Back the Blue Act of 2019

Mr. President, if you watched ``60 Minutes'' on Sunday, you would not have been surprised that there was a segment relating to prescription drug pricing. Everywhere we turn, somebody is raising the question about why we are paying so much for prescription drugs and why the cost of these drugs has gone through the roof.

We want to encourage research. We want to encourage innovation. We understand that these are profit-making companies, so we understand we will pay for that. But what we are seeing in terms of the pricing of drugs across America now is inconsistent with any of the history that we have had. It seems as if pharma believes that if they own a drug, they can charge whatever they can charge, and no one will question them.

It makes a difference. Blue Cross Blue Shield, the largest health insurer in my State of Illinois, analyzed the cost of care in our State and nearby and asked: What is driving the increase in health insurance premiums? The cost of prescription drugs, even more than the cost of inpatient hospital care.

Look at all of those big hospitals and all of the important work they are doing and expensive procedures they are involved in. All of that cost does not equal the rising cost of prescription drugs. That is why our health insurance premiums are going up, so it is understandable that more and more of us are talking about this and trying to find practical ways to approach it that might make things better.

Can you consider one policy that might have the support of Democrats and Republicans, the American Association of Retired Persons, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, 88 percent of Americans, and the Trump administration? What in the world could that be? Here it is: a measure I introduced in 2017 to require pharmaceutical companies to disclose the prices with new prescription drug advertising.

Last year, Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, and I teamed up to pass a measure in the Senate to require pricetags on the television ads. We were stopped in conference by a single House Republican.

Think about those television ads. What do they tell us in those ads? For 60 seconds, as fast as they can talk, they tell us everything under the sun. If you are allergic to XARELTO, do not take XARELTO. Certain negative things may happen if you take this drug or the other drug. On they go for 60 seconds without stopping. Yet they never disclose the price of the drug.

After Senator Grassley and I put our bill in last year, I got a call from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar. He decided he wanted to pick up on our effort and join us. Think about that for a minute--a Republican Senator, a Democratic Senator, and the Trump administration agreeing on something. It turns out, he thinks it is a good idea, and I do too.

If we had price disclosure on these ads on television, it might open the eyes of a lot of people as to what it costs. What is the most heavily advertised drug on television today? HUMIRA. Why was HUMIRA invented or discovered? To treat arthritis, particularly psoriatic arthritis. Guess what they discovered. It also had a side benefit they didn't anticipate. You know the little red patch on your elbow-- psoriasis? If you take HUMIRA, all of a sudden, that little red patch goes away. So if you are watching the ads on television, some of them are about arthritis, but some of them show ladies sitting by swimming pools with flawless skin because they are taking HUMIRA. It is very interesting.

There is one thing they leave out. Do you know what HUMIRA costs? It costs $5,500 a month. This red patch on my elbow may trouble me when it comes to the swimsuit competition, but I am not going to spend $5,500 to deal with it. I think they ought to have to disclose the price of the drug. We take their prices; we do not make up the price. The price they declare as pharmaceutical manufacturers--we believe that is the one that should be advertised.

On Monday, Senator Grassley and I introduced the bill to codify this rule that the Trump administration is pushing for price disclosure and to ensure its long-term implementation. We are happy to have on board with us Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, and Senator King, Independent Democrat from Maine. Disclosing prices in drug ads is a simple step to give patients a break at the pharmacy. We have to do a lot more. I think this is a good starting point, though.

American patients and taxpayers pay the highest prices in the world for most medications. Eli Lilly, out of Indianapolis, IN--they make a drug called Humalog. It is for diabetes. It is an insulin drug that can cost up to $329 per dose here in the United States. Humalog, insulin, diabetes--the cost is $329.

What does the same vial of the same drug made by the same company cost

in Canada? It costs $38. It is $329 here and $38 there.

In 2017, Canadians could purchase AbbVie's HUMIRA, which I mentioned earlier, for $20,000; for Americans, $40,000. The worst part of this price disparity is that American taxpayers are the ones paying to develop these drugs in the first place. Our tax dollars at the National Institutes of Health provide the clues and the direction for these companies to take our federally funded research and turn it into a valuable drug, a valuable medical device, and then charge us more than any other place in the world.

All 210 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between the years 2010 and 2016 received funding from the National Institutes of Health, supported by nearly $40 billion by U.S. taxpayers each year. I am all for that, incidentally--funding the NIH and leading to this research. But make no mistake, these breakthrough drugs start at the National Institutes of Health at taxpayers' expense. So American taxpayers get hit twice. We pay for the initial research, which leads to the drug, and then we, of course, pay for the drugs at the highest levels.

