Benefit pension, and now they are seeing the possibility that that could result in up to a 90 cut in their benefits. Over the past several years weve been working on this, ive been involved with it. Ive been working on the finance committee which is the committee here in the senate that has responsibility for this issue. In 2018, going back two years ago now, iowas participating in hearings as a member of the joint committee on solvency of multiemployer Pension Plans. It was a oneyear committee. House and senate, republican and democrat. Woe were we were supposed to get to a solution for this problem before it gets worse. We spent countless hours trying to do that. I spent countless hours in meetings, with beneficiaries, retirees, spouses. Ohio is one of the states thats hardest hit. I have heard their stories about how years of mismanaged Pension Plans have put them on the hook for unthinkable cuts into pensions that they just assumed were going to be there. Let me spell out how precarious this is for my home state of ohio. We have got over 60,000 active workers and retirees in multiemployer Pension Plans at a immediate risk of becoming insolvent, probably more than any other state in the country. Many of these ohio plans have already been forced to drastically reduce benefits, by the way, including the iron workers local 17 in cleveland, the southwest Ohio Regional Council of carpenters and the toledo roofers local 134. Some are already insolvent like the teamsters local 416 of the cleveland pension fund. So for some, unfortunately, you know, this insolvency has already happened. The Central States pension fund, which is the single largest plan thats in this critical and declining status, is projected to become insolvent in 2025, at the same time pbgc is because when it goes under, pbgc goes under. Its that big. They have 154,000 participants in that ohio in ohio, more than any other state. The majority of these state retirees are veterans, by the way. They receive about 360 million in annual benefits from their pensions. By the way, that money goes right back into the economy. They spend it. Unfortunately, years of bad federal policy with respect to funding and withdrawal liability rules, losses on risky investments, and failure to take proactive action have brought many of these Pension Plans to the brink of insolvency. The result is that these hardworking ohioans in Central States again face pension cuts of over 90 if no action is taken. Thats unacceptable. We cant let that happen. By the way, its not just a Retirement Security issue, as i said earlier. Its a jobs issue. The multiemployer Pension System consists primarily of smaller businesses who face uncertainty and higher costs of doing business due to the liability they will face called withdrawal liability. More than 200 Small Businesses are in Central States alone in my home state of ohio. 200 businesses that face huge withdrawal liabilities, many of which are much bigger than the book value of the company. Meaning, of course, that they are not going to make it. In fact, if a systematically important plan like Central States were to become insolvent, contributing employers face the risk of being assessed unplanned withdrawal liabilities, it will result in a wave of bankruptcy sis and a contagion effect across the economy as plans with overlapping contribution bases also fail. So it wont just be that plan. It will be other plans as well because the Companies Pay into different plans. Even if they are not assessed withdrawal liability, employers will be forced then to make contributions into an insolvent plan, making those companies not competitive in the labor market. They wont be able to pay their employees as much because they are making the payments into the insolvent plans. These jobs are essential to our economy. Right now more than ever. Many of the current workers in the central state pension plan as an example are Truck Drivers, and these are the very Truck Drivers who are keeping our Grocery Stores stocked. They are the supply lines running through this coronavirus crisis. They have put their health on the line for all of us, and we need to do our very best to ensure that the pensions that they have earned, rightly earned are going to be there for them. While these problems were really known before the current economic downturn, this slowdown is only going to accelerate the crisis. As c. B. O. Projected thats the Congressional Budget Office here, nonpartisan c. B. O. As they projected in late april, the Second Quarter of this fiscal year is projected to mark the largest percentage drop in economic output in recorded history with g. D. P. Projected to fall 40 on an an annualized ba. That has a real impact on these pensions. As chair of the Senate Finance subcommittee with jurisdiction over these multiemployer Pension Plans, i have been working on this issue with democrats and republicans alike, and i believe a balanced progrowth solution to the problem is possible. I also know that its needed. As bad as the pension crisis is for these retirees we talked about in the individual plans, it also has a broader impact on our economy, so all of us should be interested in solving this problem. It wont be easy, especially given the Unprecedented Health crisis we now face, but putting off this difficult work today means greater costs tomorrow. The costs compound, so it gets worse. The Multiemployer Program deficit is