Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 178 and ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask that my colleagues support this very important amendment with Senator Sanders. I will match his passion with numbers. The price of insulin, as our colleagues know, has tripled in the last decade. The antibiotic doxycycline went from $20 a bottle to nearly $2,000 a bottle in 6 months. Naloxone, the drug used to help with overdose, went from $690 to $4,500 to date. We cannot sit here and do nothing. We have an opportunity, for those who believe in the free market, to allow in competition--competition from the safe country of Canada, our neighbors to the north. In Minnesota, we can see Canada from our porch, and we want to see that competition come in and save our constituents' lives.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership. He recently led a letter which a number of us joined in on to suggest that we make reforms to this bill. I said the day it passed that the Affordable Care Act was not an end but a beginning. But we have not had opportunity, save for just a few examples where we changed some tax-reporting provisions under 1099. I was one of the people who led the successful efforts to suspend the medical device tax--something the Presiding Officer cares a lot about in his home State--but in truth, we have not had the opportunity that Senator Kaine suggested to make changes to this bill. Instead, we have been faced with the thought of just simply repealing this bill, with no replacement, with no plan in place. So we would all say to our colleagues across the aisle: Show us the plan. Show me the plan. Once we see that, we can start talking, but that is not what is happening today. Additional changes could be made to the act, including increasing the amount of subsidies available to exchange enrollees, something important in my State; establishing perhaps State-based reinsurance programs; doing something about the pharmaceutical prices, something I have long advocated for. I have been ready and willing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and to find additional commonsense improvements to the law, but repealing without a replacement plan is simply unacceptable. It is chaos. As my colleague from Virginia reminded us with a touching letter that he read from his constituent, let's remember what health care reform means to families across this country, why we have this bill in the first place. Americans with preexisting conditions, like asthma, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, can no longer be denied access to health insurance coverage. Children can stay on their parents' plans until they are 26, a dramatic change that helps so many families across America. Women are no longer charged more than men for health insurance. We had a lot of issues when we debated this bill, making sure that being a woman or being a victim of domestic violence was not a preexisting condition. I see the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, who fought for maternity benefits. I will never forget the story in her committee, when one of the Senators suggested that maybe maternity benefits shouldn't be mandatory as part of a plan because he had never used them. Without missing a beat, Senator Stabenow looked across the table and said: I bet your mother did. The point is, we made good changes in this bill that help people. There are no longer annual or lifetime limits on how much health insurance companies will cover. All health insurance plans must now cover a basic set of services, which includes mental health care, addiction treatment, prescription drug coverage. If the ACA is repealed, nearly 30 million Americans could lose access to health insurance, increasing the number of uninsured by 103 percent. More than 80 percent of these Americans are members of working families. In Minnesota, it is estimated that 380,000 fewer people would have health insurance in 2019 if full repeal is successful. Many Minnesotans have contacted me in the last few months, frightened about the future of their health care coverage. I heard from a man in Orono. His wife was diagnosed with cancer this year. On top of everything his family is now dealing with, he is terrified that his family will lose coverage if there is a repeal. He wrote to me, begging me to help. He and his family will be bankrupt by the cost of his wife's treatment if they lose their health insurance. I heard from a 24-year-old young woman from St. Paul. She has a chronic disease, and her medication would cost $4,000 a month. Thanks to the ACA, she has been able to stay on her dad's health insurance plan, which covers a significant amount of these costs. If she isn't able to remain on her dad's plan, she will not be able to afford the lifesaving medication she needs. I heard from small business owners in Aurora. Before health care reform, one of the owners had a lifelong preexisting condition and was denied access to health insurance. Once the Affordable Care Act took effect, she was finally able to purchase coverage through her small business. She also qualified for the small business tax credit. She reached out to me because she fears she will lose the coverage she needs to stay healthy and be able to run her business. I heard the story of a woman from Crystal. She works two part-time jobs, neither of which offers health insurance. Before health care reform, she couldn't afford to go to a doctor. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, she gained coverage through Minnesota's Medicaid expansion and was able to get treatments she needed and wouldn't have been able to afford without her insurance. Now she is scared she will lose her coverage. If the Medicaid expansion is repealed, she knows she will not be able to afford any of the treatment she needs. These are just some of the heartbreaking stories of people who have contacted my office. There are many more. The Affordable Care Act repeal will have real consequences for families in Minnesota and across the country, but families aren't the only ones who will see the negative impacts. They are going to see it through rural hospitals. Health care reform provided a lifeline to these hospitals by extending coverage to millions of patients who can now get prescription drugs and treatment without having to turn to emergency rooms for assistance. This lifeline was helpful in three ways. First, the health care reform law included a provision to extend prescription drug discounts--between 25 and 50 percent--to over 1,000 rural hospitals through the 340B Program. The RiverView Health facility in Crookston used the savings from the 340B Program to recruit orthopedic surgeons and oncology specialists, update equipment, start a clinic, and start a 24/7 onsite lab. Second, the Medicaid expansion, under health care reform, provided coverage for millions of previously uninsured patients in rural States. This means crucial new revenue for rural hospitals. Third, health care reform enabled nearly 2 million rural Americans, including in my State, to purchase subsidized private coverage on exchanges last year alone--which is an 11-percent increase from 2015. Even with these gains, the National Rural Health Association recently said that most rural hospitals have been ``operating on a break-even margin or at a loss in certain cases.'' These hospitals can't afford to see a repeal of the ACA with no replacement that works for them. As we look to improvements, I would mention a few things with prescription drug prices. According to a 2016 Reuters report, prices for 4 of the Nation's top 10 drugs increased more than 100 percent since 2011. The report also shows that sales for those ten drugs went up 44 percent between 2011 and 2014, even though they were prescribed 22 percent less. In any given month, about half of all Americans and 90 percent of seniors take a prescription drug. So what has happened? The price of insulin has tripled in the last decade. The price of the antibiotic doxycycline went from $20 a bottle to nearly $2,000 a bottle in 6 months. As was pointed out, naloxone, a rescue medication for those suffering from opioid overdose, was priced at $690 in 2014 but is $4,500 today. This is a rip-off, and this cycle can't continue. A recent study showed that one in four Americans whose prescription drug costs went up said they were unable to pay their medical bills. They are skipping mortgage payments. They are not being able to pay their bills. So what are some solutions? I recently introduced and am leading a bill, with a number of other Senators, for negotiation for prices under Medicare Part D. The President-elect has voiced support for this kind of effort. Let's get it done. Secondly, drug importation. Senator McCain and I introduced and reintroduced our bill again, which allows for less expensive drugs to come in from Canada so we finally have some competition. It would simply require the FDA to establish a personal importation program that would allow Americans to import a 90-day supply of prescription drugs from an approved and safe Canadian pharmacy. We wouldn't need this if we didn't have these escalating prices. Third, Senator Grassley and I have a proposal to crack down on pay- for-delay that prevents less expensive generic drugs from entering the market. Finally, Senators Leahy, Grassley, Mike Lee, and I have introduced our bipartisan Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act, to make it easier for generics to enter the market and stay in the market. The answer to this is competition, and we are not going to have competition if we deny access to that competition. In conclusion, no family should be forced to decide between buying food and filling a prescription or paying the mortgage and taking a drug as prescribed. It is time to pass legislation to ensure that Americans have access to the drugs they need at the prices they can afford. I am more than happy to talk to my colleagues about some of these proposals, but we simply cannot repeal this bill with no plan on the table to replace it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I have several topics to talk about today, but I will start with a very important letter that was sent to President-Elect Trump by members and friends of the Senate Ukraine Caucus. We had 27 Senators, including me, come together to advocate and make clear that we wanted to continue the strong United States- Ukrainian relationship that our two countries have enjoyed for many years and to convey our support for Ukraine and ask the President-elect and the new administration to support our ally Ukraine and help it secure a peaceful and democratic future. Almost 3 years after Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and military aggression in eastern Ukraine, daily cease-fires along the line of contact make a mockery of the Minsk agreement and demonstrate that this conflict in the heart of Europe is far from over. Russia has yet to withdraw its heavy weapons. It continues to engage in sabotage. It has not halted its disinformation war against Ukraine and the West nor stopped the economic and political pressure aimed at undermining the Ukrainian Government. I was in Ukraine last year, and I saw firsthand the struggles that their government is having. They have their own internal issues with corruption and the like, but they are trying to make for a better country, and that is very difficult when you have an outside nation that is engaged in the kind of combat that we see from Russia and these kinds of interventions. According to conservative estimates from the United Nations, approximately 10,000 people have been killed, over 20,000 wounded, and more than 2 million internally displaced since the conflict began. We said in our letter--27 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, led by Senators Durbin and Portman--that Russia has launched a military landgrab in Ukraine that is unprecedented in modern European history, and we asked the President-elect to work with us on this very important matter so that we may help the Ukrainian people secure their democracy. My State has a very strong tradition of Ukrainians. I actually live only a few miles from the Ukrainian center in our State. We have a long tradition of opening our arms to people from every corner of the globe. The people in my own city and State are concerned about the situation in Ukraine. There are a lot of people worried about what is going on, especially with the new administration coming in, so I think a strong statement, followed, of course, by actions from the President-elect would be very helpful. I have to mention one Ukrainian place that I adore, Kramarczuk, which is in my neighborhood. I actually held my first election celebration there when I was running for county attorney. Of course, it didn't end because we had to go into the next morning. The vote was a little close. We didn't know the result until maybe noon, but that evening we were at Kramarczuk. They have a mural that is literally almost the size of the entire backdrop from door to door in the U.S. Senate, and it is a mural they have proudly hung of the Statue of Liberty. That mural is there because the Kramarczuk family has always believed in a country that brought them in as immigrants and refugees. I am proud to represent that community and join the other 26 Senators in asking the President-elect to continue to support Ukrainians here at home but, most importantly, the sovereignty of the country of Ukraine and their democratic values. CURES Bill Next, I will turn to another issue that is of key importance to this body, and that is the passage of the CURES Act, which I know the President is going to sign into law. We are very excited about that bill. There are several things in that bill that the Presiding Officer and I have both worked on. The bill includes opioid funding. Both of our States, West Virginia and Minnesota, have seen way too many deaths and lives lost early, way too many people experiencing an overdose without the help they need for treatment. The bill authorizes $1 billion, $500 million a year, to help the many families struggling with prescription drug addiction. Senators Whitehouse, Portman, Ayotte, and I actually authored the original bill, the CARA bill, which set the national framework for dealing with opioid addiction. It didn't just include authorizing money for treatment; it also included some foundation steps for doing a better job of exchanging information among physicians in terms of who is getting opioids. I remember one guy I met--a rehab guy up in Moorhead, MN--who had a patient that had gotten opioid prescriptions from 85 different doctors and medical providers in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. As a State with many States on its borders, we see this going on all the time. I have built on that with a bill I introduced for a national prescription drug monitoring program that I think is very important. Senator Cornyn and I did the original bill on a drug take-back program to make it easier to get drugs out of medicine cabinets. The CARA bill actually built on that, but what was missing from the CARA bill, because it was an authorization bill, was the funding. This effort at the end contained in the CURES Act is going to be very important in the form of grants to our States to get the money out there. Second is the research money. Nearly $5 billion will go to NIH to help them look for a cure for horrific diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's. That