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 country.

despite months of silence, i still believe it, and 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 run up to an election as a political football to avoid actually doing the right thing by these families, i can't stop them. but i will not play along. we are losing an entire generation of scientists and researchers because congress won't 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 won't make the investments in basic research. we are losing our mothers and our fathers and 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. mr. president, i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: first, i want to congratulate senator casey and senator isakson for doing a terrific job of being excellent senators and coming up with legislation a few years ago that has helped children. we have now heard from the only two united states senators in the whole body so far who 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's been so successful. and the vote was 20-2, and those two senators are very eloquent senators, and you just heard from them. they don't like republicans, they don't like drug companies,

they don't like billionaires. and they ask the question, is anybody listening? i'm listening. who 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, very sick. many of them will die prematurely. every single one of them has free coverage at st. jude's hospital thanks to the contributions of many, many people. here's what the doctors at saint jude's hospital say about the proposal that senator isakson and senator casey have made that's been in the law since 2012 and that received 20 votes in our committee against the two votes of the senators who are on the floor. they said -- this is a st. jude doctors who have taken care of these very sick children. -- priority review vouchers provide a powerful incentive. does anybody care about these children in memphis? powerful incentive to stimulate drug development in rare pediatric diseases. these aren't some people in

washington in bureaucracies. these are doctors caring for dying children. these conditions, say the doctors, often lack the market opportunity to attract significant investments or may present other significant development obstacles and costs that may deter investment for biopharmaceutical companies. now, mr. president, we may not like drugmakers, but if we need new drugs for dying children, who's going to make the drugs if the drugmakers don't make them? some bureaucrat in washington? some committee member of the united states senate? no. no. someone who knows how to make drugs. and what this proposal, which has been on the books for five years says is we'll provide an incentive to help these children. it has worked. and we voted 20-2 in our committee, which is about equally composed of democrats and republicans in favor of extending it. so it's 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're caring for today. we've witnessed strong evidence, they say, that the programs are working. the isakson-casey bill is working. support for the voucher program is key to facilitating access to new agents important to improving outcomes in pediatric pediatric -- in pediatric cancers. so we considered this the way united states senators are supposed to. we brought it up in our committee. we debated it. we had amendments when they were offered. and we voted 20-2. the house of representatives hassles considered this legislation, mr. president. it has enacted this. this would be part of our twenty first cures legislation which we hope that the entire congress will approve before we leave at

the end of the year. but the bill expires at the end of this month, which is the reason for the 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 rare drug to help these children. 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? who will do it? and when we've got 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. now on that 21st century cures legislation the senator from massachusetts talked about, she's a diligent senator and a good member of the committee,

apparently not paying much attention to the work we're doing on this bill. it's been my top priority. i've worked on it with senator patty murray, the ranking democrat, daily. i worked with the president and vice president. we have a bill that the president of the united states would like for us to pass because it addresses personalized medicine. this same bill addresses the cancer moon shot, the vice president's top priority. the speaker of the house of representatives is somersaults to try to find a way for us to be able to find the money for that as well as for opioids and other important projects that we would like to fund. and the majority leader of the united states senate has said that if we're able to agree on this bill, it will be the most important bill we pass this year. we're doing a pretty good job in our committee of getting to the point where we can actually turn into law something that the president, the vice president, the speaker of the house and the majority leader would like to all see happen. and i think senator casey and

senator isakson for their help in doing this. and my hope is that we can work together, finish our work on this and pass it shortly after we come back in november. now, my last point as far as doing nothing on funding, i don't know what budgets anybody's reading. let's stop and talk about this a little bit. we talk about the food and drug administration. according to merkatis, in twow the f.d.a. was funded a little over $1 billion. in 2014 that number is $4 billion. we're about to go into a series of agreements next year which we will have a chance to vote on which will add billions of dollars of new funding to the f.d.a. in our 21st century legislation, are provisions to allow the director of the f.d.a. to recruit and hire more of the talented experts he needs to

hire, which means we need to pass that bipartisan legislation. and what about funding for research in the united states? according to the "new england journal of medicine," the united states today both through the government and through our pharmaceutical companies spends nearly as much on bioresearch as all of europe, all of japan and all 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. and in addition to that, mr. president, i think the number is about $32 billion that we now spend through the national institutes of health, most of that on bioresearch at major universities mostly.