projected to rise significantly if we wait until this period around 2024 or 2025. Even if we didnt have this pandemic, this is an issue we owe to our constituents to take proactive action on. We have come some way on this project and we have made some progress over time. In 2018, senator Sherrod Brown and his cochair, senator orrin hatch and myself put together a framework for reform while serving on this joint select committee on the solvency of multiemployer Pension Plans. I think that framework can effectively address the crisis. We called it the bipartisan framework. It would have provided pbgc enough resources to prevent its own insolvency and put in place Structural Reforms to the funding rules and the way plans are governed to ensure a longterm solution going forward. Unfortunately, the joint committee was not able to reach final agreement on these reforms, and therefore we werent able to stabilize the pbgc and put it on a stronger financial footing, but i strongly believe the mechanism to address the immediate crisis thats in this framework, this bipartisan framework still offers the right way forward for us to get this done. There is a real interest in addressing this crisis using this framework right now. The housepassed heroes act thats the legislation that the house passed to deal with the covid19 crisis includes a proposal to try to fix this problem. And again, its a step in the right direction in that they have chosen to adopt the approach of partitioning atrisk plans to help address the immediate crisis. Thats the approach that we took. This is a step away from their previous plan in the house and among a lot of democrats in the senate which employed a loan structure for all inactive liabilities, and based on c. B. O. Analysis would not have prevented pbgc from becoming insolvent. So this new structure makes more sense, and its closer to the Senate Bipartisan framework. The new house plan, therefore, costs a little less, and retirees also get more certainty from it. There are some flaws in the House Democrats approach to still make it a nonstarter over here in the senate. First there is no shared responsibility when it comes to strengthening the Financial Condition of the pbgc. It entirely relies on taxpayers. So 59 billion of taxpayer funds over the next ten years. Some on our side of the aisle of course find that to be a bailout by the taxpayers when, in fact, there ought to be more shared responsibility. This is strictly important now as there is more and more concern about the public money that is being spent. Second, the house proposal includes no Structural Reforms whatsoever to the rules governing how multiemployer Pension Plans operate, how employer contributions are determined, and corrective actions trustees can take to improve planned solvency and protect participants. What we dont want to do is solve the problem with a bandaid and then have the problem come right back again. We want to get this right. The reforms have to address the underlying flaws in the system and ensure that pbgc can function as a selfsustaining entity rather than a new line item in the federal budget funded by permanent entitlement spending. This has got to be something that solves the problem long term. We cant put in place a partial solution that will require congress to come back again and again in the future. And unfortunately, the House Democrats plan fails to achieve this. In my view, any plan we make to reform the multiemployer Pension System has to adhere to three main principles. Number one, we do need shared responsibility to address the immediate crisis. We should not pass a legislative solution where the bill is entirely footed by taxpayers. Employers and participants must share the responsibility of fixing this problem, not taxpayers alone, since 99 of taxpayers arent participating in this system. A recent poll by mclaughlin and associates of 2,700 likely voters in midwestern states found that 76 of voters support a shared solution based on a combination of financial contributions from employers, retirees, and taxpayers. A Congressional Budget Office 2017 working group paper found that both various exemptions from government employer contributions and accounting standards used by multiemployer plans played significant roles in allowing pbgc to become insolvent. So both exemptions from the employers putting money in and the accounting standards are the reason they say that pbgc became underfunded. So greater employer contributions are part of it, getting these plans back on track. Second, i believe any solution must ensure sustainable solvency for the pbgc. Again, this is important to be sure that we are solving this problem. Overall, i believe premiums should be a significant contributor to the health of pbgc, covering at least half of the cost of recapitalization. We also need our plan participants to pitch in in the form of solvency fees paid directly to pbgc. With a significant variable rate premium, by the way, we can make these solvency fees as low as 10 or maybe even lower. We need to think long and hard about the levels of shared responsibility that could include premiums imposed on workers, on unions, and increased flat rate premiums as well. These would be small contributions but significant in the sense that everybody would be participating. Everybody would do a little bit. And the taxpayers would be asked to do a lot, too. The only way we can get the taxpayers