money will be critical. We are doing groundbreaking work in Minnesota at the Mayo Clinic and also at the University of Minnesota, which will be key to finding a cure to these diseases. The third thing in the bill that maybe hasn't gotten as much attention is the Anna Westin Act. The Presiding Officer and I worked on that bill together along with Senator Ayotte and Senator Baldwin--four women leading the bill, and we got it done. That bill has been kicking around for over a decade. It is a bill that actually came out of Anna Westin's untimely death. She was a young girl who struggled with an eating disorder and eventually died due to the circumstances related to her eating disorder. Her mother, Kitty Westin, has carried her torch. She first gave it to Paul Wellstone, her Senator. Paul died way too young in that tragic plane crash, and then it was passed on to Senator Harkin of Iowa. I was on the bill with him, and when Senator Harkin left, I took the bill over and was able to reach across the aisle and get the support of the Presiding Officer, Senator Capito, as well as Senator Ayotte and then Senator Baldwin. This bill builds on the Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act to clarify that insurance companies must cover residential treatment for eating disorders the same way they cover treatment for other mental and physical illnesses. Over 30 million Americans struggle with eating disorders, including over 200,000 people in my State. It is actually the leading cause of death from mental illness. People don't realize that, but obviously anorexia is a very dangerous disease, as are other eating disorders. That one bill has a lot, but we know there is more work to do on prescription drugs. I see Senator Grassley here. He and I have worked very hard on what is called the pay-for-delay bill, which would tell the big pharmaceutical companies that they cannot pay the generic companies to keep their products off the market. That literally eliminates competition, and, from the estimates we have gotten, it would save billions of dollars over years. We think that is a really, really, really important bill and something we would like to get done. I have worked with Senator McCain on legislation that focuses on bringing in less expensive drugs from Canada, as well as a bill I have to allow for negotiations of prices under Medicare Part D. Tributes to Departing Senators Madam President, I will close my remarks by turning to some of our retiring Senators and speaking briefly on each one of them. Harry Reid We had a beautiful portrait unveiling for Leader Reid yesterday. He has been a leader who takes all ideas into consideration, even those of newer Members. In January of 2007, I began working on ethics reform, and, in fact, I asked him if that would be an important priority when he took over as leader. It was S. 1, and one of the first bills we passed. Senator Reid didn't give new Members the opportunity to lead just on big bills. When a little girl in Minnesota named Abbey Taylor was maimed while swimming in a pool with a defective drain, Leader Reid stood by my side and helped me work with Republicans to get a bill passed in honor of Abbey's memory and final wish. I met this little girl in the hospital. She went on to live for a year. She had been swimming in a kiddie pool when her intestines were pulled out by a defective drain due to the way it was installed. Her parents never gave up. Scott Taylor, her dad, called me every single week to see what was happening with the bill. Honestly, again, the bill was moving around and hadn't had any action for years. Ted Stevens, who at the time was a Senator from Alaska, helped me. In the end, it was Senator Reid, working with others, including Senator Lott, and we were able to get that bill on another bill, and we were able to pass it. To this day my proudest moment in the U.S. Senate was calling Scott Taylor and telling him that bill had passed, and then last year hearing from the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission in the Commerce Committee that not one child has died because of a defective drain since that bill passed. That bill, by the way, was named after James Baker's granddaughter, who had also perished in a pool incident. That is an example. I don't think it would have happened if Harry Reid hadn't been one of our leaders. Another example is when we were trying to build a bridge to Wisconsin, Senator Johnson and I were working on that issue along with House Representative Bachmann, Representative Duffy, and Senator Franken, and we had to get everyone signed off on an exemption to the Scenic Rivers Act. It was a Saturday, and no one was left in the Senate except two or three Members, and I had one Member I couldn't reach who had gotten on a plane, but we thought we could still reach him so I could get the last signoff to get the bill done. Harry Reid had just found out his wife had breast cancer and was waiting at home, but he wouldn't go home. He insisted on presiding for me. The leader of the Senate sat in the Presiding Officer's chair so I could be back in the Republican cloakroom trying to reach the Senator. That happened. We didn't get the bill done that day, but the minute we got back in January, Senator Reid worked with Senator McConnell, and we were able to get that on the agenda and get that exemption. That bridge is going up as we speak. It is a massive bridge that had to be built because the other bridge was so bad it closed down all the time. People would literally cross their fingers when they went over it. That is Senator Reid. A lot has happened since he first came to work in Congress as a police officer in the halls of the Capitol. But one thing has stayed the same about Leader Reid--the true spirit of him. It is the considerate leader who will sit up at the presiding desk just to help a freshman pass a bill that is important to her and her constituents. It is the kind of person who takes the time to talk to a little boy with leukemia and show him his favorite pictures right in the middle of the budget debate. That happened to me with a kid I brought in his office from Minnesota. It is the humble Senator who never forgets that he came from Searchlight, NV, and always serves with his home in mind. Thank you, Senator Reid, for your service. You will be missed. Barbara Mikulski So there are two other Senators who are retiring this week, and one of them is Senator Barbara Mikulski. She has been, as the Presiding Officer knows, the dean of the women in the Senate for a very, very long time. She is the queen of one-liners, and one of my favorite ones is one she uses when she talks about women elected officials. She always says: We see things not just at the macro level but at the macaroni-and-cheese level. After a few years when I had been in the Senate, she called us into the President's Room--a number of the women Senators--to gear up for a debate that mattered to the women of this country. She, literally-- being short, as she is--stood on the couch in that room and said: Gear up. Square your shoulders. Put your lipstick on. Get ready for the revolution. Now, at the time, I was not even sure what the revolution was. I was thinking all the time that she had probably used that line for maybe much weightier things. But that is her life. She is an advocate. She is a leader. She is someone who has championed the women of the Senate and all women in elected office. She is the one who was here first, of her own making. She is not someone who took over a seat after a husband or father had died. She ran, and she ran on her own merit, and she leaves on her own merit. She leaves on the merit of passing incredibly important bills for Maryland, incredibly important legislation for this country. I will miss her as a mentor, and we will always miss her dearly. Barbara Boxer Finally, there is Senator Barbara Boxer, who joined the Senate in 1993. When I got to the Senate, I was on the Environment Committee. She was the new chair. I got to see firsthand her advocacy--her advocacy on climate change, her advocacy on transportation and waterway infrastructure--and the way she would just never give up when she decided something was right for her State and right for the country. But the one thing is that everyone talks about Barbara Boxer's fiery advocacy and her incredible humor and tenacity. Sometimes, I think people forget how productive she has been when she worked across the aisle. I saw firsthand how she was able to work with Senator Inhofe on the transportation bill and then later with Senator McConnell on the last transportation bill. She is someone who has credibility on our side of the aisle. When she says she is willing to make a compromise with the Republicans, people listen. She never gave up. She would have dinners at Italian restaurants. She would find ways, in kind of a mom's way, to get everyone together. She passed some really incredible legislation, including water infrastructure legislation with Senator Vitter over the last few years. That is what she has done. I can't think of anyone whom we are going to miss more in terms of that presence and that kind of hardscrabble advocacy, which is always coupled with the pragmatic way of getting important bills done. So we are going to miss Senator Reid, Senator Mikulski, and, also, Senator Boxer. Kelly Ayotte I would also like to add that, of the Republican Senators who are leaving, I have enjoyed a very strong working relationship with Senator Ayotte. She and I have worked together on opioids. We have worked together a lot on the issue of the eating disorder bill. I am glad that in her final weeks in the Senate, we have been able to pass that important legislation that embraced so many of her priorities. Dan Coats I also worked at length with Senator Coats. We both serve on the Joint Economic Committee. He has shown great leadership there, and also, again, an ability to work across the aisle. He believes strongly in civility and in getting to know your fellow Senators. We are going to miss him dearly for his pleasant way and his ability to cross over the aisle and work together. I also want to thank him for the work he did on an adoption bill that we worked on together. There are many other Senators whom we wish well to. There is Senator Kirk and the work he has done on the Great Lakes priorities. We have worked on that together, as well as all of his leadership in the area of international relations. Madam President, I see that the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, is here. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I stand here today with two incredibly strong women, Senator Heitkamp of North Dakota and Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire--and of course the Presiding Officer as well from the great State of West Virginia. I think we all approach our jobs with a certain pragmatism about what matters. It is not about what is left or what is right, it is about what is right for the people of this country. The two issues the Senator from North Dakota has raised are both incredibly important for these workers. When people have felt nickel-and-dimed and pushed down by the system, they can't always put a bill number on what that means. They can always put a number on how things have changed and why they feel like, hey, my cable bill is eating me up or, hey, I can't get a mortgage or I can't send my kid to college, but we know that is happening now. We in this Chamber know what is going on. The two things the Senator from North Dakota mentioned are both things we could do for the people of America. The first is to stand with the coal miners of West Virginia, promises made should be promises kept. It was Barbara Jordan of Texas, who once said: What the American people want is something quite simple--they want a country as good as its promise. These coal miners were promised things. Over 70 years ago, President Harry Truman brokered an agreement that provided health and pension benefits for coal miners in the United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds. The Coal Act and its 2006 amendments showed the continuing commitment to the health and retirement security of our Nation's miners and their families. Yet, in October, approximately 12,500 retired coal miners and widows received notices telling them their health care benefits would be cut off at the end of this year--retired miners and widows. Then, in November, another 3,600 notices went out. That is over 16,000 people who will lose their health care coverage. I know negotiations are going on as we speak, but we urge our colleagues and the leadership in the Senate to do all they can for these miners, many of whom are in the State of the Presiding Officer. As Senator Heitkamp mentioned, we have a similar situation with the Central States Pension Plan, 14,000 Minnesotans. I just met with 300 of them this weekend. The plan that was originally proposed was actually rejected by the Treasury Department because it was so unfair to these workers. They are continuing to look for a solution. Lastly, I say about the coal miners, in Minnesota, we have iron ore miners. So while your miners might be covered in black soot, ours are covered in red iron ore. My grandpa worked most of his life underground in the mines in Ely, MN. He had to quit school when he was in sixth grade because his parents were sick and he was the oldest boy of nine kids. He went to work pulling a wagon. When he was old enough as a teenager, he went to work in those iron ore mines. In sixth grade he quit school. He had dreamed of a career in the Navy. Instead, every single day he went down in a cage 1,500 feet underground with a little black lunch pail that my grandma packed for him every single day. His youngest sister had to go to an orphanage, and he promised we would go and get her. In a year and a half after he got the job and married my grandma, he went back, got his little sister Hannah, brought her back and raised her. That is our family story. It is a mining story. I always think about what he thought when he went down in that cage every day--that career in the Navy, or out in the woods where he loved to hunt. Instead, he did that job. He did that job for his family, his two kids, and then the rest of his brothers and sisters because he knew if he worked hard, he would be able to support them because there would be a pension, because there would be health care, because he wouldn't die--like his own father--leaving behind kids, with the oldest one being 21 years old. That didn't happen. My grandpa raised two boys. One became an engineer. And my dad, the other boy, went to a 2-year college that was paid for at the time, went on to get a journalism degree, and became a reporter who interviewed everyone from Mike Ditka to Ronald Reagan, to Ginger Rogers. That is America, and these coal miners deserve that same support. Another part of our State which believes if you work hard every day you should be able to get where you want to go are those who work in manufacturing, those who work in the rural parts of our State. I don't think they would ever put together the Ex-Im Bank--that Senator Heitkamp has gathered us to talk about today--with their own livelihoods. That is a very complex matter about a guy getting confirmed on the Bank, but, in fact, it is true. Because while we have saved the Ex-Im Bank, which finances so many hundreds of small businesses in Minnesota that wouldn't be able to deal with going to a big major bank, we still haven't confirmed someone for that