last year -- and you know, i try not to spend my time talking about democrats. i notice my friends on the other side, republican, republican, republican. i get a little tired of that because we're working together here to get something done. but we do have a republican majority. and it was under the republican majority that we added $2 billion last year to the national institutes of health. senator blunt lead that, but i want to give credit to senator murray who was the ranking democrat on that committee because without senator murray and senator blunt it wouldn't sprpped. but give senator blunt credit for it. he happens to be a republican as long as we're being partisan about it. how much money is that? $20 billion over the next ten years in addition to what i just mentioned. this year the same subcommittee, senator blunt of missouri, senator murray of washington, they entered another $2 billion over the next ten years, that's $20 billion more. so we're up to $38 billion or $40 billion of new money for the national institutes of health

over the next ten years. and if anybody had been paying attention to anything i've said over the last six months or any of the discussion i've been having with the president or the vice president and the house of representatives in our committee, we've been talking about $6 billion, $7 billion, $8 billion additional for cancer moon shot, precision medicine, brain initiative, regenerative medicine, for a number of things that need to be done. this is the most exciting time in biomedical research that we can have. and what i just added up was 20 plus 18 plus 6 or 7. we're up in the mid 40's of new dollars for national institutes of health. and while it took bipartisan cooperation, mr. president, let's say it, we do have a republican majority in the united states senate. and that is our agenda. that's 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'm happy to do.

so these speeches about maybe you don't like drug companies, then who's going to make the drugs? we're not talking about drug companies today. we're talking about 7,800 children who are very, very sick at st. jude's hospital receiving free care, and their doctors have told us if we don't pass the isakson-casey legislation for several more years we're going to make it less likely that they will live, less likely that they will live. that's what we're talking about. we can 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 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've had 45 hearings. 41 of them have been bipartisan hearings where we've agreed on the witnesses. we get more results than about anybody. but we don't get results by

making speeches about each other and about making speeches about subjects which aren't the real subject of the day. the real subject of the day are 7800 very sick children at st. jude's hospital. their doctors are telling us if we don't provide more incentive to drugmakers, a continuing incentive that is already working, say, these doctors, if we don't provide more incentive to drugmakers to make the drugs for rare diseases that will keep them alive, then we aren't doing our job. so i thank isakson and casey. i hope by the end of the day we've accepted senator sanders' motion to extend the program until the end of the year. but what i really hope is that when we come back in november, that we will have an agreement as we're perfectly capable of doing in our committee, that begins to move treatments and drugs through the f.d.a. more rapidly so they can get into the medicine cabinets and the

doctors offices of this country at a lower cost and more quickly, and that we will have several billion more 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 moon shot 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 back for this past year, raising $20 billion over the next ten years for more money for n.i.h. and putting in the appropriations bill so far this year another 20. so 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 that drugmakers will make rare drugs to help

these children live. i thank the president. i live the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, mr. president. let me say to chairman alexander that i certainly look forward to working with him over the next couple of months. to come up with a package which makes certain that we do everything that we can to cure childhood illnesses which otherwise would be fatal, but that we also understand that 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 can't even afford the medicine that is on the market at the same time as five drug companies. not a question of disliking drug companies, senator alexander. it's a question of fact. five drug companies made

$50 billion in profit last year, charging our people, by far, the highest prices in the world for medicine and one out of five americans who are sick cannot afford the medicine they need. an example. one small example. this is a chart. drug prices, united states versus canada. epipep which is on the front pages today. in the united states, $620. in canada, $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. $730 in the united states. $160 in canada. premarin, that's for estrogen

therapy. $421 in the u.s., $84 in canada. look, i have been around the country in the last year. let me tell you, there were a 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 have read some examples. there are people who are dying because they can't afford the medicine they need, people who are cutting their pills in half, which should not be done. so i do look forward to working with senator alexander in the next couple of months to see how we can in fact come up with legislation which 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 cost.