to make a substantial contribution is to ensure that there is this shared responsibility. And third, any solution must ensure there is sustainable solvency for the multiemployer plans in the future. Any bipartisan solution should include structural reform to the funding rules governing employer contributions to multiemployer plans so that congress and the treasury will not be regularly called up to bail out a large number of underfunded plans. Retirees need to know these plans are secure. This includes gradually phasing down the rate at which plans may value existing pension liabilities which are promises to retirees that should be kept but are being budgeted for through investments that the Congressional Budget Office says are high risk. Without any rules on how these mention liabilities are valued, there is high risk. Heres what the risk is now. Heres the average multiemployer plan target rate of return. Heres a conservative way to look at it which would be the Interest Rate on tenyear treasuries. By the way, the tenyear treasury is now down to just about 1 , so its gone down even further. This gap is that high risk that the Congressional Budget Office is talking about. So there needs to be some solution here. I understand that this needs to be phased in. It needs to be gradual. It needs to be reasonable. But we have got to again ensure that retirees know that when they get into a plan and make contributions to a plan, its going to be there for them. The Senate FinanceCommittee Published its own proposal in november which attempted to get at these two goals of addressing the immediate crisis through shared responsibility and preventing a future crisis through reforms to the funding rules. This was a republican plan put forward by senator grassley who spoke moments ago. That proposal is called the multiemployer pension recapitalization reform plan. Its not perfect, but its worth emphasizing that the Trump Administration supports this proposal and put out a statement of Administration Policy endorsing it, saying, quote, we believe it has the potential to serve as a base for a longterm solution to the multiemployer pension crisis. I have talked to several people within the administration, and i think they are also committed to a bipartisan agreement in this congress to try to solve this problem. Again, the plan put out by senator grassley and also senator alexander may not be perfect, but now you have two plans out there, both of which use the same basic structure. And i think there is an opportunity here for us to come together. Right now, i know some of my counterparts in the house who have worked on the multipension proposal in the heroes act want to know who they should be negotiating with because theyre not negotiating right now on how to find that compromise. Well, i would suggest talking to the finance committee. Thats where the jurisdiction is. Thats what the administration has indicated as well. We have been working all year with the pbgc on a reasonable proposal that we believe can get support from the National United committee to protect pensions. Many of the teamsters local unions and many of the employers who are trying to stay afloat right now. The Senate Finance committee will continue to reach out to have a serious conversation with democrats on both sides of the capitol to help address this immediate crisis and ensure solvency for the multiemployer Pension System. In order to reach an agreement on this issue, shared responsibility will be necessary to make it work, in my view. To reiterate, were willing to put serious federal money on the table, taxpayer funds, and were willing to negotiate, but it has to be a balanced approach. And the time to act is now. The Senate Finance committee has this commonsense proposal on the republican side, again vetted by pbgc, that while not perfect is an interesting starting point fors to come together. The for us to come together. The house has their own proposal, that has many similarities in terms of its structure. Lets build upon those, as republicans and democrats, to get our multiemployer Pension System back in order. We owe it to the employees, to the workers, to the participants in these plans. We owe it to the Small Businesses. Lets get serious about this and ensure we can protect the retirements of hardworking americans we protect. Taxpayers deserve proactive action now, and so do workers and so do retirees. Lets get it done. I yield back my time. Mr. Cassidy mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from louisiana. Mr. Cassidy mr. President , nearly a month has passed since george floyd died. In a show of unity which bridged divides, americans republicans, democrats, independents demanded that something be done to prevent such deaths from happening in the future. Republicans are trying to do something. Thanks to the leadership of senator tim scott, the senate is trying to consider the justice act, a major bill to Reform Police departments in meaningful, practical ways. Yet today democrats blocked consideration of the bill. I hope democrats allow the senate to at least debate the justice act. If democrats dont like the bill, offer an amendment, make the case. Reforming Police Departments, making justice fair and equal for all is a bipartisan issue. I smiled when i was sitting in the chair you are right now, mr. President. A senate colleague, who is a democrat, spoke yesterday and described the senate as the