Board. Getting that person confirmed for that Board and through the Senate would mean the Ex-Im Bank could go back to its functional levels of financing major transactions. That is why we are here, to ask the Senate to support the nomination of J. Mark McWatters to serve as a member of the Board of Directors. I join my colleagues to do that. On January 11, the Senate Banking Committee received the nomination of McWatters to fill the Republican vacancy on the Board. This is a Republican candidate we are asking the Senate to confirm, but it is 333 days and counting since he has been nominated. In 2015, I remember bringing together a group of small businesses from all over the country to talk about the importance of the Ex-Im Bank, to hear their stories of how they are going to go under if they are not allowed to continue their financing. Mostly, at a time when we are dealing with the winds of global competition being blown at us every single day, to be at such a disadvantage to other developed nations that have Ex-Im-type banks, that have financing authority--and it is not just China that is going to eat our lunch unless we can help businesses get over $10 million in financing. They must be laughing at us over there. There are about 85 credit export agencies in over 60 other countries, including all major exporting countries. Why would we want to make it harder for our own companies to create jobs here at home and then allow these other countries to have financing agencies that compete with us. That is exactly what is going on right now. The Ex-Im Bank has supported $17 billion in exports. Those are American jobs, 17 billion. It has a cap of $135 billion. That sounds like a lot, but an article in the Financial Times showed that the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China combined had an estimated $684 billion in total development finance. These two banks combined provide five times as much financing as the Ex-Im Bank, with its cap of $135 billion. As Senator Heitkamp explained, this is about jobs, and it is as simple as that. In FY2015, Ex-Im financing supported 109,000 U.S. jobs. Since we reauthorized the Ex-Im Bank, nearly 650 transactions have been approved. Now it is about time that we put the person on the Board--the Republican nominee--so the Bank can go back to fully functioning and be able to make transactions that are worth over $10 million. Without a quorum and Board approval, Ex-Im is not able to adopt any of the accountability measures or update the loan limits so American businesses have access to the financing they need to compete globally. Here we are, three Democratic Senators on the floor simply asking the Senate to move ahead to confirm a Republican nominee. That may be irony, but it is irony that is on the backs of the American people and we need to get it done. Madam President, I yield the floor to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Vice President Biden, earlier Hubert Humphrey's name was mentioned. You know the great love the people of Minnesota have for you. Vice President Humphrey was your mentor when you first got to the Senate, where you didn't even know if you were going to last a few months here, and he was there for you. You have extended that kindness to so many since then. Vice President Mondale, another Minnesotan, has great affection and love for you, and I will report back to him tonight that I was here with you today. When I first got elected to the Senate and made one of my first speeches about police funding to a completely empty Chamber--and I thought even my mom wasn't watching on C-SPAN--I walked out of this place and I got a phone call on my cell phone and it was Joe Biden, then a Senator, saying ``that was a really great speech.'' When you came to my State and one of my best friends suddenly lost her husband and you heard about it, you did not know who she was, you just heard the story, and in 2 weeks, on her first day back at work, she was driving home and she got a call from you. You talked to her for 20 minutes. When you were done and had given her all this wonderful advice, you said: We are not done; I want you to write down my phone number. She said: I am driving, Mr. Vice President; I can't do that. You said: Pull over. She wrote your phone number on her hand. You did that for her, Mr. Vice President, and you have done that for so many Americans. On behalf of our entire State of Minnesota that has loved you forever, thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank my colleague for his statement and agree. Doug Peterson has served the Minnesota Farmers Union for 14 years, the Minnesota State House of Representatives for 12 years, and the Minnesota public education system for 20 years. Whether it has been through writing and advocating legislation, painting on a canvas, or educating students, for nearly 40 years Doug Peterson has been leaving his mark. That is why I am proud to honor him today on his retirement from the Minnesota Farmers Union.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Doug Peterson today as he retires as President of the Minnesota Farmers Union. I join the thousands of farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and residents of rural Minnesota in thanking Doug for his leadership over the years and for being such a tireless advocate for Minnesota farmers. Doug has made agriculture, advocacy, and public service his life's work. Prior to his election as State president of the Minnesota Farmers Union in 2002, Doug served in the Minnesota House of Representatives for 12 years, representing a district comprised of Big Stone, Chippewa, Lac Qui Parle, and Swift Counties in western Minnesota. Minnesota has taken an incredibly proactive and innovative approach to energy use and sustainability. In fact, we are considered a national leader for boosting bioenergy. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called States the ``laboratories of democracy,'' and when it comes to Minnesota being a laboratory for renewable fuels, we have Doug Peterson to thank. While he was in the Minnesota House of Representatives, he authored the legislation that established a Statewide ethanol fuels requirement. Because of Doug's work at the State level in steering us toward energy independence, we have seen Federal renewable energy policy being modeled after the groundwork he laid in Minnesota. In addition to writing landmark legislation and advocating on behalf of greater Minnesota, what some people may not know about Doug is that he is also an accomplished artist and former art teacher. My office in Washington even has one of Doug's paintings on loan and prominently featured. The painting is a depiction of several freshly caught fish, tessellated in shades of orange, purple, and blue. Doug called the artwork ``Dead Fish,'' and I always joke with his members that the painting is much more attractive than the name suggests. During my time in the Senate, I have had the great opportunity to work on two farm bills with Doug leading the Minnesota Farmers Union: the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 and the Agricultural Act of 2014. I have seen the dedication he brings to leading the discussion about how to keep agricultural producers competitive, and I will miss his guidance and friendship.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak again about the dangerous effects of leaving the current vacancy on the Supreme Court unfilled and the real consequences that the current vacancy has caused for this country. It has now been more than 6 months since President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court, and we still haven't had a hearing, much less a vote. As a result, Judge Garland is now the longest pending Supreme Court nominee in history. Since the Senate has not acted, the Supreme Court will still be without a full complement of Justices when it begins its October term next week. There is a lot at stake in the Supreme Court's upcoming term. The cases that the Court will hear focus on significant issues that affect Americans' everyday lives. Among those cases are important questions involving voting rights and discrimination in housing. The Court will also take up cases on immigration and environmental protection that would impact millions of people across the country. We know they have been taking less cases, and we also know there have been a number of split decisions, including a recent one on a death penalty case. Further delay in the confirmation of a new Justice will compromise the Court's ability to resolve these questions of law effectively. If we do not have a fully staffed Court in the next term, we risk more cases in which the Court is unable to issue binding precedent and in which access to justice is denied for too many Americans. In some decisions where there is a 4-4 split, the result is effectively the same as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case. That is certainly not what our Founding Fathers intended with the Constitution. But more split decisions are not the only risk that we are facing here. The current vacancy on the Supreme Court also has implications for the number of cases that the Court is able to take in the first place. We saw this played out many times last spring. In March of last year, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on eight cases. This year, it only did so for two. Indeed, we have seen time and again over the Court's last term that the Supreme Court simply cannot function well without a ninth Justice--with split decisions, diminished decisions, delayed decisions, and no decisions. With only eight Justices, the current Court could not reach a final decision on the merits in seven cases during its most recent term. In five of these cases, the Court deadlocked in split decisions with four Justices on either side. In the other two cases the Court had to remand the case back to the lower courts when it was unable to render a decision on the merits. The lower courts rely on the Supreme Court as the final decisionmaker. There are courts all over the Nation that may have different decisions, and they are waiting for the final word from the Supreme Court. That is how our system of justice has worked. But what is most important is that in each of these cases the Court was unable to carry out its constitutional obligation. The potential for worse during the Court's next term is real. For instance, what if some of the landmark cases that are familiar to citizens, such as Miranda v. Arizona, were a 4-to-4 decision? Or an emergency case like Bush v. Gore--what if that were 4 to 4? Or Brown v. Board of Education? Former President Ronald Reagan recognized the importance of having a fully staffed Supreme Court in 1987. He said: ``Every day that passes with the Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' President Reagan made that statement around the same time he nominated Justice Kennedy, who was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, which was controlled by the opposite party--the Democratic Party--in the last year of a Republican Presidency. Over the past several months, I have tried to put myself in my colleagues' shoes, and I asked myself: What if we had the opposite case? What if we had a Republican President and a Democratic-controlled Senate? What would I do? Well, I would demand a hearing. I would never let a nominee float out there for 6 months while we have less decisions, diminished decisions, and no decisions. I don't know how I would vote on the nominee. I would like to ask the nominee questions and decide if they were qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Our job under the Constitution is to advise and consent. It is not to advise and consent only after a Presidential election has occurred. This has been our practice in the Senate for more than a century. For more than 100 years the Senate has had a process that worked under both Democratic and Republican Presidents and even in--yes--Presidential years. Through World War I and World War II, through the Great Depression, through the Vietnam war, through the economic downturns, we were somehow able to make it as a democracy. We were somehow able to do our job to advise and consent. I would also add in closing my remarks about Judge Garland's widely credited ability to draft thoughtful, narrow legal opinions and build consensus among his colleagues on the bench. The President was well aware when he nominated Judge Garland that he would need to nominate someone who had that ability, and, with the kind of votes that we have seen in the Senate, someone who is a fine man. He deserves the opportunity to make his case to the Senate, and the public deserves the opportunity to see the kind of Justice he would be. It remains my sincere hope that he will have that opportunity for a hearing to prove himself in the months to come. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, and I thank Senator Markey for the work he has done and his passionate words as well as his understanding of the crisis this truly is. I think one of the ways I can explain it in my State is, every day you turn on the news and you hear about car crashes and you hear about when there is a murder. Well, in the heart of my State, deaths from prescription drug abuse now claim the lives of more Minnesotans than homicides or car crashes. It is a crisis on the rise. According to the department of health in our State, drug overdose deaths among Minnesotans increased 11 percent from 2014 to 2015. Last year alone, 336 people in our State died from overdoses. The Twin Cities has been hit hard by this deadly trend. In Hennepin County, data shows that opioid-related deaths have increased 40 percent since 2006. But we know this is not a crisis confined to our urban areas. I see Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire is here. This is something that has hit hard in her State in rural areas, just like in mine. In one 7,000-person town in Minnesota, 3 young people died in just 6 months. Another three were hospitalized for heroin overdoses. We know, by the way, that heroin overdose is no longer separate from prescription drugs. In fact, four out of five heroin users got their start on prescription drugs. They got addicted because someone gave them to them, or they got them out of a medicine cabinet or they went to the emergency room and were given 30 pills and got addicted, or maybe they just went to the dentist to get a wisdom tooth fixed. These are real stories that are happening all over the country. I was in Montevideo, MN--a smaller town--with some doctors. One of them started to cry at this event, telling the story about how a guy had seen him for back pain over and over and over. The next thing he knew, the Secret Service was in his office telling him that this person had gotten completely addicted and was making threats over the Internet on the lives of elected officials and ended up in prison. He had no idea. At that same forum, I heard the story of a 12-year-old who was courted by a pusher--a 12-year-old. They came up to him and said: Hey, could you go check your parent's medicine cabinet? They gave him a list of drugs and sent him off. They said: If you come back with those bottles of pills, we will give you a can of beer. That is what is happening in smalltown America. We passed a bill, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. I was proud of the bipartisan work. I was one of the four lead sponsors on that bill. It builds on some of the work we have done to set up a