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 i. and we could talk about drug companies. talk about the fact that one drug company spent $3 billion on alzheimer's. is about to be able to offer to the american people and to the world a way to -- for the first time really to prevent the progression of alzheimer's, we hope. these are public information that's in clinical trials. another one is about to offer medicine that may actually identify 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 costs, and the costs that that terrible disease is causing. but that's $3 billion spent without any -- quote -- profit yet. that's what a marketplace does. that's what happens. in marketplaces, there can be abuses. my point of view is generally what you want to do is have the most amount of competition in the marketplace, and that's what we could talk about as we go forward. but 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 get it. i'm doing it today because i heard so much of it from the other side, and i don't like it, frankly. i don't like it at all. i never got a result by talking about my opponent's political party. i never moved an education bill through without giving credit to the other side in 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 a billion dollars. i could come down here to 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'd 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're talking about these children, the 7,800 children at st. jude's hospital who doctors have told us that if we extend the isakson-casey bill for a period of time to give enough certainty so that drugmakers 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'd like to see it move forward. so i'm delighted to work with the senator from vermont and the senator from massachusetts. i'm glad we have a temporary solution that will take us through the end of the year, but that's 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 president. i yield the floor. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. first of all, i want to thank my colleagues for being here today to debate these issues. senator isakson, i appreciate his work with us. senator sanders, senator warren, senator alexander. i think we agree on two things, believe it or not. number one, that both sides of the aisle here want to make progress as it relates to curing rare pediatric diseases. that's number one. i think there is agreement on

that. number two, there is agreement to extend the existing program which has already helped enormously to advance that first cause. we're in agreement to extend that until the end of the year. that's a bipartisan agreement. we'll work out the details for that, and we will keep working on these issues when we get back. mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, 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. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to discuss the central states pension fund crisis and 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, minnesota, this 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, minnesota, 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 faulkner. the off-duty police officer who bravely stopped the attacker before he could hurt anybody else. if it wasn'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 police chief william blair anderson who set an example for how to lead during a crisis. i also want to thank the first

responders and the doctorsnd the nurses 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 f.b.i. are investigating this event to try to see whether there were connections between the suspect and terrorist groups and what the motivations of the attacker were. we're going to get to the bottom of what happened. 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 this -- 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 toil for years in dark, dirty and dangerous mines to power our country, and i'm pleased that the finance committee 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 finn and nearly 400,000 nationwide. however, it faces a funding shortfall that means that 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's the promise congress made in 1974 when it enacted a law that guaranteed pensions would not be reduced, and that's what workers thought that they could count on after years of hard work, but now that promise may be broken, and if we break that promise, workers like ken peterson of south st. paul, minnesota, will face spending the rest of their lives in poverty. ken spent 30 years driving trucks as a teamster before he retired in 2003. if the central states fund is allowed to fail, ken and his wife's retirement plans will be shattered, and they will face financial uncertainty for the rest of their lives. it's wrong for us to abandon the

blue-collar americans who earned a modest retirement after a lifetime of work, and i'm 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's called carried interest, and it 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. to be clear, again, no one defends this loophole, not democrats, not republicans and neither of their presidential candidates, and closing it is one way that we could help make sure our retirees get the

pensions that they have earned. according to the joint committee on taxation, this loophole will cost taxpayers $15.9 billion over the next ten years. that's enough to make sure central states retirees are able to have a secure retirement, and i think that's a much better use of that money than giving an indefensible tax break to a relatively small group of already very wealthy people. here's how carried interest works. when most workers like 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 that their income is different simply because their job involves

managing money, and as a result they pay taxes at the special low rate reserve 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 is held for a year, a stock bought with the investor's 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 work hard like those truck drivers were guaranteed that their pensions would be there. it's up to us to keep faith with those people by closing a loophole that 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 real estate tirees from funds -- retirees from funds like central states, which was fully funded before the financial crisis, haven't received the same report. instead, they're going to be facing devastating cuts at times in their lives when they can least afford them. the hypocrisy here is clear, but so far my colleagues on the other side of the aisle haven't been willing to propose real

solutions to fix this pension crisis. instead, they're offering paper solutions that put the burden entirely on beneficiaries or that simply kick the can down the road. we need a real solution, and that's 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 hardworking men and women who dedicated their lives to driving our trucks, keeping us safe, maintaining our roads? i think that 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 loopholes. we should close the carried interest loophole that helps private equity fund managers and hedge fund managers and invest that money into hardworking americans whose retirement is being threatened. thank you, and i would yield to senator klobuchar. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much. mr. president, i rise today to also speak about the central state pension plan, and i want to acknowledge my other colleagues speaking on it, senator franken, and i know senator brown, as well as senator wyden. i appreciate you being here as well the swanking member on -- the ranking member on the finance committee.