worlds greatest deliberative body. I thought, she must be sarcastic. I say that because democrats refuse to allow deliberation. The people sent us here to solve problems. Lets do the work. Now, as i was sitting in your chair yesterday, mr. President , i heard democrats rationalize why they refuse to allow debate. As best as i can tell, they refuse to allow any deliberation because theyre not sure that what they want to be included will be included. I think now, mr. President , its time to review that which most of us learned in fifth grade. Mr. President , just for a civics lesson for my democratic colleagues, im going to go through how a bill is passed. And to show that even though they dont like how the bill starts, they can actually change how it ends and vote against it, if they dont like it. But, mr. President , we all learned this. This is how a bill passed. We get an idea from a constituent. Those ideas are on the street right now, mr. President. They want reform of how policing occurs to make sure that it is fair and equitable for all. And the bill can go thraw the house. Its debated on the house floor. If its approved, it comes to the senate. Now, im going to just interject here. The senate may come up with its own bill, and it goes to the floor. Here it says the bill is debated and thats not happening filibuster and cloture may occur, and the senate may approve the bill. Now lets just stop here, mr. President. If the Democratic Party the Democratic Senators dont like the bill in its current form, they can amend it. And if they dont like the way it is when its amended, they can vote against t and if they vote against it, it wont pass. So if they dont like where it ends up after we deliberate, debate, and offer amendments, they can still defeat it. But, mr. President , lets just imagine that it does get approved. Then it goes to the Conference Committee. You and i know this, but theres some watching whove heard this kind of dialogue yesterday or these speeches yesterday from our Senate Colleagues from the democratic side. Let me just remind people, if we approve a bill, it still goes to Conference Committee, and the legislation passed by the house of representatives is considered, and those two bills are merged and then it comes back for another vote. So they have a chance to amend. They have a chance to vote against it if they dont like the final product. And then it is going to a Conference Committee with speaker pelosis version, and then they get to vote against that, if they dont like that. Mr. President , if all they do will allow deliberation the bill and what one so said sarcastically was the worlds greatest deliberative body, they would have this, that, and that opportunity to either approve or disapprove. By the way, my young aide was bringing this into the chamber and saw somebody out in the hallway and the young person said in the haltway, hmmm. Dot doesnt work that way. He remembered seeing this cartoon, this youtube when he was a kid. And all he could say is, does work that way. Should. Thats how our Founding Fathers set it up. But our our side has decided it doesnt work that way, and thats too bad, mr. President. Thats too bad because if we dont do the work, if we dont deliberate, if we continue to have status quo over the change in the reform that all the American People are demanding, then we will not be answering the pleas of those Peaceful Protesters who are asking for that change. Now, mr. President , the senate the cynic might believe that democrats have blocked deliberation of the justice act because they dont want the president or republicans to have a win for the election year. If thats the case, if this is purely political, they have let down the American People, especy those who demand justice. And they let down the American People just to score political points. Maybe they blocked it because it doesnt include the Democratic Partys new wish list defunding and abolishing police force. Perhaps they knew if somebody offered an amendment to the justice act to defund the police that members would be forced to vote on the measure rather than just Pay Lip Service to an idea that is going nowhere. Now, let me just say, defunding and abolishing Police Forces is not the direction republicans believe we should take for obvious reasons. Mobs are destroying and defacing property and destroying and defacing monuments of National Heroes. George washington, abraham lincoln, ulysses grant, world war ii memorials are being defaced with swastikas torn down by a mob which hates the United States of america. And when you establish a show of called policefree zone, an absurd promise of a utopian society that is in fact full of crime, the one in seattle has had i think four shootings, at this point the mobs goal isnt justice for george floyd. The mobs goal is about displaying their hatred for the United States of america. Now, if Senate Democrats reject that behavior of the mob, let the country hear you. Reject it. But that would require debate. That would require deliberation. And that is what is being denied the justice act. That is what Senate Democrats will not allow. Now heres what Democrats Senate democrats blocked when they decided against allowing deliberation of the justice act, if you will, addressing the demands of the people who are calling for reforms of policing. They denied stronger Accountability Measures for the Police Departments. The justice act