framework. Senator Cornyn and I passed one of the first bills in this area, the drug take-back bill, which allows for drug take-backs in a way that we are now starting to see across the Nation. We were already seeing them, of course, in police departments and public facilities, but this makes it easier for drugstores and pharmacies to take back drugs. Walgreens has announced they are going to be doing this on a national basis. It also makes it easier for long-term care facilities. Those things are beginning, but we can't end there, not when on one recent National Prescription Drug Take Back Day back in April, over 445 tons of unused drugs were collected. That is 1 day in this country, to give a sense of how many are out there. In the CARA bill, we made it easier to do drug take-backs. We also increased the availability of naloxone, although I will say on a sideline, Senator Markey, one problem with this is the price of naloxone has gone up 1,000 percent by the pharmaceutical company that provides it. So that is another issue we are going to have to deal with. That is, of course, for another day. But I will say that naloxone is something we know can save lives. For me, the heart of this is trying to go after these prescription drugs at the start, to try to stop people from becoming addicted. I will get to the treatment part in a moment, but we need to stop the addiction in the first place. Just this month, one Minnesota newspaper told the story of a man in Duluth who got prescriptions for opioid painkillers from 23 dentists and 15 emergency room physicians in just over 2 years. Back in May, in Moorhead, I heard the story of another man--this was from a rehab counselor. This guy had filled 108 prescriptions for painkillers from more than 85 different prescribers in Minnesota and in neighboring States. The Presiding Officer is my neighbor in South Dakota. We see people who go to South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin in search of different doctors whom they can basically dupe into giving them prescriptions because they are addicts. That should not be happening. Doctors should not be giving out these prescriptions. That is why I have introduced a new bill that would require doctors and pharmacies to immediately report when they give out these prescriptions and require physicians to check this list. Many States have these programs in place--prescription drug monitoring programs--but they are voluntary. Not everyone does them. Some States, such as Florida, don't even share their data with the rest of the country. I truly believe the doctors and pharmacists on the frontlines--if they check these, we are going to stop people from getting addicted and get them into treatment the way we should. That leads me to the next piece, which is treatment itself. I have had many people tell me that they are better off committing a felony to get treatment. Why is that? Well, a lot of States, like mine, have good drug courts, and if you can get into the right program in the drug court, you are going to get treatment and followup and you are going to get the help you need. But a lot of insurance policies are not covering it. There is not treatment available. That is why I support Senator Manchin, and I am an original cosponsor of the LifeBOAT Act, which basically places a 1-cent fee on each milligram of active opioid ingredient in a prescription pain pill. That is one good way to pay for treatment, as well as, of course, Senator Shaheen's strong bill that appropriates emergency funding to address the drug abuse epidemic with treatment. We have to remember that only 1 in 10 people who suffer from opioid addiction actually receives the treatment they need. My State is a big believer in treatment. We use treatment a lot for low-level offenses. We use drug courts a lot. It is one of the reasons we have been able to keep our crime rate at a decent level compared to a lot of other States. That does not mean there is not horrific crime, but we have really focused on treatment. In my own life, my dad is an alcoholic. He is sober now and happily married at age 88. He stopped drinking a while back, but he would not have done it without treatment. And that was after three DWIs and a lot of difficulty, but he got through it. From seeing that, seeing my dad climb the highest mountain but fall to the lowest valleys, I believe there is redemption and there is hope. But I don't think that treatment should be limited to just the people who have good insurance or can afford it. We in this country have created this crisis. Let's be clear. Decisions were made at pharmaceutical companies and everywhere across the country to expand the use of opioids, to tell people they can take 30 pills when maybe they need 1 or none or maybe 2 or 3. These are bad decisions. They were made, and people were duped and they got addicted. The least we can do is give them the treatment so they can get off of it, and then make sure their kids don't get addicted as well. This is a serious epidemic, and it calls for serious action as well as funding. I say thank you, to Senator Markey.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to also speak about the Central States Pension Fund, and I acknowledge my other colleagues speaking on it, Senator Franken and Senator Brown as well as Senator Wyden. I appreciate your being here, as well as the ranking member on the Finance Committee. St. Cloud, Minnesota, Stabbings Mr. President, before I address that, I also want to address the horrific act of violence that occurred at the Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud. This is a mall that I have been to many times. It is a thriving mall. A lot of people in that area go there, and, in fact, their sense of safety was shattered that evening. There were 10 victims. At first they thought there were 9 victims, but a video showed there were 10. One is a pregnant woman who was nine months along. By some grace of God, no one was seriously injured, and no one died. It was terror that I don't think any of us can imagine. People were there with their families shopping, and this happened. The first thing we know is that the mayor and the chief--Mayor Kleis, whom I have worked with for many years, a former Republican legislator who has been a very strong leader of this town, and Chief Anderson, who has been the chief there for many years--have shown that kind of strength in leaders that you would like. Immediately, they came out and explained to the community what happened and told them the honest truth--that they were still gathering the facts. They got the FBI involved, and this is being investigated as a potential act of terrorism. We still do not know all the facts. We hope to have them soon. Mostly, they were able to bring some calm to the community. They were shopping at the mall--I talked to the mayor last night--to show their citizens that they are not going to let this act of violence bring down their town. We are well aware that ISIS sent out a statement claiming some responsibility. We do not know if that is true. We do know that the FBI is investigating any terrorist connections that this man has had, and we await the outcome of this investigation. The one thing we do know is that due to the courageous actions of the off-duty officer, Jason Falconer, lives were saved. Because of the good work of the first responders and the reaction of those present at the mall, lives were saved and no one died. This particular officer was there off-duty and had the presence of mind to come to the rescue of all these people, and we thank him for that. The last thing I would say about this is, talking to the mayor and having been in the community, I know how hard they have been working to bridge divides. There was a beautiful picture in the Star Tribune, and I am sure in the St. Cloud paper as well, about the rally of unity that they had in the community. They have now had two. One was in the college, and the Somali community spoke and strongly condemned this violence in a way that was very heartfelt. This community is an important part of the fabric of life in our State and an important part of the fabric of life, as Senator Franken knows, in St. Cloud. We will continue to work with them. We thank the mayor, the chief, Officer Falconer, and all those involved for their leadership. Central States Pension Fund Mr. President, back to the issue of the Central States Pension Fund, I was pleased to see that the Finance Committee addressed some retirement and pension issues today in their markup. We must also address the Central States Pension Fund. I believe that promises made are promises kept. The promise made to the workers in the multiemployer pension plans like those in the Central States Pension Fund is simple; that is, the pension that they have earned through their decades of hard work will be there when they retire. Saving for retirement is often described as a three-legged stool-- Social Security on one leg, a pension on one leg, and personal savings on another. A stable and secure retirement relies on all three legs being strong, but some multiemployer pension plans are facing funding challenges that could weaken one of those legs. Over 10 million Americans participate in a multiemployer pension plan and rely on these benefits for a safe and secure retirement. Multiemployer plans are set up as part of a collective bargaining agreement between workers and many employers generally in one industry. The Central States Pension Fund is such a plan. It was established in 1955 to help truckers save for their retirement. Today, the Central States Pension Fund includes workers from the carhaul, tankhaul, pipeline, warehouse, construction, clerical, food processing, dairy, and trucking industries. About 70 multiemployer pension plans are facing funding challenges and do not have sufficient plan assets to pay all of the benefits promised. The Multiemployer Pension Relief Act was added to the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, in the House. I voted against the Multiemployer Pension Relief Act because I was concerned that this bill would lead to severe pension cuts for our retirees and, in fact, disproportionately impact certain workers in certain States, including Minnesota. I believe we need to work together to find solutions that maintain the solvency of these multiemployer pension plans without severely penalizing current retirees, active employees, and beneficiaries. I, too, am in favor of closing the carried interest loophole, and I appreciate my colleague's work on this particular solution. Hundreds of thousands of participants in the Central States Pension Fund still face the real possibility that their hard-earned pensions could be reduced. As I noted, they are mostly in the Midwest. That is why it is called the Central States plan. This affects workers and retirees from these States: nearly 34,000 workers and retirees in Ohio, nearly 31,000 in Michigan, over 21,000 in Minnesota, over 18,000 in Wisconsin, and nearly 1,500 in North Dakota. In fact, seven of the top States in the Central States are Midwestern States. In September, 2015, Central States submitted a proposal to the Treasury to reduce pension benefits for workers and retirees. Treasury reviewed the proposal, which would have resulted in benefit cuts for over 270,000 retirees and workers. In May, the workers and retirees narrowly avoided these cuts when the Treasury Department--after going around the country listening to the workers and looking at the plan-- rejected the proposal because they felt it did not meet the test under the act. That doesn't mean this is over. It is far from over. The Central States Pension Fund still faces insolvency by 2025. The current and future retirees could still face cuts. I voted against the act because I was concerned that under this act we might see exactly the kind of cuts that were proposed. What we saw were deep benefit cuts to our workers and retirees, and what we saw was that the size of the potential cuts for the workers, retirees, and beneficiaries was not fairly distributed. Retirees who are 80 and older and disabled individuals were protected. That was the right thing to do. For everyone else, the possible cuts would leave them with a pension that did not reward their years of work. While many faced cuts of 30 percent, 40 percent, or even 50 percent, I think people would be shocked to learn that over 44,000 people faced pension cuts of over 60 percent and nearly 2,500 people faced possible cuts of over 70 percent. I do not believe that when my colleagues voted for this, they thought they were actually voting for 70-percent pension cuts, but that actually is the result of that proposed plan. While we understand that there may be changes and that there may be more cuts, or some cuts, there must be a better way to do this than what was proposed. I heard from people across my State who were trying to figure out how they were going to make ends meet as they faced these drastic cuts. Michael from Shoreview wrote to me about how he was facing a possible cut of 40 percent. Thomas from Sandstone is 71 years old and, after paying into the Central States plan for 30 years, was facing a 60 percent cut. Steve from Maple Grove wrote me to let me know that he is 69 years old and is unable to return to work, but his pension would be cut by 37 percent. Those are a few examples. Many of these people are in their 60s and 70s, and they should be able to secure in their retirement what they have worked for their entire lives. While we temporarily averted this with the proposal being rejected, we know it is not going to go away. The Central States Pension Fund filed its petition to reduce pension benefits. Since then, an additional eight plans have also filed petitions. Congress needs to work together to find a bipartisan solution to help pensioners across Minnesota and our country--people who depend on their pensions being there for them in their golden years. We owe it to all Americans who played by the rules and worked hard throughout their lives for a secure pension. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to take just a few minutes to give a brief tribute to someone I know well, Patty Wetterling, and to her family. They are longtime Minnesota residents. Patty and I know each other well. We actually ran against each other for the Senate in 2005, and out of that experience we came to be very good friends. Patty Wetterling is a woman of unbelievable courage. Her son Jacob was kidnapped at gunpoint 27 years ago. All that time she has kept the hope alive that he would be found. She knew it was a small hope, but, as we know, there have been cases in America where missing children are found 10 years, 20 years later, and that is what she was hoping for. This past week, those dreams were dashed, as a very evil man came forward to law enforcement--he was already in captivity--and admitted to this crime and brought law enforcement to Jacob's remains. The story, which I will not put on the record, is a horrific one, but I think the most poignant moment in this horrible story were Jacob's last words, which were: What did I do wrong? This little boy did nothing wrong. He was an 11-year-old riding his bicycle in his town, in a very rural part of Stearns County, MN, where things are supposed to be safe. Well, they weren't safe that day. The amazing part of this story is not only the memory of this little boy, but it is how for years Patty Wetterling and her family have turned their grief into action. Understandably, many people try to hang tight to their family. She has done that. She has been a great mom, but she went beyond that. She served on the board of directors of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. She has been a nationally recognized educator on child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children. She and her husband cofounded the Jacob Wetterling Resource Center to educate communities about child safety issues and to prevent child exploitation and abduction. She served for more than 7 years as director of the Sexual Violence Prevention Program for the Minnesota Department of Health. She was named one of the ``100 Most Influential Minnesotans of the Century'' by one of our newspapers. She has kept this hope alive, but what is amazing about it is, she has saved other lives. A number of bills, legislation--including the sexual predator registration--have come out of the work, better collaboration between local and Federal law enforcement. She has saved so many lives in Jacob's memory. Senator Franken and I are going to be putting a resolution on the record today on this topic, but I just wanted to take a moment personally to recognize Patty for her strength, her courage, and her grace. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor once again on the topic of the vacant seat on our Supreme Court. I would also echo Senators Durbin's comments about the need to move immediately on the funding on Zika. We of course passed something here that had clear bipartisan support. Now we wait to get this done again and to not politicize this incredible public health threat. Today I am focusing my remarks on the damage to our system of governance that is being done by leaving a seat open on our Nation's highest Court. For years, we have seen some fraying of our democracy, the polarization, but the citizens of America have always believed in an independent Supreme Court. We have seen some political creep, as we know, into our judicial selection process. Nonetheless, the citizens of America have respected the rule of law. They continue to do that. When our Founding Fathers sat down to sketch out the framework of our Nation, they did not issue decrees. No, they set up a system of governance with three equal branches. The Federalist Papers outline this balance of paper in detail. Alexander Hamilton once wrote about this balance. He wrote: The regular distribution of power into distinct departments; the introduction of legislative balances and checks; the institution of courts composed of judges holding their offices during good behavior. . . . They are means, and powerful means, by which the excellences of republican government may be retained and its imperfections lessened or avoided. Well, that is not going to happen if we have a Court that cannot fully function. We have, in the most recent term, less cases brought up before the Court because we don't have a full composite of Justices. We have had split decisions. Think back in time. What if we only had eight Justices and a 4-to-4 decision on Bush v. Gore or in the Miranda case or Brown v. Board of Education? Actually, an interesting fact is, the Brown decision may not have happened if it were not for the swift filling of a Supreme Court vacancy. Chief Justice Vincent died just before the reargument of the case. By most accounts, the eight-person Court was split on the issue. Had this Senate refused to give Earl Warren a hearing and a vote, we would not have had the decision, but the Senate allowed for a vote and Chief Justice Warren was confirmed, the Brown decision was handed down, and our Nation has seen great progress toward equality as a result of that decision. In fact, the process in the Senate for the last 100 years is that the Judiciary Committee holds hearings. In the few instances where they have not, that is because those nominees were confirmed in 11 days or less. Since 1916, every nominee has been handled in that fashion. Justice Kagan has said the current Justices on the Court are doing everything they can to build a consensus and avoid a 4-to-4 split. While I appreciate that effort, that is just not how it is supposed to work. We want laws to rise or fall because the Supreme Court has decided them, not because of a 4-to-4 split. Look at the nominee we have. He is someone who has had broad support on both sides of the aisle. Senator Hatch once came before this body and said he challenged everyone to come to the floor to say something negative about Judge Garland. Judge Garland oversaw both the Oklahoma City bombing case and the Unabomber case at nearly the same time. He earned a 76-to-23 vote in this Chamber for his last job, and he is someone who has routinely received positive comments from judges and commentators from the other side of the aisle who basically have acknowledged he is someone who looks for that common ground. I have no doubt he would excel in his hearing, but right now we are not going to know that. I just ask my colleagues: What are they afraid of? Are they afraid the citizens of America will be able to see this fine judge and how smart he is or how he answers questions? As my friend Senator Angus King has said, are they afraid they would like him too much? I do not understand why we simply cannot have a hearing. I had to put myself--I think, well, what would happen if we had a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, what would I do? I have clearly thought this through, as a lawyer and as someone who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, and know I would say we have to have a hearing because the Constitution says our duty is to advise and consent. It doesn't say advise and consent after a Presidential election or whenever it is convenient. It says advise and consent. I am hopeful my colleagues are listening to us, that they will find it within themselves to allow this great judge, this great jurist a hearing. I was there in the Rose Garden when President Obama nominated him. I saw him tear up, and I thought to myself, not only is this a monumental moment in his own life, to be nominated for the highest Court of the land, but perhaps he was tearing up because he knew the burden he was carrying, one man, on his shoulders, the burden of carrying forward the American tradition of an independent judiciary, this simple concept that politics isn't supposed to dictate our processes, that our Founding Fathers set out three co-equal branches of government. Our job in the Senate is to make sure the judiciary is funded so it can function, our job is to pass laws they then look at and apply when there are questions about those laws, and our job is to advise and consent on nominees to the Federal judiciary. So let's get our act together and do our job. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to bring attention to an urgent issue affecting all Americans. Actually, the No. 1 issue I heard about when I was home--and especially at our State fair, which, by the way, is the biggest State fair in the country because we don't count Texas because they are open for a month. But there were 2 million people, a record crowd, 1.9 million to be exact. I went out there most of the days, and I was able to talk to folks right where they were. The issue they are talking about is the high cost of prescription drugs in our country. The price of insulin has tripled in the last decade. The price of the infectious disease drug Daraprim has increased 5,000 percent overnight. The antibiotic Doxycycline went from $20 a bottle to nearly $2,000 a bottle in just 6 months. Of course, the price for an EpiPen--which received so much attention over the last few weeks, which is used to treat life- threatening allergies, my daughter carries one wherever she goes--shot up nearly 500 percent since 2007. It seems every week we hear another disturbing report of drug companies focused on profits. According to a 2016 Reuters report, prices for 4 of the Nation's top 10 drugs increased more than 100 percent since 2011. The report also shows that sales for those 10 drugs went up 44 percent between 2011 and 2014, even though they were prescribed 22 percent less. I continue to hear from people across my State and the Nation about the burdensome cost of prescription drugs. There are heartbreaking stories about huge pricetags that are stretching families' budgets to a breaking point. This is just an example. I brought these examples home with me from the State fair and then brought them to Washington. These are from just a few days at our State fair booth, where people came up and filled out cards about their stories of increasing drug prices. These are just a few of the emails we have received since August 25 and calls we have received in our office every single day. For example, take the Dwyer family from Cambridge, MN. At 11 years old, Abby was diagnose with a rare form of leukemia. A few years later, her older brother Aaron was diagnosed with stage III lymphoma. Thankfully, both Abby and Aaron are doing much better, but the family faced astronomical out-of-pocket expenses during their treatment. Abby is on a drug with an average wholesale price in the United States of $367 per day, which is double the average price in other countries. Another example is a family from Elk River, MN. Due to their son's allergies, they must buy four EpiPens a year--two for home, one for school, and one for daycare. That is not overdoing it. I can tell you, having had a child with allergies since she was 4 years old, you don't just buy one. You have to buy one for school, then you also have to maybe buy one for grandma's house, and then one gets lost--so you end up not buying just one EpiPen. In reality, most families are buying four to six, which are two packs, three packs, sometimes even four packs. This family from Elk River, MN, buys four EpiPens a year: two for home, one for school, and one for daycare. This year the family paid $533 for a two-pack, even after using Mylan's coupon. They shouldn't be forced to spend over $1,000 each year just to make sure their son is safe every single day. I recently heard from a family in Lakeville, MN, whose daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. She needs insulin on a daily basis. This means paying $100 a month for Humalog, which is a fast-acting form of insulin. This significant financial burden is on top of all the other costs they pay for their daughter's diabetes, including test strips, an insulin pump, and a glucose monitor. Unfortunately, these families are not alone. A recent study showed that one out of four Americans whose prescription drug costs went up said they were unable to pay their bills. One out of five were forced to skip doses of their medication. Seven percent of people even missed a mortgage payment due to rising prescription drug costs. That is just not right, and our country must do better. I think one of the most frustrating things about it, having heard about the EpiPen--all because of my role with this all during the last few weeks--is that I got screen shots of photos of this exact same product in Australia for $150 from someone who saw it online. In Great Britain, I was on a show broadcast out of Europe, and there the host had it right there on the screen at 150 bucks. In fact, the Canadian prices--Minnesota being so close to Canada--are, on average, 50 percent of American drugs across the board. Of course, the burden extends beyond patients, the States, and the Federal Government. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, paid roughly 41 percent of the Nation's prescription drug costs. When drug prices increase with abandon, American taxpayers are left footing the bill. So people who think, well, I don't need one of those EpiPens, they are paying for it because Medicaid is buying them because SCHIP is buying them and because Medicare is buying them. Just last week, we learned that the company that manufacturers EpiPen and perhaps other companies have found ways to make taxpayers pay even more. Mylan marketed EpiPen like a brand-name drug, right? We heard about it this week because they just--and we will appreciate that-- introduced a generic version. However, their other version, their marketing version, controlled at least 85 percent of the market. They would claim they were having some innovations, and that is how they justified that enormous price increase from $100 to about $600 from 2009 to the present. However, through the Medicaid Program--so, remember, they are marketing it not as a generic. Everyone knew that because they just introduced a generic. Well, in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program they wrongly classified--we found out this week, when I sent a letter with Senator Grassley and Senator Blumenthal, that they wrongly classified EpiPen as a generic drug to the government. To the government, they claimed it was a generic drug. This classification means that Mylan has been paying lower rebates to Medicaid, increasing the burden on taxpayers. So you think, OK, misclassification, what does that mean? Well, I can tell you what that means. In Minnesota alone--because I specifically asked about Minnesota--in 1 year, my State overpaid an estimated $4.3 million. Why don't we multiply that out by all the States in the Union and all the years it has been happening? At this point, we do not know the total amount taxpayers have overpaid on EpiPen or how many other drugs from other companies are misclassified. That is why I have called on the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a nationwide investigation to determine how much the misclassification of, first, EpiPen has cost States and the Federal Government, and, two, to identify other misclassified drugs from other companies. Take these examples from the Canadian International Pharmacy Association. In the United States, a 90-day supply of ABILIFY, a drug used to treat depression and other mental health disorders, costs $2,621. In Canada, a 90-day supply of the exact same drug is only $467, which is over 80 percent cheaper. So you see these examples of these high-priced drugs. I think one of the things we need to do--and I don't know how those are classified--is to see how these are being classified for Medicaid purposes. Working with the Department of Justice, HHS should use all the tools it has to recover any overpayments. We have asked specifically about EpiPen. Well, Mylan paid almost $120 million--I don't think this has been that well known--back in 2009 to correct a misclassification of drugs. That was in 2009. Now we find out with EpiPen, which is about 10 percent of their profits, that this has been misclassified for years and years and years. Misclassification is just one way the government and, as a result, taxpayers are paying more than necessary for prescription drugs. One thing is absolutely clear: We must act now to make the cost of prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans. There is not one silver bullet that will fix the problem across the board, but there are some commonsense solutions to address the problem. Today I am going to offer four such solutions, any one of which would provide real relief, but the best way is to do all of them. The first is this. I mentioned Canada a few times. In fact, I just mentioned some of the Canadian prices for the drugs. In Minnesota we can see Canada from our porch. They spend a lot less money than we do on prescription drugs. As I mentioned, last year average prescription drug prices in Canada were less than half as expensive as they were in the United