i also wanted to address the horrific act of violence that occurred at the crossroad center mall in st. cloud. this is a mall that i've been to many times. it's a thriving mall. a lot of people in that area go there. and, in fact, their sense of safety was shattered that evening. it was shattered. 10 victims -- at first they thought there were nine. a video showed there were 10. one was a pregnant woman. by some grace of god, no one was seriously injured and no one died. and it was some terror that i don't think any of us can imagine. people were just there with their families shopping and this happened. the first thing that we know is that the mayor and the chief, mayor clies, who i have worked

with for many years, a former republican legislator, who has been a strong leader for many years, and chief anderson, have been showing that kind of strength in leaders that you like. they have come out, explained what happened immediately to the community, told them the honest truth, that they were still gathering the facts, got the f.b.i. involved. and this is being investigated, of course, 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, i think, some calm to the community. they were out shopping at the shopping 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 has sent out a statement claiming some responsibility. we do not know if that's true. we do know that the f.b.i. 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 faulkner, lives were saved. the good work of the first responders, the reaction of all those present at the mall, lives were saved and no one died. and 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've been working to bridge divides. and there was a beautiful picture in the ""star tribune"" and i'm sure in the st. cloud paper as well about the rally of

unity that they had in the community just yesterday. they now had two. one in the college. the community came out and 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, an important of the fabric of life, as senator franken knows, in st. cloud. and so we will work with them and continue to work with them, but we thank the mayor and the chief and officer faulk mehr and all those -- and officer faulkner and all those involved for their leadership. so back to the issue of the central state pension plan. i was pleased to she -- to see that the committee addressed. today in the markup. we must also address the central states pension plafnlt i believe that promises made are promises kept. the promise made to the workers

in the multistate pension plan is simple. that is, that 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 one leg, a pension on one leg, and personal savings as another. a stable and secure riermt relies -- a stabled z stable and secure retirement requires all three legs be strong. but some pension plans are facing funding challenges that could weaken one of those legs. over 10 million americans participate in a multiemployer pension plan. they are set up as part of a collective bargaining agreement. the central states pension plan is such a plan. it was established in 1955 to help truckers, as senator franken has poijtsed out, save -- pointed out, save for their

retirement. today the central states pension plan includes workers from the pipeline, construction, food processing, dairy, and trucking industries. about 70 multiemployer funding 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 that we need to work together to find solutions that maintain the solvency of these multiemployer pension plans without severely penalizing current retirees and beneficiaries.

i appreciate my colleagues' work on this particular solution. but hundreds of thousands of participants, i will add, in the central states pension plan still face the real possibility that their hard-earned pensions could be reduced. as i noted, they're mostly in the midwest. that's why it's called the central states plan. and 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 missouri, 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, the 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

270,000retourees and workers. in way you the workers and retirees voted these cuts when the treasury department after going around the country listening to the workers, looking at the plan, rejected the proposal because they felt it did not meet the tests under the afnlgt but that does not mean that this is over. it's far from over. the central states pension plan still faces insolvency by 2025 and the current future 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 was deep benefit cuts to our workers and retirees and when we saw was that the size of the potential cuts for the workers, retirees and beneficiaries was not fairly distributed. retirees who are 080 and older and disabled individuals were protected. that's the right thing to do. but for everyone else, the possible cuts would leave them with a pension that did not reward their years of work.

while many faced cut cuts 30%, , or even 50%, i think people would be shocked to learn that over 44,000 people face pension cuts of over 60% and nearly 2,500 people faced cuts of over 70%. i don't believe that when my colleagues voted for this they thought they were actually voting for 70% pension cuts, but that actually is the result of that proposed plan and 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're going to make ends meet as they face these drastic cuts. michael from shoreview wrote me about how he was face ago possible cut of 40%. thomas from sandstone, who is 1 years old and after paying into the centra central states plan 0 years was face ago 60% kuvment

steve from maple grove wrote me to let me know he is 69 and is unable to return to work but his pension would be cut by 37%. those are just a few examples. many of these people are in their 60's and 70's and they should be able to be secure in their retirement that they have worked for for their entire life. while we temporarily averted this with the proposal being rejected, we know it's not going to go are away. the central states pension plan filed its petition to reduce pension benefits. since then an additional eight plans have also filed petition. congress needs to work together to find a bipartisan solution to help pensioners across minnesota and our country who depend on their pension being there for them in their golden years. we/it to all -- we tow to all americans who played by the rules and worked hard throughout their lives for a secure pension. i yield the floor.