The heart of the problem is that our system does not function as a free market. There are too many forces at work when it comes to prescription drugs that limit competition. Often Big Pharma charges as much as they can get away with because they manipulate the patent system to avoid competition.

The theory used to be that if you discovered the drug, you could sell it exclusively for, say, 20 years, and then everybody could take your formula, make generic drugs, and there would be open competition so that the price would go down. That is not how it works.

The core issue is that roughly 10 percent of brand name, patent- protected drugs account for 80 percent of spending in America. The overwhelming prescriptions are for generic drugs, which are affordable drugs, but it turns out that even though 90 percent of the prescriptions are for generic drugs, they account for only 20 percent of all the spending. It is that 10 percent of brand name drugs that account for 80 percent of all prescription drug spending because they are so expensive.

In what other industry does the price of the consumer product increase year after year after being introduced on the market? Maybe a collector of artwork or baseball cards but certainly not when it comes to something that is a life-and-death commodity like a drug.

The point is, I don't believe our Founding Fathers envisioned a scheme where Sanofi's Lantus, insulin that was approved in the year 2000, would receive 45 additional patents after it was approved by the FDA, providing a massive 37-year monopoly by Sanofi on this insulin product. During that time, the price of insulin has increased from $35 to more than $270 because Sanofi has successfully bought lower cost generic competitors, and it is not just Lantus or insulin.

Celgene's cancer drug, REVLIMID, has been awarded 96 patents, many of which were awarded after the initial FDA approval. As a result, REVLIMID, effectively, has gone 40 years without competition.

The same goes for Pfizer's nerve pain drug, Lyrica. You have seen that one advertised on TV. I have. That entered the market in 2004. Lyrica has received 68 patents, including filing more than 2 dozen after initial FDA approval. They are gaming the system to avoid competition to keep their prices high.

In fact, the top 12 best-selling drugs in America each have an average of 71 patents. Why do they get a new patent? Because they have decided that instead of a 150-mg tablet, there will be a 75-mg tablet, and they get a new patent. Or they put a new coating on the outside of the pill or they have a new manufacturing technique. They get the patent. They have exclusivity in the market for another extended period of time.

The top 12 best-selling drugs in America each have an average of 71 patents, and 74 percent of all new drug patents are for drugs that are already on the market. They are gaming the system.

We can and we should reward innovative research so that companies can earn a profit for good work and big ideas. But an abusive manufacturer should not be allowed to game the government patent system while being shielded from competition.

This month I am going to give what I call my Pharma Fleece Award. I made a special sign here so that pharma would know what we are talking about. This month we are going to give this Pharma Fleece Award to Celgene, Pfizer, and Sanofi for stacking excessive secondary patents to block generic competition. The net result, of course, is that American consumers pay more for their products.

To address this, I introduced legislation last month with Senator Cassidy, Republican from Louisiana and a medical doctor, called the REMEDY Act. Our bipartisan bill reduces incentives for Big Pharma to ``evergreen,'' which is a technical term in this application. It is an effort to amass endless quantities of follow-on patents that shield blockbuster drugs from competition from generics. You see, under an act, a law known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, when a generic drug manufacturer seeks approval from the FDA, they are routinely blocked by a maze of patents held by the brand name company.

The generic company has the option to say whether they think the patents covering the brand name drug are not valid or relevant. If so, that can trigger a patent infringement lawsuit. When this happens, the FDA issues a 30-month freeze on the generic company's application to hash out the issue. The problem with this 30-month freeze is it extends the monopoly period for the drug again, and it incentivizes the filing of secondary follow-on patents that may not add to the safety or efficacy of the drug.

This automatic 30-month freeze on competition encourages pharma to amass large numbers of secondary patents and block generic companies from putting on the market a drug that would be in competition with their brand name drug. No matter how weak the patent is, how peripheral it may be--like the coating on a pill that I mentioned earlier--it works. For 30 months, there is another delay before there is competition.

The REMEDY Act, which Senator Cassidy and I introduced, would restrict this 30-month freeze of FDA approval so that it applies only to primary substance patents. This removes an incentive for brand name manufacturers to continue to game the system by filing excessive follow-on patents, and it makes it easier for low-cost generic competitors to come to market.

Big Pharma is gaming the system at the expense of American patients, at the expense of the American health system, and at our expense when it comes to health insurance premiums. What are we going to do about it? Well, it turns out, we happen to be working in a place which makes laws, the U.S. Senate. We are supposed to take a challenge like this and do something about it--not just lament the fact that prescription drug pricing is out of control, but actually do something.