requires reporting of use of force and of noknock warrants. It increased the penalty for false police reports. It insults penalties for failings to properly use body cameras. It requires sharing of disciplinary records so that departments will know whether an applicant has history of bad behavior in another Law Enforcement department. Now, by the way, some of the Senate Democrats have said they want to outlaw these things. Offer an amendment. Thats why you deliberate. You dont come up with a deal in a back room and bring it to and oh, my gosh we have to vote on it. You offer an amendment, allow deliberation. Why will they not respond to the pleas of the American People to deliberate, to consider, to come up with some form of fairness in policing for those who feel like it has been denied . Let me continue. The justice act requires the department of justice to develop and provide training and deescalation techniques to prevent Police Encounters from getting out of hand. That training works. The New Orleans Police Department has implemented it. One of the images i saw when the riots were occurring in minneapolis was the New Orleans Police Department taking a knee with protesters in Jackson Square literally on Common Ground to say that we are with you to work towards a solution. Thats because of this sort of training being instituted there. Im so proud that my state has an example of that which works. And this bill would take that which works and make it common across the country. The justice act also requires training in education about the African American socioeconomic circumstance so that officers gain a better perspective of these communities. It promotes understanding of how African American males are impacted by life experience, including education, health care, financial status and the criminal justice system. It helps departments know the best practices for police tactics, employment processes, community transparency, how Law Enforcement can best engage on issues related to mental health, homeless in and addiction. Senator scott, drawing from his own experiences, crafted a bill with reforms that will lead to more accountability, fewer uses of force, and a better understanding of disenfranchised and minority communities that police should also serve and protect. Criminal Justice Reform advocates have long called for the very same reforms the justice act institutes. In fact, there is a lot of agreement between republicans and democrats on many of the reforms in this bill. So i ask once more, why are democrats blocking even a consideration on this floor of this bill . If you dont like it, work to change it. If it passes, it only passes with your votes, and if it does pass, it then goes to the house of representatives for reconciliation with their bill and then it comes back. But we should at least debate, at least pretend to hear the cries of the American People who are asking for justice for those who perceive they have been denied. Mr. President , we know that the justice act brings about the changes to policing that americans are calling for, accountability, deescalation training, education, and other things. Yet again Senate Democrats have blocked even a discussion of those reforms. So i ask myself, it doesnt make sense. Good people, why would they kind of, you know, block even consideration to the cries of the congress on the street. Why would they even do that . And then i return to this. I think they are afraid that someone on their side of the aisle will offer an amendment to defund the police, and they would have to go on the record as to whether or not they are going to appease a radical left base devote to defund the police or whether or not they are going to support the men and women in uniform that protect us all. They dont want that vote. So its not just that the political calculation they wouldnt want President Trump to have a win, i suppose, it is a political calculation that they dont want a loss. They dont want to be forced to declare their support for the police or their support to defund the police. Now, mr. President , we are ignoring they are ignoring the cries of protesters demanding that george floyd never occur again in order to cover political tracks. I think its important to recognize that defunding the police, which i think is a radical concept is absurd. We need Police Officers. In fact, im always struck that my colleagues of both parties always thank Capitol Police for the service they do. Dont the people in our community thank Police Officers to keep their offices from being stolen or robbed or burned. I think they do. If you think the Police Departments should be defunded, bring it up and debate on it. We are here to represent the their to represent their interest. Now, mr. President , a word about the mob. The mob that is not Peaceful Protesters advocating for justice for all, but those who hate the United States of america who wish to erase our history and who wish to replace our National Heroes with toppled statues and swastikas and hammers and sickles upon the side of the building. The more is the constitutional protection of free speech and freedom of assembly. We cherish and thank those who are peacefully protesting for exercising those constitutional rights. But i also hear from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that somehow these actions of anarchists are justifiable. Theres a sentiment that says we tried to enact change