mr. wyden: mr. president, how much time remains on the franken-klobuchar request to speak on this 123? the presiding officer: ten minutes remain. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. i am going to be very breevment i know senator brown feels very strongly about this as well, so i'm just going to make a few remarks and certainly leave time for him. i want to commend senators franken and klobuchar who have talked to me about this issue many times. we today in the finance committee with a significant bipartisan vote were able to pass the minors legislation to address the -- the miners legislation to address the health care needs of those minors. as my two colleagues have pointed out, at its heart, this is the same emergency. today it is the mine workers. tomorrow it can be the truckers. the next day it will be the

construction workers and the wood workers in my part of the united states. and as my colleagues have said, the reason that's the case is for generations of americans, getting a good-paying job came with a simple bargain: you worked hard, you earn add wage and benefits, and those benefits wouldn't be taken away. today, bit by bit, that bargain is crumbling. now, just two points that i would touch on again so that senator brown could have some time, if his schedule permits: i think senator klobuchar has made a very good point about how important it is that the congress address this issue because, with respect to troubled systems like central states, in fact congress is partially responsible for creating the problem. as senator klobuchar noted two

years ago congress passed a bill, a bill that i was very, very much opposed to, the multiemployer pension reform act. it was slipped into a must-pass government funding package. it really gave a green light to slashing benefits and a lot of struggling multiemployer plans and, in fact what it said for a generation of workers, it said, sorry, times have changed. benefits that you've eed are no longer going to be protected and wait to all this economic transformation in america is just kind of sort of going to fall on you. it wasn't fair and wasn't practical. and certainly i share the view of my colleagues that it was a good thing that the treasury rejected earlier this year the proposal that would cut benefits. but obviously we're going to have to take more steps to shore

up the pension benefit guaranty corporation, a financial lifeline for 10 million workers, and we are going to have to look at a variety of approaches. i, on a second point, very much share the views that senator franken has talked about, senator klobuchar is in support as well, talking 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. but let me say at the heart of the bipartisan tax reform proposals that 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 kind of taxes you're going to pay and when you're going to pay them. a fortunate few, basically, have that kind of opportunity. but for the people that my colleagues have been talking about -- truckers -- there's no tax code like that. once or twice a month those truckers have extracted from their paycheck -- they see it on their paycheck -- their taxes. no loopholes, whether it is carried interest or derivatives or half a dozen other thing. they just have their taxes extracted and no write-offs, no kind of figuring out what you're going to pay and when you're going to pay it. it comes right off your paychecks. so we got a lot of heavy lifting to do. today, it seems to me this congress began the task.

i can tell my colleagues, there's 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 ira's after they're 70 and a half years old. now, that proposal was adopted, senator franken, like, in the early 1960's. and i wouldn't pretend to be anywhere near as humorous as my colleagues, but finally i said -- and i thanked senator chairman hatch for adopting my proposal to let people over 70 and a half cin contribute to thr ira's because premium living longer and feeling -- because people are living longer and feeling better, it doesn't seem to make much sense to me to have so many senators and americans younger than the retirement laws that were adopted for a

different time. so we have a lot to do here. first and foremost, we've got to shore up central states. we're going to be looking at a the 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. my wife always says when i start talking about the tax code is a rotting economic carcass, she says we just stopped -- will you 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. and it just goes on and on. and as my colleagues have said, it is not right to working families, particularly those who are depending on the central states, you know, pensions, to sort of hang in suspended

animation hoping that somehow there's going to be a piece of legislation come through here so that they are going to get something resembeling what they were desired. i commend my colleagues for doing this. this comes at the end of the day where at least we begin the long push to pension reform with a successful and bipartisan effort on miners. but as my colleague have said the work has just begun. i want to thank my colleagues for their commitment and eloquence. i yield the floor.

mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: i would suggest the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and i ask unanimous consent to speak up to ten minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. it's now been four months, four months since the u.s. treasury did the right thing and rejected the central state's teamsters central fund plan to cut

premiums they earned through a lifetime of hard work. this is a win for all of us who urge 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. that win did not solve the underlying issue, though. it was not even close to the end of this fight. it was the first necessary step. central state's 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's 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, sacrificed raises for. i remind my colleagues, especially those that spend much of their efforts here in fighting, organizing drives for

unions that oppose any efforts to strengthen unions, pass legislation to weaken unions, that at the negotiating table time and time and time again, since the wagner act, for 75 years workers have given up wages today in order to fund pensions and health care in their later years. that's good for them. it's good for their families. it's good for their communities. and it's good for our society because it means they are prepared in their older years and won't rely on the state to be able to keep them going. of course they still get social security and all that, but they've prepared because they've given up wages today for benefits in the future. we should applaud that instead of criticizing the u.a.w., the teamsters and the steel workers for their, quote unquote, legacy costs. these were pensions they gave up health care packages for. they had been promised that they would earn over a lifetime of hard work. ask rita lewis, a friend of

mine from westchester, ohio. her husband worked as a trucker for four years with the promise that the pension he earned would be there for the family after he retired. when that pension came under threat he worked to protect it for himself, his beloved rita and for hundreds of thousands of other teamsters. rita has been continuing, he passed away due to a stroke. he faced fighting for his teamster brothers and sisters in support of their pensions. butch told us the cuts being forced to retirees amount to a war against the middle class and the american dream, and he was right. that war has claimed enough victims already. we used to have a compact in this country that promised if you work hard, if you play by the rules, if you do what people expect you to do, you would be

able to spend time with your grandchildren, not worrying about how to make ends meet. workers have more than held up their end of the bargain. it's time for both parties to come together and hold up our end before we leave town. this senate, as we've heard repeatedly, has not done its job. we have been in session, this senate under leader mcconnell has been in session less than any senate in the last 60-plus years, simply not doing its job, not doing what we should on zika, not doing what we should on the coal miners pension, not doing what we should on central states, 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 vacancy -- 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 earn and their promise. this fix needs to be sustainable from now into the future, not a

piecemeal plan and addresses problems with current policy but does nothing to solve the underlying issues. our teamsters and their families need their peace of mind to know this nightmare is finally behind them. we need a plan that's bipartisan so we can get this done. i was encouraged that this morning we held a markup on the plan to deal with the mine workers pension, also under threat. we have had some good bipartisan work to find a solution to this crisis. we need the same spirit of cooperation on behalf of our teamsters. you know, i come to the floor -- my wife and i live in cleveland, ohio, in zip code 44105. my zip code -- in 2007, the zip code that my wife and i live in had more foreclosures in the first half of 2007 than any zip code in the united states of america. i drive through this neighborhood still far too many homes boarded up, still far too many families dislocated, still far too many children just

pulled up from one school district to another. the pages sitting here think about -- 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 classroom, the same schools, the same teachers. but think about what we do on this floor. we're all well paid, we have good benefits. we don't for some reason think that other americans should have the same health care benefits that we do. that's a whole another issue here. but we don't think enough about people who struggle, who might have their house foreclosed on, who might have been ee -- evicted. we don't think about those kids that go from one school district to another. we don't think about these teamster families. you're 65 years old, you're retiring, you're thinking you've planned your life in a way that your social security, $1,100, $1,200, $1,300 a month, your retirement pension from the teamsters, you have calculated that. you know you're not going to be

rich but you're going to be comfortable enough. you start having sleepless nights thinking about what's going to happen to your pension. i don't think -- lincoln used to say that he wanted to get out of the white house, staff said stay here, win the war. lincoln said no, i've got to get out of the whitehouse, 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. we don't in this body go enough to a labor hall or to a church basement or to a veteran's hall and just sit there and listen to people's problems. the person that sat right at this desk before i did was jay rockefeller, senator from west virginia. he used to go out by himself with one staff person, no media, spend two or three hours talking to veterans in west virginia. jay said i learned to listen to them with soft eyes. i learned to listen to them with soft eyes. to hear what they were saying, to really listen and look into their eyes and pay attention to