Lucky me, I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has authority over many of these issues, particularly when it comes to patent law. There are things we can do as members of the committee to bring down prescription drug pricing.

Honestly, if you follow the U.S. Senate, we can do something other than a nomination, which is all we have done around here for a long, long time. I am sure the American voters are happy to see us work on nominations, but they would be much happier if we worked on the high cost of prescription drugs. We have done little or nothing on this subject, other than talk about it for the last few months.

Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, has decided not to bring legislation to the floor of the Senate anymore. That is just from the days of yesteryear when we actually debated a bill, offered amendments, had votes. People showed up on the floor because we were doing something.

Look at it now.

American patients need help from the high drug prices, not more unqualified, divisive nominees but actual legislation to help American families. What a break it would be if the U.S. Senate became the U.S. Senate again.

I hope Senator McConnell will allow us to put a bill on the floor of the Senate. It would be a great celebration here in the Senate. I think Republicans and Democrats would enjoy the opportunity to actually come to the floor,

have a debate, and pass a bill that may become a law that ends up helping Americans. For many of us, that is the reason we ran for office, and I hope we can return to that very soon.

nominations

Once again, this week the Republican Leader has scheduled no legislation for votes on the Senate floor.

Instead, our Republican colleagues are spending another week rubber stamping President Trump's nominees.

This week, the Republican majority scheduled votes on three Trump judicial nominees. Each of these nominees has expressed views that are ideological and extreme.

First there was Michael Truncale, nominated to the District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Mr. Truncale gave a speech in 2011 where he outrageously called President Obama ``an un-American imposter.''

He described the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County that gutted the Voting Rights Act as ``a victory.'' He has called for defunding Planned Parenthood and said that he opposes the bipartisan DREAM Act.

He has called the Environmental Protection Agency a ``job killer'' and called for eliminating the Departments of Education and Energy.

Mr. Truncale also gave a radio interview in 2012 thanking the Tea Party movement ``for what it has meant to our country and to our Republican party.''

Despite all this, only one Republican Senator, Senator Romney, voted against Mr. Truncale.

Then there's Ninth Circuit nominee Kenneth Lee of California, who has been advanced by Republicans over the objection of both home State Senators. That never happened before until this year, but this is now the fifth time we have seen a nominee advance with no blue slip.

Mr. Lee initially failed to provide dozens of his controversial writings to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I remember when President Obama's Ninth Circuit nominee Goodwin Liu initially failed to fully disclose articles he had written to the Judiciary Committee. Republican members of the Committee said it was ``potentially disqualifying'' and said it showed either incompetence or an attempt to hide his writings.

Senate Republicans ended up filibustering Goodwin Liu's nomination. Yet every Republican member of the Judiciary Committee voted for Mr. Lee's nomination. The double standard is obvious.

When we were finally able to review Mr. Lee's writings, we saw he routinely expressed extreme views. Here are just a few examples:

He wrote: ``Charges of sexism often amount to nothing but irrelevant pouting.''

He said: ``homosexuals generally are more promiscuous than heterosexuals, and thus their risk factor [for AIDS] increases exponentially.''

He called affirmative action ``liberals' most sacred shibboleth.''

And he called multiculturalism a ``malodorous sickness.''

Then there is Wendy Vitter, nominated to the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Like Mr. Lee, Ms. Vitter also initially failed to disclose more than 100 speeches and documents to the Judiciary Committee.

The matters she failed to disclose included a panel she moderated in 2013 at a Louisiana Right to Life conference. At this panel, she told the audience to urge their doctors to put in their waiting rooms a brochure entitled ``The Pill Kills.'' This is a brochure about how birth control pills supposedly kill women.

Ms. Vitter also claimed in a 2009 speech that we are ``throwing out our Constitution'' by counting the full population in the national census.

All three of these judicial nominees have expressed extreme ideological views that raise serious questions about their judgment. Yet Republicans are rubber stamping all three of them to lifetime appointments on the federal bench.

Then there is President Trump's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey Rosen. Mr. Rosen simply does not have the right qualifications for this important job.

The Deputy Attorney General runs the day-to-day operations of the Justice Department and oversees its law enforcement components.

At this critical moment, we need a Deputy Attorney General who is familiar with the Justice Department, who has experience in overseeing criminal investigations and prosecutions, and who is committed to the Department's role of enforcing the law independently without fear or favor.

Mr. Rosen has no experience working in the Justice Department or handling criminal cases. When I questioned him about core DOJ functions and agencies he will oversee if confirmed, he wasn't familiar with them and said he would have to get up to speed.