peacefully but nothing has happened. I, unfortunately, have to agree with them republicans have brought forward a bill that would peacefully begin to make changes in how policing is understood and practiced and in so peacefully doing bring about the change for which they are advocating. But, again, nothing has happened because Senate Democrats have decided that they dont even want to debate a bill, offer amendments, vote against the final product, or allow it to go to a Conference Committee with the house of representatives to be changed once more to become perhaps more to their liking. My Senate Democratic colleagues are not just not discussing reform, they dont want to take a stand on defunding and abolishing Police Departments. Rather than have a debate, we go into hiding, leaving the issues regarding reforming policing unresolved. I hope my democratic colleagues allow the debate to occur. I hope they recognize the importance of this issue to all americans, especially those in communities of color, but really to us all. So to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, come back to the table. Lets hear your amendments. Lets have the debate. Lets enact the change that need by building a consensus on the best path forward. Lets live up to the statement that the senate is the worlds greatest deliberative body. Together the senate, republicans and democrats, can deliver change for the American People. We can bring about the unity that we, as a country, desperately need in order to heal as a society. But this will only happen if my Senate Democratic colleagues stop hide be behind procedural votes. Come to the floor. Lets deliberate. Lets do what the founding farce imagined that we fathers imagined that we would. I know it is difficult but times you have to rise above the difficulty for the challenge of the time and that challenge is now. Thank you, mr. President. I yield back. I note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Mcconnell i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask that the senate proceed to s. 2472. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk a bill to announce the nasa john h. Glenn center. The presiding officer is there objection to proceeding . Without objection. The senate will proceed. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the rule of provision 22, to proceed to 483, s. 49 ripen at 1 30, thursday, june 25. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 00 a. M. , thursday, june 25, following morning business, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed of 483, s. 4049, under the previous order. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Mcconnell if thereno further business no further business to come before the business to come before the this is is now in session but earlier today, members confirmed the nomination of mississippis or wilson to be a u. S. Court of appeals judge for the fifth circuit. Senators held about to begin debate on Police Reform legislation introduced by South Carolina republican senator, tim scott. But the chamber failed to get the needed 50 votes to officially start debate. Members now turn to the National Defense authorization bill which provides defense programs and policies for 2021. Follow the senate live on cspan2 when members gamble back in. During the summer months, reach out to your elected officials with cspans congressional directory and contains all the Contact Information you need to stay in touch with members of congress, federal agencies and state governors, real your copy on one today as he spends sort. Org. Heres a look at our prime time schedule on the cspan networks. Thirty and 9 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan, the House Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on oversight issues at the justice department. And 9 00 p. M. , on cspan2, a confirmation hearing on the nomination of Peter Thompson to the be the the next cia inspector general. And at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, on cspan three, it is American History tv with a look at life the first ladys Caroline Caroline harrison, and ida mckinley. This week watch houseboats on policing reform and dc legislation. Thursday at 10 00 a. M. Eastern live on cspan. The house will debate and vote on the policing reform bill. Georggeorge Floyd Justice and policing acting on friday 9 00 a. M. Eastern legacy spent, also vote on legislation to designate the district of columbias estate, which this week live thursday and friday and cspan and online at cspan. Org partisan live in the free cspan radio app. Binge watch book tv this summer, saturday evening at a parent hundred p. M. Eastern civil and watch several hours of your favorite authors pretty saturday were featuring with historian, author of over a dozen books including the rights brothers. Emergent spirit, as most recent the pioneers. Much saturday july 11th, as a feature commentator author and sounder engine founder of the national review. Bench watch book tv, all summer on cspan2. Today the senate held about to begin debate on Police Reform legislation introduced by South Carolina senator tim scott pretty they needed 60 votes to start debate but the vote failed 55 to 45 with most Democratic Senators opposing the bill. Below show you minority Chuck Schumers briefing shortly after the vote ended. Thank you all for coming. I want to thank senators durbin and booker and harris for joining m