what their lives were like. jay rockefeller didn't have financial struggles, he was a rockefeller, but he recognized that he needed to talk to people who did. that's who i want my colleagues to think about, not to go to another fundraiser in a fancy restaurant or not to spend their time at a country club in dallas or wherever they live, but instead to start thinking about what these teamsters' lives are like when their homes -- when they expect this pension they earned and they are not getting it. think about the widows of mine workers, understanding that mine workers are more likely to die younger from illness or from dangerous work from injury than most workers in this country, certainly younger than senators. and think about those mine worker widows that might lose their pensions. you know what? because the republican leader in this body doesn't like unions, and he doesn't like the mine workers, and he's blocked us from doing this. it's not personal. it's not personal with me. i was just on the stage with senator mcconnell. a nice man, i like him.

he is not doing his job, the senate is not doing its job to take care of these workers, huge number of veterans among the mine workers, the teamsters, a lot more than there are veterans in the united states senate. we have a lot of work to do and we shouldn't be leaving here without doing our jobs first. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. mr. president, it's been now 189 days since president obama nominated a distinguished jurist, dparl garland, to the united states supreme court -- merrick garland, to the united states supreme court, and i know there are a lot of issues on people's minds every day as 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. so i want to talk a little bit about why americans should care.

now, beyond the fact that we all care about the fact that we have three branches of government under our constitution. we need them all fully functioning. that was the point of our founding fathers to make sure that we had three functioning branches, and right now we have one that is not fully functioning. in fact, when they sit starting october 1, there is going to be a vacant chair because we will not have fulfilled the responsibility of the united states senate of confirming someone for that ninth seat. so why does that matter to people? well, over our lifetimes, great debates have gone on about quality education. equal access to schools, regardless of where a child lives. it's very important for us, 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, and frankly the third branch of government, as we know, is a check on us. it's a check on congress, on the presidency to make sure that we have the watchdog looking at what we are doing from the lens of the united states constitution. and our bill of rights and making sure that we are all living up to that document that is the cornerstone of our country. and so the supreme court matters

what happens matters. you know, years ago, 1937 -- i don't think any of us were here. if we were, we weren't very old in the process at that time. but there was a case called west coast hotel versus parish, 1937. liese parish worked and sued -- she was under the washington state law. her case made it all the way to the supreme court. it was settled on a 5-4 decision. so obviously a very close vote. and without that majority, we wouldn't have a minimum wage today. that was decided by the united states supreme court in a 5-4 decision. now, 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 today. we wouldn't necessarily have a minimum wage that sets a floor for everyone's wages in america and also 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 or not we will have competitive health exchanges so people can purchase insurance at lower rates and whether or not we are all in this together so that if we all have insurance, then we're able

to have important policies fulfilled like no preexisting conditions so that if you have cancer, your child has diabetes or you have had a heart attack or some other chronic disease that you know you can purchase health insurance. all tied up in implications from court decisions that relate to health care and multiple other decisions that relate to health care and whether or not 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, we need nine supreme court justices. we need to make sure that when october 1 comes along and the

picture's taken of the united states supreme court that there's not a vacant seat here. now, we've heard justice kagan, for example, has said a tie does nobody any good. presumably, we're here for a reason. we're there to resolve cases that need deciding, answer hotly contested issues that need resolving, and you can't do that with a tie vote. the fact is, unfortunately, as 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, makes you wonder why it is that this seat is

being left open. and there can be really only one conclusion from this, and that is the seat is being left open for the republican nominee, even though republican colleagues are stepping away at every turn from comments made by the nominee and distancing themselves. they're basically saying, we think that the republican nominee should make that appointment for that spot, even though he has no respect for the judiciary. they believe that he should be appointing the new supreme court justice. that can be the only conclusion for why we would see the majority waiting right now. otherwise it makes no sense. we're seeing the third branch of government that effectively will go for a year -- maybe more --

without being able to fully function because of people not willing to do their job because they're waiting to have mr. trump fill that seat. so i find that embarrassing and extremely concerning for all of us. it's time for senate republicans to do their job. it's very simple. we all have the 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're not going to do it. now, we could say that -- when i talk to people about that, they say, yeah, chances are, i'd be fired. certainly wouldn't be paid if i didn't do my job. and yet here, despite our

constitutional responsibility to fill that spot, the senate republican majority is not doing its job. now, 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 a 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." imu we do have an -- but we do have an obligation to vote. so from my perspective, it is -- there's no way i can explain this to people back in michigan, about why that seat is being left open for any valid reason.