For example, when I met with him and asked him about the landmark First Step Act, he said he had ``begun getting informed about it.''

When I asked him about the Deputy Attorney General's role in overseeing the Federal Bureau of Prisons and addressing their critical staffing shortages, he said he wasn't familiar and couldn't comment.

When I asked him about voting rights and voter suppression, he said he hadn't had occasion to study the issue.

When I asked him about the DEA's role in setting opioid production quotas, which he will oversee, he didn't know about it.

When I asked him about DOJ's role in immigration matters, including his priorities for the immigration courts he will oversee, he said he looked forward to learning more about it.

Mr. Rosen was a longtime colleague of Attorney General Barr at a law firm, and he has held positions in other government agencies like the Department of Transportation. But that does not make him qualified to be the Deputy Attorney General.

Because my Republican colleagues used the nuclear option to change the Senate rules, there is now less time for the Senate to debate controversial nominees like Mr. Truncale, Ms. Vitter, and Mr. Rosen.

But the American people see what is going on. They see the rush by President Trump and Senate Republicans to confirm nominees who are ideological or who lack the right qualifications for the job.

I oppose these nominees. And I regret that the Senate's advice and consent process has become an exercise in Republican rubber stamping. This institution can, and should, do better.

I see that my colleague from Texas is here on the floor, and I don't want to take any more time.

Mr. President, I come to the floor as part of Military Appreciation Month. It is a time, clearly, to remember our brave service men and women, to reflect on their faithful service to this country and to recall the many sacrifices our troops and their families have made and continue to make in defense of this great Nation.

Many of us will be heading overseas for the 75th anniversary of D-day to commemorate the efforts of an incredible group of allies on the fateful day and the weeks and the months that followed.

As I stand here today, I think of those soldiers, and I think of my wife Bobbi's dad, Bob Brown--currently 92 years old, living in Thermopolis, WY, longtime postmaster. He still drives Meals on Wheels, as he says, ``for the old folks.''

He was called to Europe in World War II, and he is one of those few who was in World War II in the European theater as well as in Japan as part of that first occupation and then called back to Korea as part of the 2-300 who continued in the fight for our freedoms.

He continues today to serve our United States. His wife, Jerry, who went through all of this in Thermopolis, WY, knows the sacrifices he and so many have made.

My dad, World War II, Battle of the Bulge. I still carry his dog tags from the Battle of the Bulge with me. I have them with me today on the floor of the Senate, and I carry them with me when I go to see our troops overseas.

He is the guy who had to quit school in ninth grade because of the Depression. In World War II--and I have gone through some of his old papers--I found pictures of him and a number of members of the artillery who were part of the liberation of France.

From the time I was a little boy, he would say: John, you should thank God every day because you live in America. You don't know how fortunate you are.

We are so blessed to live in this great country, and it is to the men and women who continue to protect this land, who fought for our freedoms--my dad, his wife, Louise, the sacrifices they have made on behalf of all of us.

Today we honor all of our Armed Forces, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the Marines, the National Guard.

In particular, today I want to salute the members of the Wyoming Army National Guard because they are now deploying to the Middle East. Some 300 Wyoming soldiers from six units will be sent to the Middle East between January and September--the largest Wyoming deployment in nearly a decade.

The deployments began in January with the G Company of the 2nd Battalion, 211th Aviation, a medical evacuation company--the most deployed unit in the Wyoming Guard.

The medevac unit that was sent to Afghanistan includes Wyoming soldiers from Bear River, from Casper, from Carpenter, from Guernsey, from Cheyenne, Laramie, and Wheatland.

This past week, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon participated in a sendoff ceremony in Casper for 130 Wyoming National Guard troops headed to Texas ahead of a 9-month deployment to the Middle East.

The Wyoming troops from the 2nd Battalion of the 300 Field Artillery, the ``Cowboy Cannoneers,'' the group my father-in-law, Bob Brown, was part of--they are from more than two dozen communities from Casper to Lovell, to Cheyenne, to Moorcroft. This Guard unit will serve under the U.S. Central Command covering Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.

Wyoming and the entire Nation owe an incredible debt of gratitude to these fearless fighters for our freedom.

God bless the U.S. Armed Forces, God bless our troops, our veterans, and God bless the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to address again today the Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare scheme. It is a radical plan to take over all of healthcare in America and to take away health insurance from millions of Americans.

Still, nearly every Senate Democrat running for President and 109 Members of the House of Representatives, Democrats all, have backed one-size-fits-all healthcare. Last week, former Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota had words of wisdom for her fellow Democrats. She writes in the Washington Post: ``Most Americans are satisfied with the healthcare they receive and do not want their coverage options taken away and replaced,'' as she said, ``with a one-size-fits-all government program.''

I agree. The fact is, according to the Census Bureau, 90 percent of Americans have healthcare coverage. Of those, 200 million are covered by private health plans, and 180 million have employer-provided healthcare coverage. Most say that their current plan works well for them.

The 180 million Americans covered through their jobs work hard. These people go out every morning and support their families. According to a survey released last year, the vast majority of people with employer- provided coverage--71 percent of them, to be precise--like their current healthcare plans.

So who exactly are those workers on employer-sponsored plans? Well, many are union members. They negotiate their health coverage through their union representatives. Many are public employees, Federal and State employees, people who serve this country. So why do Democrats who support one-size-fits-all healthcare want to outlaw proven, popular, and predictable health coverage for millions of these working families?

Democrats certainly seem to be putting politics above principle. What is more, they clearly believe that Washington knows best. But shouldn't we be asking what these hard-working Americans who have good private health insurance want? Well, shouldn't we ask them what is best for them and what is best for their families?

Let's take the Teamsters Union, for example. In an article published in 2017, the Teamsters said:

The availability of high-quality health care has been a top

selling point for those who belong to unions. It is a benefit

these workers have bargained for, and oftentimes they have

sacrificed higher pay for these excellent insurance benefits.

Let me underscore this point: The Teamsters Union believes their health benefits are excellent, and maybe Democrats should ask the United Steelworkers about their insurance coverage. If you go to the steelworkers' website, you will find their answer: ``The Steelworkers Benefit Plan . . . provide[s] high-quality, affordable health and welfare benefits to USW [United Steelworkers] members and their families.''

Basically, if you are a union worker watching this debate right now, you need to know that Democrats in Washington are coming for your hard- earned healthcare benefits. Make no mistake. Under the one-size-fits- all healthcare legislation offered by Senator Bernie Sanders and so many Democrats running for President, this high-quality health insurance program and their insurance will cease to exist.

It is no wonder that last year some high-profile public sector unions started sounding the alarm about losing their health benefits. When New York State debated a Sanders-like proposal to take over healthcare, who raised the loudest objections? Well, it was the public sector unions, of course.

So again, we have millions of union workers, Federal and State employees, and their families, all with excellent healthcare benefits that are on the Democrats' chopping block. Instead of helping fix the Nation's healthcare problems, Democrats are looking to destroy what is actually working.

Remember, it is more than union workers and public sector employees who are threatened. Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare plan is gunning for retired military members' health insurance as well. We are talking about the TRICARE health insurance program for military families. There are more than 9 million military families enrolled in TRICARE. Our servicemembers have earned their TRICARE coverage through years of faithful service defending this Nation. I believe one of our greatest responsibilities is to provide for those who protect this Nation, both those who currently serve and our retired servicemembers.

Back home in Wyoming I talk with servicemembers, with veterans, nearly every weekend. These proud Americans want me to make sure that TRICARE works for them and to protect and strengthen benefits that work and that they have earned through their service. Still, far-left Democrats don't want to listen to reason. They are hell-bent on a one- size-fits-all approach to healthcare.

It is especially ironic that Democrats even want to ban ObamaCare plans--the plans they voted for and put in place. It has been less than a decade since Democrats passed ObamaCare, and now they want to repeal it and replace it, basically saying that ObamaCare has failed.

For years I have come to the floor to discuss the shortcomings of ObamaCare. Every time Republicans have offered to improve healthcare, we have heard from the Democrats that ObamaCare is off-limits and they can't possibly make any changes to that law. Now that the Democrats are running for President, suddenly they are singing a different tune. They are done defending ObamaCare. In fact, Democrats are happy to repeal ObamaCare so they can replace it with a one-size-fits-all healthcare plan for America.

Senator Heitkamp is actually warning them not to cast aside ObamaCare and start all over again with a one-size-fits-all plan.

Well, let me just say as a doctor, as a physician who has taken care of patients for decades, my focus continues to be on improving healthcare for American patients and their families. Americans want to focus on real healthcare reforms that make a difference for them and their families in terms of the cost and in terms of the quality of their care. These are the issues that Republicans are working on right now: protecting patients with

preexisting conditions, lowering prescription drug costs, and ending surprise medical bills.

Surprise medical bills are bills patients receive that come out of nowhere. These bills are an unfair financial burden on many families, completely unexpected medical costs that they can't afford and aren't expecting. Just last week I was at the White House with President Trump announcing a plan to help patients by ending these surprise bills.

Republicans also remain committed to protecting patients with preexisting conditions and to lowering the cost of prescription drugs.

Democrats have a choice to make. They can follow the far-left Democrats pushing their radical one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare. Again, this extreme scheme will mean the loss of health insurance coverage for millions and millions and millions of hard- working people, union workers and their families, our veterans, people who helped protect and save this country, Federal and State employees and their families, and all of the Americans who are currently enrolled in ObamaCare plans.

The better option for Democrats is to work with Republicans on commonsense, bipartisan solutions, real reforms that improve healthcare for all Americans. Let's reject one-size-fits-all healthcare that will make Americans pay more to wait longer for worse care.

That is the key. One-size-fits-all healthcare, I will tell people listening in today, means that you will pay more to wait longer for worse care. It is time to reject one-size-fits-all care for Americans. Let us work together to give all patients the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about Police Week and some legislation we have introduced to honor and support our men and women in blue called, not surprisingly, the Back the Blue Act. With regard to the comments of my friend from Illinois, who was bemoaning the fact that there didn't seem to be bipartisan legislation that could come to the floor of the Senate, be debated, voted on, and passed with concurrence of the House of Representatives and the President's signature, I note that, actually, there is a lot we could be doing together.

I have been on the floor a number of times describing the humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border. That is something we could work together to address. I have introduced bipartisan and bicameral legislation with my friend and colleague Henry Cuellar at the House of Representatives that would address that humanitarian crisis and, I believe, take big steps toward stopping it. That is something we could do together.

I know the Democratic whip from Illinois doesn't particularly like the idea that President Trump is nominating highly qualified people for the judiciary and for executive branch nominations--the types of people we are voting on today and will vote on tomorrow. Obviously, that is not high on his agenda, but I submit that there are a lot of other things we could do besides fixing this humanitarian crisis.

We could work on roads and bridges together. I know that Chairman Barrasso of the Environment and Public Works Committee is soliciting the views of a number of Senators and is going to come to the floor, hopefully, in the next couple of months with some ideas on what that infrastructure package should look like. I actually think that is the best way to handle that.

Again, these are nonpartisan issues. Infrastructure is not a partisan issue, but figuring out how to pay for it is the biggest challenge.

I note that Ms. Pelosi, Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, and the President met and talked about a $2 trillion pricetag. Well, it seems to me that is backward. We ought to be talking about what sort of plan makes sense and where we can get the votes to build consensus on that plan rather than saying that we want to spend this much money on a plan to come.

That is why I think the committee work that is being done in the Senate, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and, hopefully, in the House is so important. Once the Environment and Public Works Committee makes a proposal and votes that out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, then, the Senate Finance Committee will be asked to come up with a way to pay for it. That is always the part that people want to talk about the least, but it is important.

It is important we not continue to spend money we don't have and increase our deficits and debt. Rather, we need to come up with a user- fee model, which is what the gas tax is designed to do, and find a way not to pay for that infrastructure and deal with the congestion and traffic by just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, literally just increasing the money we borrow and giving that tab to our children and grandchildren to pay back. There are a lot of really good ideas out there and ones on which I think we ought to work together.

I don't share the dystopian views of the Senator from Illinois in terms of the Senate. The Senate is not broken. It is just a matter of political will to try to work together to get beyond the petty disagreements that seem to come up every day and to just do our work. Sometimes you don't necessarily appear on TV or have your name appear in lights when you are doing that sort of hard work, but it is essential to get the Senate's work done and, indeed, to get the work of the American people done. Those are some things we could work on together if there is a political will to do so.

Mr. President, this week, tens of thousands of Americans will make their way to Washington for National Police Week, our annual opportunity to honor the brave men and women in blue who have lost their lives while protecting our communities.

Of course, this includes many officers from Texas. I am particularly proud of the Fort Worth Police Pipes and Drums Band and the Texas Department of Public Safety Pipes and Drums Corps that performed on the National Mall yesterday.

Law enforcement is a calling answered by a select few. These brave men and women have chosen a difficult and sometimes dangerous life, dedicated to upholding the law, defending or civil liberties, and protecting our cities and our neighborhoods. They wake up each morning and put on a uniform, never knowing what the day may hold. It requires a lot of courage and sacrifice--both from the officers and their families--and I am grateful for those who selflessly serve our communities each day.

Each year for Police Week, we honor the law enforcement community to remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. One of the most emblematic reminders of that sacrifice is the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which is here in Washington, DC. It is a beautiful tribute to the Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty and features marble walls filled with more than 21,000 names. Each of those names represents an American hero. Sadly, this year, we add the names of 13 Texans to that memorial. These officers gave their lives in service to their communities and to our country, and we thank them and their families for their sacrifices, and we remember and honor their names.

Each year for Police Week, we pay tribute to those who go to work and never come home. We honor the lives of those we have lost. We share in the grief of their families, and we promise never to forget the stories of heroism they left behind.

While we remember the fallen this week, I hope we will also take time to consider how we can do more to support and serve those who have taken the oath to defend us.

Throughout my career in public office, I have had the pleasure of interacting with law enforcement officials from across my State and, certainly, here at the Federal level, including our incredible Capitol Police officers. I am continually impressed and inspired by their professionalism, their conviction, and their unwavering commitment to enforcing the law, and I want to ensure that they have what they need when they put on that uniform with confidence every morning.

Last Congress we made a lot of progress, and two bills that I introduced then are now law. The first is the Justice Served Act, which I introduced with my colleague Senator Klobuchar, another example of bipartisan legislation. This bill provides grants to State and local governments to prosecute cold cases by making sure the newly tested DNA evidence is used to investigate and prosecute unsolved cases. The Justice Served Act helps to ensure that violent criminals are taken off the streets and brought to justice.

We also passed legislation I introduced with Senator Peters from Michigan to authorize the Project Safe Neighborhoods program at the Department of Justice. This is a nationwide partnership among Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutors who use data-driven, evidence-based, and trauma-informed practices to reduce violent crime. It is inspired by a successful program that was initiated at the State level in Texas, when I was attorney general, but the truth is it started in the Eastern District. I believe it was in Virginia. Of course, it was designed to focus on reducing gun crime and gun violence by targeting those who repetitively used firearms in the commission of violent crimes.

We were glad to use the examples in Virginia and in Texas to bring the model to the Nation and to promote this proactive and collaborative approach to prevent violence in our neighborhoods.

I am appreciative of the fact that our colleagues have seen fit to work together to pass both of these bills and of President Trump for signing those, but I know there is a lot more that we can and should do.

Today I am introducing another piece of legislation called the Back the Blue Act, which I am introducing along with our colleagues Senator Cruz from Texas and Senator Tillis from North Carolina. This legislation sends a strong message to the more than 900,000 law enforcement officers serving in our country that we support them and that we will not tolerate any act of violence against them, period.

In recent years, we have seen brutal and inexcusable attacks on law enforcement officers across the United States, including one in Texas that rocked our entire State.

In 2016, a man killed five police officers and injured nine others in Dallas. It was a sobering reminder of the danger these officers face every day and a call for us to take action to do more to support them.

This bill makes clear our support for these public servants who dedicate their lives to protecting and serving us. The Back the Blue Act would add stiff mandatory penalties and make it a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill a law enforcement officer, a Federal judge, or a federally funded public safety officer. It would also make it a Federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer.

There is zero justification for attacking a police officer--none. We need to show that we value their lives, and we need to make it absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry out crimes against them accountable. The Back the Blue Act sends that message loud and clear.

I think it is important to point out that this legislation would also help make our communities stronger by allowing grant funds to be used for efforts that help foster more trust between the police and the communities they protect. This bill would better serve the men and women who work tirelessly in our communities each day.

There is no doubt in my mind that our Nation is better and safer because of the hard work and dedication of our law enforcement officials. Here in the Senate we should do all we can to help them do their job as effectively and as safely as possible. The Back the Blue Act would be a great start.

I hope my colleagues will consider this legislation and decide to support it and, more importantly, show our law enforcement across the country that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about Police Week and some legislation we have introduced to honor and support our men and women in blue called, not surprisingly, the Back the Blue Act. With regard to the comments of my friend from Illinois, who was bemoaning the fact that there didn't seem to be bipartisan legislation that could come to the floor of the Senate, be debated, voted on, and passed with concurrence of the House of Representatives and the President's signature, I note that, actually, there is a lot we could be doing together.

I have been on the floor a number of times describing the humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border. That is something we could work together to address. I have introduced bipartisan and bicameral legislation with my friend and colleague Henry Cuellar at the House of Representatives that would address that humanitarian crisis and, I believe, take big steps toward stopping it. That is something we could do together.

I know the Democratic whip from Illinois doesn't particularly like the idea that President Trump is nominating highly qualified people for the judiciary and for executive branch nominations--the types of people we are voting on today and will vote on tomorrow. Obviously, that is not high on his agenda, but I submit that there are a lot of other things we could do besides fixing this humanitarian crisis.