States--a price gap that has expanded significantly over the last 10 years. I mentioned a few of them--Abilify. There is Celebrex, an anti-inflammatory drug, which costs $884 in the United States for a 90-day supply. In Canada it is $180. That is nearly 80 percent less. I mentioned EpiPen, at $623. Of course, now we are going to get the rebate and the generic introduced after a public outcry, which is not the way it should be working. A two-pack in Canada costs 62 percent less, at $237. These staggering differences are why I introduced bipartisan legislation with Republican Senator John McCain to allow Americans to safely import prescription drugs from Canada. The Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act would require the FDA to establish a personal importation program that would allow Americans to import a 90-day supply of prescription drugs from an approved Canadian pharmacy. Now, there may be other safe drug suppliers in other countries. I think we know that. But we thought, in order to get the noise down, let's focus on one country, our neighbor and one of our best trading partners, and why not just go with the friendly people of Canada for an experiment to see how this works to allow some competition by allowing these drugs in from Canada. To provide needed safeguards, the FDA would publish an online list of approved Canadian pharmacies so people know where they can purchase safe drugs. These approved pharmacies would need to have both a brick- and-mortar and an online presence, and they must have been in business for at least 5 years. Also, these pharmacies would not be permitted to resell products purchased outside of Canada. The drugs from Canada would need to be dispensed by a licensed pharmacist and be required to have the same active ingredient, route of administration, and dosage form and strength as an FDA-approved drug. There would also be safeguards to ensure that the personal importation program is not subject to abuse. Patients must have a valid prescription from a doctor. Certain types of drugs, including controlled substances, would not be permitted. This is a safe and commonsense step that would save families real money and inject greater competition. We are about competition in this country. That is how we bring prices down. We have a friendly neighbor to the north that clearly has lower priced drugs than ours, and that is why Senator McCain and I have joined, along with Senators Susan Collins and Angus King of Maine and many others, to say: Let's do this. That is one solution. A second solution is this: Pay for delay. This is of one of those things that, when I told our citizens in Minnesota about this at our State fair, they could not believe it. Beyond the drug importation legislation, we can crack down on illegal pay-for-delay deals that prevent less expensive generic drugs from entering the market. Pay-for-delay agreements occur when a brand-name drug company--a pharmaceutical company--pays a generic drug competitor--a potential competitor--not to sell its products. This is going on in the United States of America. My booth at the State fair is next to Bob's Snake Zoo, and sometimes people come out yelling and screaming because they get a little scared from the snakes, but this is scarier than that. In fact, pharma companies are paying generic companies to keep their products out of the marketplace. That is why I have introduced the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. This gives the Federal Trade Commission greater ability to block these anti- competitive agreements. By allowing generic drugs to enter the market more quickly, the government would save money through the purchase of lower cost generic substitutes. That is why it is estimated that limiting these sweetheart deals would generate over $2.9 billion in budget savings over 10 years and save American consumers billions on their prescription drug costs. Who can be against this? You literally have two competitors, one accepting money and one paying them off to keep their products off the market. The Supreme Court heard a case which made some difference. The SEC has a bunch of open cases, but it has been agreed at hearing after hearing that Senator Grassley and I have held that this would be a smart thing to do. Remember, it would save the government $2.9 billion, but it would also save the consumers. The third good idea is allowing Medicare to negotiate prices. This is another thing where Minnesotans and Americans cannot believe this is the case, but in fact the combined incredible market power of the seniors of America has not been unleashed in terms of getting good deals for the seniors of America. Under current law, prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries are provided through private prescription drug plans. The plans are responsible for crafting benefit packages and negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for prices and discounts. The Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicaid can currently negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, but the law bans Medicare from doing so. This makes no sense, and it is a bad deal not just for our seniors but for all taxpayers. That is why I introduced the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. This legislation would allow Medicare to directly negotiate with drug companies for price discounts. The Federal Government would leverage its large market share to negotiate better prices for more than 30 million seniors--that is market power--covered under Medicare Part D. Last and finally, there is the CREATES Act. I worked on this bill with Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Grassley, and Senator Mike Lee to introduce the bipartisan Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act. That is a mouthful, but what it would do is to put an end to strategies that delay generic competition and cost American consumers billions of dollars. To receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration, a generic must test its products against the brand name product to establish equivalence. You would want that. Without access to brand name samples, there can be no generic product. For a long time, generic companies would simply buy these samples from a wholesaler. Now, some brand name companies prevent generic companies from obtaining samples, or the brand name company simply refuses to negotiate safety protocols with the generic company. In either case, the longer the brand name company can delay the generic company's approval, the longer the brand name maintains its monopoly. The CREATES Act would allow a generic drug manufacturer facing one of these delay tactics to bring an action in Federal court in order to obtain the needed samples or stop a branded company from dragging its heels on negotiating safety protocols. The bill would also allow a Federal judge to award damages in order to deter future delaying conduct. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would save the government $2.9 billion over 10 years. The savings to consumers and private insurance companies would likely be far greater. So let's review this, as my colleagues come to the floor. Solution No. 1 is to allow for safe drugs from Canada. It would bring down the prices and would bring in competition. This is a bipartisan bill--Democrats and Republicans--that I have with Senator John McCain. Solution No. 2 is to allow for more generic competition by passing the CREATES Act, which I just mentioned. That bill is with Senators Leahy, Grassley, Lee, and myself. That is a bipartisan bill that allows for samples to go quickly to the generic companies so they can actually create the drugs that will compete and bring the prices down. Solution No. 3 is to stop those pay-for-delay deals that are unbelievable. That would bring in, according to CBO estimates, $2.9 billion over 10 years, by saying to the generics and the pharma companies: You can't pay each other to stop competition. Competition helps consumers. And here is the final idea, which I think is the biggest idea: negotiation under Medicare Part D. This would finally take the kind of negotiation we see at the Veterans Administration, which has brought down the prices for the veterans of America, and harness the bargaining power of 39 million seniors so that we get better prices. These are four ideas, and three of them have Democratic and Republican sponsors. I want to vote on these proposals because I believe, based on what I saw at our State fair booth--again, with just a few days of the cards we received--that these anticompetitive practices have to stop and we need to bring down the prices of prescription drugs for the hardworking Americans in this country. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I wish to speak to honor the 50th anniversary of Best Buy. Best Buy was founded in 1966 as a stereo store called the Sound of Music in St. Paul, MN. Since then, it has grown from that one store into a Fortune 100 company with over 1,000 locations across the U.S., as well as Canada and Mexico. In 1966, Richard M. Schultze--a Minnesota native and former member of the Minnesota Air National Guard--and Gary Smoliak opened the Sound of Music on the corner of Hamline and St. Clair Avenues in St. Paul. By 1969, Schultze assumed sole control of the company, which had grown to three stores and was listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market. Then in 1981, disaster and inspiration struck. The Sound of Music store located in Roseville, MN, was hit by a tornado which tore the roof off the building and destroyed the showroom. Schultze showed the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit characteristic of Minnesota. He decided to have a ``tornado sale'' in the Roseville's store's parking lot and promised ``best buys'' on everything. Needless to say, the sale was a success. The Sound of Music was renamed Best Buy Company, Inc., in 1983 and had grown to seven stores and $10 million in annual sales. Later that year, Best Buy opened its first megastore in Burnsville, MN. By 1992, Best Buy had reached $1 billion in revenues. In 1999, Best Buy was added to the Standard and Poor's 500 index. Best Buy has consistently been one of the Minnesota-headquartered companies in the Fortune 500 and currently ranks 71st on the Fortune 500 nationally. And Best Buy was named company of the year by Forbes in 2004. So why do people shop at Best Buy? Maybe it is because they have updated their showrooms and a commission-free salesforce. Or maybe it is the wide range of products, interactive touchscreens kiosks and the demonstration areas for home theater systems and computer software. Best Buy also pioneered the concept of specialized in-store customer service areas by establishing a Geek Squad unit in each store. Best Buy has also been a good corporate citizen in Minnesota. Since 2007, Best Buy Company has generously given over $50 million and over 140,000 volunteer hours to Minnesota nonprofits. And they don't just care about people, they also care about the planet. Best Buy operates the largest retail consumer electronics and e-waste recycling collection program in the U.S. Over 1 billion pounds of recycling has been handed over to certified recyclers helping to keep the environment clean. Best Buy has also been named to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency top-100 list of green-power purchasers.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank my colleague for his statement and agree. Best Buy started with one store in St. Paul 50 years ago. It is now a multinational company with 125,000 employees who give back to their communities and work to reduce the impact of used electronics on the environment. For 50 years, Best Buy has brought the latest consumer technology and electronics products and services to its customers and remains a proud Minnesota company. That is why I am proud to honor Best Buy.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I was unable to cast a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the compound motion to go to conference on S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act. I missed the vote today because I was attending a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion. The final vote on this motion was 90 to 7, and my absence did not impact the outcome. The National Defense Authorization Act specifies the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense. This legislation is essential to support our men and women in uniform and to defend our Nation. I voted in favor of this legislation on final passage in the Senate. Mr. President, I was unable to cast a vote on Senator Shaheen's motion to instruct the conferees on S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. This motion to instruct would increase the number of visas for the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa, SIV, program. I missed the vote today because I was attending a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion. The final vote on this legislation/motion was 84 to 12, and my absence did not impact the outcome. The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa, SIV, program has served an important role in protecting Afghan allies who risk their safety, as well as the safety of their families, in order to help our troops serving in Afghanistan. This program is supported by two former commanders of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, retired Generals McChrystal and Campbell, who both acknowledge how crucial the SIV program is to our national security and to our allies. Mr. President, I was unable to cast a vote on Senator Sullivan's motion to instruct conferees on S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act. This motion would help implement President Obama's announcement to maintain troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as improve the capacity of the NATO Alliance. I missed the vote today because I was attending a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion. The final vote on this legislation-motion was 85 to 12, and my absence did not impact the outcome. I support this motion to instruct conferees because the proposal would strengthen our fight against ISIS and our security partnership with European allies. Last week, President Obama announced that the United States will maintain a force of approximately 8,400 U.S. military servicemembers in Afghanistan through 2017. These servicemen and women will continue to train and advise Afghan Forces and conduct counterterrorism operations. In order to maintain the progress that global coalition made against the Taliban during Operation Enduring Freedom and to prevent the spread of ISIS in the region, it is essential to authorize these operations. As we work to fight terrorism abroad by increasing our efforts to build and lead the international coalition against ISIS, we must also confront the threat that Russia poses. That means we need to increase capacity and operational responsiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. At the NATO Summit in Warsaw this month, President Obama and our allies pledged to increase the capacity of the European Reassurance Initiative. This is essential to deter Russian aggression and ensure that one of our most vital defense alliances is able to respond to evolving threats. The U.S. troops who will participate in the increased rotational presence in Poland represent a necessary response to Russia's increased aggression and provocation in the region. Mr. President, I was unable to cast a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 5293, the fiscal year 2017 Defense Appropriations Act. I missed the vote today because I was attending a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted against invoking cloture, as I did on July 6, 2016. The final vote on this motion was 55 to 42, and my absence did not impact the outcome. Congress passed a bipartisan agreement, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which outlines funding levels for 2016 and 2017. Attempts to circumvent the Bipartisan Budget Act are a violation of that agreement. Mr. President, I was unable to cast a vote on the motion to invoke cloture upon reconsideration on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2577, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations. I missed the vote today because I was attending a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted against the motion to invoke cloture, as I did on June 28, 2016. The final vote on this motion today was 52 to 44, and my absence did not impact the outcome. On May 19, 2016, I voted for the Senate version of the 2017 appropriations legislation to fund military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs when the Senate passed that bill by an overwhelming majority of 89-8. However, this conference report does not reflect the Senate position and instead slashes $500 million from our military and our veterans when compared to the funding levels included in the bipartisan Senate-passed bill. This conference report also includes certain policy riders I do not agree with attached to the funding that the Senate originally included to combat the Zika virus. The conferees also decided to offset these emergency funds by cutting funding for other important initiatives including funding that is continuing to be used to combat the outbreak of the Ebola virus. When faced with an emergency, whether it is a devastating weather event like a tornado or a hurricane or a public health threat, we come together as Americans to ensure that we are providing the necessary resources to our friends and neighbors in their time of need. Including controversial offsets to the Zika emergency response funding only causes unnecessary delay and prevents assistance from getting to the health care professionals, researchers, and others who need these resources to combat the Zika virus.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This bill represents an important step in tackling the growing crisis of prescription drug and heroin addiction in this country. I thank my colleagues, especially the original sponsors of this bill. Senator Whitehouse, Senator Portman, Senator Ayotte, and I have worked together on this legislation for a number of years. Drug overdoses from opioids now claim more lives than car accidents every year. That is a pretty shocking statistic that I don't think most Americans would expect. The crisis is ripping apart families from all different backgrounds, and with deaths increasing nearly sixfold since the year 2000, it is a crisis on the rise. This deadly trend struck at the heart of Minnesota. Last year alone, 336 Minnesotans died after overdosing on opioids. Since I started working on this bill, I have heard from people in communities across my State. In Montevideo, 12-year-olds were courted by pushers who said: Hey, kids. If you go in and check your parents' medicine cabinets--I'll give you a list--and bring us their prescription drugs, we will give you a can of beer. That happened in Montevideo, MN. Shelly Elkington shared her tragic story. Her daughter, Casey Jo, was a champion swimmer and hoped to study nursing like her mom, but in 2008 she was diagnosed with Crohn's disease, and that is when she started taking opioids for pain relief. As we know, four out of five heroin users started out by misusing prescription pain killers, and in the end the very pills that were supposed to ease Casey Jo's pain didn't work. She became addicted and eventually turned to heroin and other drugs, and basically this addiction hijacked her life. She is no longer with us. This is the story for far too many people. In one 7,000-person town in Minnesota, 3 young people died of opioid overdoses in just 6 months in 2013. Our final bill includes a number of proven strategies to help States and local communities in the fight against addiction, and one of the most important provisions in it for me is looking at solutions for unused prescription drugs. Senator Cornyn and I passed a bill back in 2010 and finally got the rules out after advocating for them from the DEA, I believe for 4 years, and we are finally starting to see some pharmacies, such as Walgreens, voluntarily taking back unused prescription drugs. This bill helps to build on that work. CARA also increases the availability of naloxone, which we know can be used in overdoses, and, of course, one of the most important things in this bill is a start at prescription drug monitoring. I emphasize that it is a start because I think a lot more needs to be done with prescription drug monitoring. I would have liked to have done it in this bill, but now we need to move on and get something done. Today, I will be introducing a bill with Senator King and Senator Manchin to actually do something about prescription drug monitoring, and that is requiring individual States to put in place prescription drug monitoring programs and actually submit the data. I have learned-- having Hazelden in my State--that some States have a program, but it just means doctors have to sign up. It doesn't actually mean that they actually record information or that they share it with other doctors. It doesn't even mean they share it between States. Our bill would require States that receive Federal funding to combat opioid abuse to ensure that their prescription drug monitoring complies with certain standards so that we can crack down on this addiction before it starts. It would require prescribers to consult with the PDMPs before they hand out prescriptions, require dispensers to report back within 24 hours of distribution, and would provide for the proactive notification of health care professionals when patterns indicative of opioid abuse are detected. For people who travel across State lines, it would also require States to share information. Here is an example: There was a patient at Hazelden Betty Ford who had 108 prescriptions for painkillers filled by more than 85 different prescribers. Think about that: 85 different medical professionals had prescribed these drugs. I met a rehab guy up in Moorhead who had a patient with a similar story, who had filled prescriptions from doctors in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. That is what is going on. If we don't require States to share information with other States, it is as if we don't really have a prescription drug program to begin with. CARA is an important bill, but there are two things that we need to change in order to improve the work we are doing in Congress. No. 1 is the money for treatment that I know Senator Schumer just addressed, which is in Senator Shaheen's bill, which would appropriate emergency funding and, second, not just say we are doing something about prescription drug monitoring but actually do something about prescription drug monitoring, and that is why I am introducing this bill today. There is a lot of work ahead, but I want to conclude my remarks by acknowledging the major step we are taking by passing the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and sending it to the President's desk to be signed into law. I thank my colleagues for their support. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today to remember those who have been affected by the tragic events in my State and across the country over the last week. I am here today to remember the loss, to share in the grief, and to stand with our community as we seek justice and healing and solutions together. Last week was a tough week in Minnesota. There have been and there will be a lot of bleak moments, when all anyone can do is to hug their family and their friends and ask why. How can this happen? How can we make sense of the senseless? How can we go on as people and as a community that is hurting so badly? But amidst all the horror, I also saw hope this weekend. Sunday, I spoke at Pilgrim Baptist Church in St. Paul, as well as Greater Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Minneapolis. When I looked around that room, I saw the horror, the frustration, the anger, but I also saw the hope. Being there with the grieving members of our community gave me that hope because I knew that they supported one another, that their hearts must mend, that the neighborhoods must heal. I literally heard them talk about how the love they had within the walls of that church must go beyond to the greater community. We have lost so many this week. What can you say to a mother whose precious baby boy--a 2-year-old--is killed in a drive-by shooting while sitting in his father's car in north Minneapolis? And what do you say to that same mother whose precious other child--the little boy's baby sister--was also injured by that gunfire? What can you say to comfort elementary school children who have suddenly lost that friendly face in the lunchroom who always gave them a smile, a kind word, a healthy snack? There are no words that can take away the pain of losing a beloved son, partner, and friend. Philando Castile was beloved--a ``gentle soul,'' in his mother's words. He loved the kids at his school, and they loved ``Mr. Phil'' right back. He knew all the kids' names. There were more than 500 of them. He learned who had allergies and who might need a little extra help. And, yes, with a little playful nagging, he got them to eat their vegetables. In short, he cared about them, and he let them know it. Everyone knew it. My State's outpouring of grief, especially from his school, and the love and support in the wake of his loss means something. The loss of that little 2-year-old is also a powerful reminder that being a friend is never a wasted effort--that even the smallest kindness shown to the smallest person makes this world better. Then there were the five officers lost in Dallas. Officer Brent Thompson had just gotten married a few weeks ago. His bride was a fellow transit officer. Officer Michael Smith served in the Dallas Police Department for 26 years and volunteered as a mentor to at-risk kids. Officer Patrick Zamarripa served three tours of duty in Iraq in the U.S. Navy. The only thing he loved more than the Texas Rangers and the Dallas Cowboys was his 2-year-old daughter, Lincoln. How about the 21 police officers in St. Paul who were injured Saturday night? There were so many peaceful protests--and there continue to be peaceful protests--involving Black Lives Matter and other groups in our State over Philando Castile's death. That is part of our democracy. That is how we make change. But what happened on Saturday night on Highway 94 was far from a peaceful process. We cannot achieve justice through injustice. So where do we go from here? We know that nothing we can say will take away the hurt, but here is what we can do to narrow the gap between us: First, we must pursue justice. When I served for 8 years as Hennepin County attorney, which is the chief prosecutor of our county, the largest county in our State, I always believed that my job--and the principle we would use when we looked at a case--was to convict the guilty and protect the innocent. That is what justice calls us to do. That is why I have joined with other members of the Federal delegation--Senator Franken, Congresswoman McCollum, and Congressman Ellison--in calling for a Federal investigation into Philando Castile's death. We need to understand what happened and how we can prevent this from happening again. Philando, his family, and all those children who loved him deserve nothing less. Second, we must fight for a criminal justice system that works for everyone. We all know people who have been caught up in a criminal justice system that can be harsh and unfair. It can do the right thing and it can protect victims, but it can also destroy individual people and it can pull families apart. That is why we must pass criminal justice reform. I have long supported important policy changes. My State was one of the first that videotaped interrogations, and that ended up being a good thing, not only for the defendants but actually for our police officers and those seeking convictions. I have supported reforms to the eyewitness process. I have supported body cameras, diversity in hiring, law enforcement resources and training--very important as we go ahead and look at what we should be focused on in the next year--and meaningful, meaningful work between law enforcement and our citizens. What else do we need? In my mind, we need commonsense gun reform. I was proud to join my colleagues on the Senate floor demanding changes to make our communities safer. One of those changes, in addition to the terror watch list bill, was to make sure we find some kind of consensus on improving background checks. The Senate's failure to pass bipartisan background check legislation has been a big disappointment. Here we had two A-rated NRA Senators that came together. Senator Toomey as well as Senator Manchin came up with a bill that would have closed some loopholes that would have made it safer. We know that States that have those background checks in place have reduced rates of suicides by guns, and they also have reduced rates of domestic homicides. I still remember those Sandy Hook parents in my office advocating for that change in the bill. They knew that wouldn't have saved their babies, but they also knew it was one of the things that could best save lives going forward and could best bring consensus in this Chamber. From my time as county attorney, I remember those little children lost to violence: Byron Phillips was a little boy killed on his north Minneapolis front porch. We had to put up billboards in the community saying: If you know who killed me, come forward. Eventually, it worked, and we put the guy in jail. Tyesha Edwards was killed by a bullet while doing her homework at her kitchen table. Her mom said: Get your homework done, and you can go out with us to the mall. That is how she died. Again, we put the guys that did it in jail, but that is not compensation for what happened to that family. Americans from across the Nation and across the political spectrum support commonsense proposals. They support commonsense background checks closing the loophole at gun shows by wide margins. In honor of those we have lost in Charleston and Orlando, San Bernardino, Newtown, Aurora, north Minneapolis, and cities across the Nation, I will continue to stand with my colleagues until we take action on these commonsense measures. I am reminded of President Obama's beautiful words at a service remembering more Americans lost to gun violence--this time in Charleston, SC. He said this: For too long, we've been blind to the unique mayhem that gun violence inflicts upon this nation. Sporadically, our eyes are open: When eight of our brothers and sisters are cut down in a church basement, 12 in a movie theater, 26 in an elementary school. But I hope we also see the 30 precious lives cut short by gun violence in this country every single day; the countless more whose lives are forever changed--the survivors crippled, the children traumatized and fearful