unfortunately, other than politics. and that's just not good enough when it comes to fulfilling our jobs and making the third branch of government can fully do its job. so, mr. president, i am calling on republican colleagues to hold a hearing. we still have time to hold a hearing. and we could hold a vote before we leave. this is a choice by the majority, a conscious choice, but there's time. there's time to hold a hearing. there's time to have a vote so that when october 1 comes, there will be the full nine united states supreme court justices sitting ready to do their job. do your job. that's what we need to have happen. thank you, mr. president.

i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snrr new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. i have come to the floor today to once again urge that we extend the special immigrant visa program for afghan interpreters who have 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 have helped our men and women on the ground during the long conflict in afghanistan. and it's 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, and 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. and so you have to ask, why would anyone agree to help the united states if we abandon those who have assisted us in the past? now, this is exactly why the former commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan, general david

petraeus, his predecessor, general stanley mcchrystal, have pleated with congress to -- pleaded with congress to extend the program. in a recent letter to congress more than 30 additional prominent generals including general john allen, another former commander in afghanistan; john george case circumstance the former commander in iraq; and two former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, general richard myers and general hugh shelton, also urged congress to stengd the program. in addition, our soldiers and marines are very interested in protecting the interpreters who served with them in afghanistan. many owe their lives to the interpreters who went into combat with them. in recent years i've gotten to know former army captain michael breen. he is a granite stater who served with the infantry in iraq and led paratroopers in afghanistan. i speaks with admiration about one interpreter in particular,

an iraqi woman in her early 20's named wasam. on one occasion, captain breen and his soldiers were at a small afford-owrnting 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 and so of course they couldn't tell if the man was trying to warn them or threaten them. wasam hurried towards captain breen to assist. she was loved by her american comrades. she listened to the man and said that he was warning of an improvised explosive device, an i.e.d., on the main road. as captain breen later today, "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 wa savment m would

leave the compound and go home. jaun evening after she left the -- one evening after she left the american compound, three ginmen am bur -- gunmen ambushed her car. she was killed. one more interpreter who paid the ultimate price for serving the american mission. as the captain later said, one day there'll be a granite monument with the names of all the american service members who died in iraq and afghanistan. wassan deserves to have her name on that monument because she took great risks and gave her life while serving the united states. well, as many of us and our colleagues know, the s.i.v. 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 two

years of faithful and valuable on of service on the ground with americans. to receive a visa they must clear a rigorous screening process that includes an independent verification of their service and an intensive interagency security review. a typical example is an afghan interpreter who served with u.s. forces from 2008 to 2015. because he's in danger, i'm not going to use his name. last december he was gravely wounded in an i.e.d. attack. it robbed him of one eye and destroyed his vision in the other. he applied for a special immigrant visa after being wounded and he's 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 advisor to the military. another graduated from indiana university in georgetown and he's worked as an instructor at the defense language institute. a third who worked as a senior advisor in the u.s. embassy 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 s.i.v. program. appearing last week at a senate armed services committee hearing, army chief of staff general mark milli added strong support, speaking of afghan interpreters, he said -- and i quote -- "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 those afghans put their lives on the line." end quote. at that same hearing marine corps commandant general robert neller expressed 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 -- and i quote again -- "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." end quote. i agree. indeed i think there is overwhelming bipartisan support in both houses of congress for extending the afghan s.i.v.

program. and yet because of 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 and 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've agreed that it's important to make good on our promise to these afghan allies. but sadly, this year has been different. several members have objected, and it's evident to me that the anti-immigration passions that have been stoked during this presidential campaign by donald trump have contributed to this

impasse. irresponsible rhetoric about immigrants is offensive to american values and ignores what makes america great. across nearly four centuries immigrants have brought their energy and talents to our country, building the most successful, dynamic economy on earth. our nation has always been welcoming to immigrants. in fact, all of us here are immigrants unless we're 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. and that letter they respectfully but forcefully urged congress to reauthorize the special immigrant visa

program. and 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 s.i.v. 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. and likewise, we must not leave behind the afghan interpreters who serve side by side with our warriors and diplomats. we made a solemn promise to these brave people and 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's in our national security interest to keep this promise that we made. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: