have adversarial reasons for objecting will come to the reality that we're doing the right thing for the right reason. it is not partisan. it is not political. it is practical and right. i want to thank bob casey for being my partner throughout this development and encourage every member of the chamber, when they have the opportunity to vote for the health of our children, vote for development of new cures coming through research and development and the incentives

that cause that to happen. with that said, i yield to senator casey. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you. i want to thank my colleague from georgia for his good work on this to advance the process. i'll offer the following consent. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 415, s. 1878, that the committee-reported substitute amount be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. officer snrer objection? -- the presiding officer: objection? mr. sanders: reserving the right to object -- 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 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, and 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 united states 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 expectancicy. 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 the well-funded food and drug administration. and 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 n.i.h. or the food and drug administration. what set of priorities can anyone have that makes sense to anybody in this country that says, yeah, we're going to give tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations but, no, no,

we're not going to adequately fund the major institutions in this country who are leading the effort to find cures for the terrible diseases that impact our children, ours 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 for cures for the children's diseases that senator isakson talked about, the scerks -- the cancers, the alzheimer's, and all the rest. now, second of all, mr. president, 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 send out an e-mail and we do

facebook -- we say, tell me what is going on with regard to your life and prescription drugs? not surprisingly, the vast majority of the comments that i receive -- and we've received about 1,000 comments from all over this country -- are from people who are outraged by the high cost of prescription drugs in this country, a cost which is going up every single day. people are walking into their pharmacies today and seeing the price of the medicine they've had for 20 years double, for no explanation other than the fact that the drug companies can do it, are doing it, so they can make outrageous profits. we pay in this country 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 there are thousands of people in this country every year 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, top five companies, $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. and what they will tell you is we write out 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 cost of the medicine people need to stay alive. maybe, just maybe it might be time for the united states senate to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry and all of their lobbyists here and all of their campaign contributions

and say we're going to stand with the american people who are sick and tired of being ripped off by the drug companies. let me just read a few -- i'm not going to read you a thousand letters, just a few to get an indication of what's going on in america. mark from plainville, connecticut, wrote to us that his drug for crohn's disease went up from $75 a month to $700 a month. anyone here concerned about that? and he's worried that he may die. this is what he writes to me. i am no longer treating my crohn's disease. i'm 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've had to leave my job and i'm now trying to freelance from home with no success for four months. our home is about to be foreclosed. is that of interest?

to my republican friends? or is that not important. amanda from bottlesville, oklahoma 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 somebody can explain to me how a medicine that was $4 in 2010 is $300 a month now. he's now disabled because he cannot afford the medicine he needs. heather in new mexico. she writes, she cannot afford her epipen. we've heard a whole lot about the high price of epipen. she said, i basically haven't had one in years that's not expired. just hope i don't get stung or i will die -- end of quote. john in anchor point alaska cannot afford his insulin which jumped from $1400 to $1600. he said -- quote -- i skipped

buying groceries when picking up meds, went home and scraped by, sold possessions to make ends meet to buy food. jerry from lincoln, nebraska cannot afford medicine for shingles. it is now $75. from new jersey -- imhe probably pronunsing this wrong, -- pronouncing this wrong, her breast cancer medication because it went from $25 to $225 a month -- for three month, i'm sorry. 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. mr. president, we have seen scandal after scandal the last few months and years. gilead sold a drug for hepatitis c for $1,000 a year. epipen prices raised 500% over

the last several years to more than $600. martin trely raised the price of a life saving aids medication by 5,000 percent. are we concerned about that? i would hope some of us are. now, also above and beyond the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is ripping off the american people, the f.d.a. itself tells us that this voucher approach doesn't work. the g.a.o., the government accountability office, released a report in march. they found that there's 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 f.d.a. stuff must take time away from reviewing priority medications 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 these vouchers sell for hundreds of millions of dollars. just one recent example from last year, a drug company, united therapeutics sold a pie majority review voucher to another major drug company for $350 million. while nearly one in five americans can't 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 that the american people should know that the pharmaceutical industry has spent more than $3 billion on lobbying since 1998. how's that? democracy at work.

drug companies charge us the highest prices in the world and the pharmaceutical industry spends $3 billion on lobbying. they're all over these places. well priced lobbyists trying to get us to pass pharma legislation. the pharmaceutical industry spent $250 million on lobbying and campaign contributions and employ some 1400 lobbyists. maybe the working families of these need protection against these lobbyists. mr. president, i certainly want to do everything i can to see that this country comes forward with cures to children's diseases and diseases that impact so many americans of all ages. but we have got to have the courage to start taking on the pharmaceutical industry and representing the american people. so i am offering an amendment that i hope will be passed along with senator warren which would

extend this program which is going to expire the end of september to the end of the year. that will give us an additional three 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. so i look forward to working with my friends on the other side to come up with a good solution to protect the american people at the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs in this country. with that i -- i've got to read. 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? a senator: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i will object but i will work with the senator

from pennsylvania and georgia and massachusetts and vermont to do what we need to do during th 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. and i'll reserve the remainder of my remarks until the senator from massachusetts has a chance to speak. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. sanders: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. a senator: mr. president, i rise in support of senator sanders' objection and amendment. ms. warren: massachusetts is home to the nation's best scientists and 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've been here for almost four years, and i have spent nearly the entire time working both publicly and privately to try to fix our broken medical innovation system in this country. and i'll be blunt. it has been maddening. maddening because we know, we know what we need to do to fix this problem. we know, 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 this. every single person i have talked to here says they support increasing funding for the national institutes of health and yet for over a decade, congress has decimated the

n.i.h.'s budget. it has effectively been cut by nearly 25% and those cuts are single-handedly choking off support for the projects that could lead to the next major breakthrough against a.l.s., 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 gaining rich and i do not agree on much of anything, but we teamed up last year to plead with congress to address this travesty. you know what 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 two 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 n.i.h. and f.d.a. and 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 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 advance in hope act, i support more transform tif cures for pediatric 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 f.d.a. now, the drug companies love it. most of them have turned around and sold off their vouchers sometimes for hundreds of millions of dollars, but the f.d.a. has said there is no evidence this program is effective at incentivizing drug development for rare pediatric diseases. and 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'm 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 of -- 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 n.i.h. so that we can cure more diseases. we need to put more money into the f.d.a. 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 n.i.h. and f.d.a. 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. if supporters of this expiring voucher program want to extend it until the end of december, i'm willing to do that, and i will join senator sanders in that. i believed chairman alexander's promise to work in good faith on a bipartisan package that we will actually fix medical innovation in this cou.