every day as they walk to school, the husband who will never feel his wife's warm touch, the entire communities whose grief overflows every time they have to watch what happened to them happen to some other place. My friends, we must stem the tide. But we also know that justice in our laws--which means the criminal justice reform that I noted earlier, which means commonsense gun reforms, which means making sure that these cases are investigated and the law is followed no matter what the victims' race or ethnic background or how much money they have--must happen to bring justice to these families. But the other part of this, as I look at our neighborhoods that are affected by this every single day, is economic justice. In the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King: We know that it isn't enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn't earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee? When we see lingering disparities--and ``lingering'' is kind of a nerdy word for what we are talking about here. When we see these disparities of economics, when we see health disparities, when we see far too many families working so hard but still struggling to get ahead, and stubborn achievement gaps in our schools, we know there is so much more work to do. The solutions here are a deep commitment to an economic future for the people that live in our cities, to make sure they have access to the jobs that are starting to open up all over this country, that they are trained--that we look at what is happening in their schools and make sure that the training they get matches jobs that are open. We have jobs all over our State now in technology, in science, in manufacturing and welding, and this is giving those kids hope--not just in community colleges and regular colleges, not just in high school, but in middle school--that they are going to be able to get one of these jobs. That is economic hope. It is about training our kids, keeping them in school, opening the doors of our businesses, big and small, to people of neighborhoods like the one that I was in yesterday in St. Paul. Finally, we must all work to protect the innocents among us. That is what I started talking about--how we must convict the guilty and protect the innocent, especially our children. Two-year-olds should not be shot and killed on the streets of north Minneapolis. Four-year-olds should not watch a man die in the car seat right in front of them. Nobody should have to explain to a classroom of children why their beloved friend ``Mr. Phil'' doesn't feed them lunch anymore. We are better than this. I recently visited a mosque in Minneapolis and heard the story of a Muslim family who had gone out to eat at a restaurant--two parents, two kids. The parents, by the way, had been through 9/11 and understood what had happened then but have been able to live in our community, where we have the largest Somali population in our country, without a lot of discrimination, without a lot of hateful words even after 9/11. But not this time. They were in the restaurant with their little kids, and a guy walked by and said: You four go home. You go home to where you came from. The little girl looked up at her mom and said: Mom, I don't want to go home. You said we could eat dinner out tonight. I don't want to go home and eat dinner. Those are the innocent words of a child. As sweet and funny as it is, think about this: She knows no other home. She didn't even know what that guy was talking about because she knows no other home, because Minnesota is her home, because the United States of America is her home. America is better than angry words directed at strangers in a restaurant. America is better than babies being shot on the street in broad daylight. America is better than Philando Castile losing his life. And America is better than throwing concrete chunks at police officers in St. Paul and five Dallas cops being taken from their beat forever. So I am here today to stand with the people who are not satisfied with how things are--the people who are ready to work to make things better, the people who are the helpers and the peacemakers. Together, we can make this world a better place, and more just. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague from Maine, Senator Susan Collins, to bring attention to the millions of Americans living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and the loving caregivers who take care of them. One in three seniors who die each year has Alzheimer's or related dementia. The cost is incredible. In 2016, we will spend $236 billion caring for individuals with Alzheimer's. By 2050, these costs will reach $1.1 trillion. The one thing we know is we are seeing more and more people with Alzheimer's. We are working diligently--all of our doctors and medical professionals--for a cure, but we know that, in the meantime, we will have many family members involved in taking care of them. Senator Collins and I have introduced the Alzheimer's Caregiver Support Act, which authorizes grants to public and nonprofit organizations to expand training and support services for families and caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. We think that these sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, and husbands and wives who are doing this caregiving all want to have the best quality of life possible for their loved one who has this devastating disease--and they want to be trained. If they don't have that ability to learn what tools they can use when someone around them just starts forgetting what they said 10 minutes before, they need to learn how to take care of them, and many of them want to do that. Our bill simply gives them the tools to do that. I thank Senator Collins for her longtime leadership. I thank Senator Carper, who moved the schedule around a bit so we could talk about this important bill. I know Senator Collins wishes to speak about this as well.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues Senator Casey from Pennsylvania and Senator Enzi from Wyoming to speak in support of our bipartisan legislation, the Recovering Missing Children Act, something we have been working on for so long. I remember hearing about this in a Judiciary Committee hearing and learning about the surprising number of cases that can be solved when this information from the IRS is shared with law enforcement. It sounds almost absurd that information is sitting in government files of where a child who has been abducted is living, but in fact it is. Oftentimes the abductor claims the child on taxes or has their address on their taxes and it is as easy as looking at a file. A family can be reunited, and a child who wasn't supposed to be taken from their home can be brought back to their home. As my colleagues have noted, our bill would give law enforcement officers important tools to solve some of the most heartbreaking cases. To accomplish this, the bill will offer information sharing by Federal law enforcement officers on a limited basis. It was something we discussed at length in the Judiciary Committee, and I know we also discussed it in the Finance Committee with the State and local law enforcement officials who are involved in the investigation and prosecution of a case. Under current law, the IRS is barred from sharing its taxpayer information with local law enforcement, even though in many cases the IRS actually has the location of the child. Imagine a hardworking local police officer out trying to find a kid, looking everywhere, following up on every lead, and our own government has the information in their files. This is a narrow exception that allows this information to be shared. As a former prosecutor, I know firsthand that returning missing children to their families is one of the most important tasks law enforcement officers have, and they need every resource available to do their job. The faster law enforcement can locate the child, the greater the likelihood the child can be returned to their family unharmed, and they can go on to live a normal life. I do want to mention one person who has been someone I talk to about missing and exploited children issues, and that is Patty Wetterling from the State of Minnesota. There was a horrible case in which her son Jacob was abducted years and years ago and never found. She served as the chair on the board of the missing and exploited children group. She has done so much work nationally and locally. While we don't believe this would have helped in Jacob's case, she did it for all those other children who are still out there. So this one is for you, Patty. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. One of our fellow Senators noted that maybe not many people are watching. I have been around talking to people tonight, and I can tell you that a lot of people are watching this. The country is watching this because people have been waiting for action. Many of us here have been involved in law enforcement. For me, it is about a series of pictures. It is the picture of those victims in Orlando, and with every picture, there is a story. Everyone killed in that massacre was someone's brother, someone's son, someone's loved one. I think of the little girl with the blue dress with stars, walking down a sidewalk to a church. Her dad had been murdered by a madman, someone who was mentally ill, someone who was a perpetrator of domestic violence. Her dad was a police officer in Lake City, MN. It is a beautiful little town on a beautiful lake. He was just doing his job one day when he was called to a home. He went to the front door and had on a bulletproof desk, but the guy shot him in the head. There we all were at the funeral, at the same church where only a week ago the children had been in a Nativity play and their dad was sitting in the front proudly watching. A week later, that same family was walking down the center aisle of the church. The little girl was in a blue dress covered with stars. I think about those Sandy Hook parents--the ones Senator Murphy knows so well--who were in my office, as well as in many other Senators' offices, the morning of the vote on the background check bill. I told this story earlier this afternoon. There was a mom sitting there. They were all so sober and so glum because they actually thought there was a chance that the people in this Chamber would respond after they lost their little children in another senseless act of violence. The mom in the office looked at me and said: You know my story? She said my son was severely autistic and could hardly speak. Every morning he would point up at a picture on the refrigerator. It was a picture of his help aide, the woman who was with him every day. The next thing she knows, she gets a call, goes to the school and sits in that fire hall with those parents. Some kids come in, and all the parents who are left know that they are the ones whose babies are never coming back. As she sat in that fire hall, she kept thinking about, of course, her son, but she also thought about the woman who was with him and sacrificed her life for him. She was found with her arms around him in that school. Both were shot dead. Those are the images that I think about--the little girl in the blue dress at the funeral, her daddy, a police officer, shot dead at the door; that mom in my office, her son and her son's faithful aide shot dead in that school. Then you think of all these young people killed in this massacre right in our midst in Orlando, FL. (Mr. PERDUE assumed the Chair.) We all know that one solution won't fit all. We all know that in some cases it is about an assault weapon and in some cases it is about background checks. In some cases it is about getting someone off a terror watch list who shouldn't have a gun. Every solution may be different, but when we start doing the right thing, we start saving lives. Tyesha Edwards was a little girl who was shot at her dining room table while doing her homework. Her mom said: You get your homework done, you can go to the mall. A gang bullet right through the house. Melissa Schmidt, a Minneapolis police officer--young, excited to do her job--was shot in a bathroom by someone who was mentally unstable. These are the images I think about. And Senator Booker has pointed out so many times that this isn't just about the massacres, it is also about the individual cases that happen every single day, the domestic violence cases that happen every single day. So while it is so important to focus today on this bizarre situation where you can have thousands of people on a terror watch list who can still get access to firearms, there are other things we can do as well. We can put sensible background checks in place. Think about Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey coming together at a time--two A-rated NRA legislators who were able to come together and put that background check together. And think about those parents from Sandy Hook who knew that bill would not have saved their babies but looked at the thing that could most likely get done in this body, what is the thing that could pass that would save the most lives, because they know that background checks, when done right and thoroughly, have saved lives. They mostly help in cases of suicide and in cases of domestic violence. They had the courage to come to this Chamber, to come to our offices time and time again to advocate for something that they knew wouldn't save their babies' lives, but they did it because they knew it was the right thing and they had the courage to do it--the courage that many people did not have in this Senate Chamber. Domestic violence, background checks help. Do we know what else helps with domestic violence? Going after stalkers. Right now you can be convicted of stalking and still get a gun in this country. That is why we have a bipartisan bill in the House and in the Senate that would stop that. We also bizarrely don't include dating partners, even though in many parts of the law, they are included. You don't have to be married to someone if you have a domestic violence conviction and you are dating partners. A Republican witness at a Judiciary hearing agreed that that part of the law could change, but we cannot get that simple thing changed in the law because people are not willing to take just the slightest risk to vote for it, even when their own constituents favor it. As Senator Murphy has pointed out over and over again, we have a situation where the majority of gun owners support these changes. We have a situation where the vast majority of people want to see these changes. I thank the Senator from Connecticut and ask him just one question focused again on the terror watch list. I know Senator Feinstein released updated information from the Government Accountability Office just yesterday which showed that roughly 91 percent of known or suspected terrorists who attempted to purchase a firearm were able to clear a background check in 2015. I think people would be pretty shocked if they knew that statistic, and obviously one of the reasons we are talking all day today is that people understand how bizarre this situation is, that we can't even close that loophole. I ask Senator Murphy, what does that mean to you when you hear a statistic like that, that you have 91 percent of known or suspected terrorists who can purchase a firearm but are still able to clear a background check?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask if the Senator from Connecticut will yield for a question without yielding the floor?