We could work on roads and bridges together. I know that Chairman Barrasso of the Environment and Public Works Committee is soliciting the views of a number of Senators and is going to come to the floor, hopefully, in the next couple of months with some ideas on what that infrastructure package should look like. I actually think that is the best way to handle that.

Again, these are nonpartisan issues. Infrastructure is not a partisan issue, but figuring out how to pay for it is the biggest challenge.

I note that Ms. Pelosi, Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, and the President met and talked about a $2 trillion pricetag. Well, it seems to me that is backward. We ought to be talking about what sort of plan makes sense and where we can get the votes to build consensus on that plan rather than saying that we want to spend this much money on a plan to come.

That is why I think the committee work that is being done in the Senate, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and, hopefully, in the House is so important. Once the Environment and Public Works Committee makes a proposal and votes that out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, then, the Senate Finance Committee will be asked to come up with a way to pay for it. That is always the part that people want to talk about the least, but it is important.

It is important we not continue to spend money we don't have and increase our deficits and debt. Rather, we need to come up with a user- fee model, which is what the gas tax is designed to do, and find a way not to pay for that infrastructure and deal with the congestion and traffic by just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, literally just increasing the money we borrow and giving that tab to our children and grandchildren to pay back. There are a lot of really good ideas out there and ones on which I think we ought to work together.

I don't share the dystopian views of the Senator from Illinois in terms of the Senate. The Senate is not broken. It is just a matter of political will to try to work together to get beyond the petty disagreements that seem to come up every day and to just do our work. Sometimes you don't necessarily appear on TV or have your name appear in lights when you are doing that sort of hard work, but it is essential to get the Senate's work done and, indeed, to get the work of the American people done. Those are some things we could work on together if there is a political will to do so.

Mr. President, this week, tens of thousands of Americans will make their way to Washington for National Police Week, our annual opportunity to honor the brave men and women in blue who have lost their lives while protecting our communities.

Of course, this includes many officers from Texas. I am particularly proud of the Fort Worth Police Pipes and Drums Band and the Texas Department of Public Safety Pipes and Drums Corps that performed on the National Mall yesterday.

Law enforcement is a calling answered by a select few. These brave men and women have chosen a difficult and sometimes dangerous life, dedicated to upholding the law, defending or civil liberties, and protecting our cities and our neighborhoods. They wake up each morning and put on a uniform, never knowing what the day may hold. It requires a lot of courage and sacrifice--both from the officers and their families--and I am grateful for those who selflessly serve our communities each day.

Each year for Police Week, we honor the law enforcement community to remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. One of the most emblematic reminders of that sacrifice is the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which is here in Washington, DC. It is a beautiful tribute to the Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty and features marble walls filled with more than 21,000 names. Each of those names represents an American hero. Sadly, this year, we add the names of 13 Texans to that memorial. These officers gave their lives in service to their communities and to our country, and we thank them and their families for their sacrifices, and we remember and honor their names.

Each year for Police Week, we pay tribute to those who go to work and never come home. We honor the lives of those we have lost. We share in the grief of their families, and we promise never to forget the stories of heroism they left behind.

While we remember the fallen this week, I hope we will also take time to consider how we can do more to support and serve those who have taken the oath to defend us.

Throughout my career in public office, I have had the pleasure of interacting with law enforcement officials from across my State and, certainly, here at the Federal level, including our incredible Capitol Police officers. I am continually impressed and inspired by their professionalism, their conviction, and their unwavering commitment to enforcing the law, and I want to ensure that they have what they need when they put on that uniform with confidence every morning.

Last Congress we made a lot of progress, and two bills that I introduced then are now law. The first is the Justice Served Act, which I introduced with my colleague Senator Klobuchar, another example of bipartisan legislation. This bill provides grants to State and local governments to prosecute cold cases by making sure the newly tested DNA evidence is used to investigate and prosecute unsolved cases. The Justice Served Act helps to ensure that violent criminals are taken off the streets and brought to justice.

We also passed legislation I introduced with Senator Peters from Michigan to authorize the Project Safe Neighborhoods program at the Department of Justice. This is a nationwide partnership among Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutors who use data-driven, evidence-based, and trauma-informed practices to reduce violent crime. It is inspired by a successful program that was initiated at the State level in Texas, when I was attorney general, but the truth is it started in the Eastern District. I believe it was in Virginia. Of course, it was designed to focus on reducing gun crime and gun violence by targeting those who repetitively used firearms in the commission of violent crimes.

We were glad to use the examples in Virginia and in Texas to bring the model to the Nation and to promote this proactive and collaborative approach to prevent violence in our neighborhoods.

I am appreciative of the fact that our colleagues have seen fit to work together to pass both of these bills and of President Trump for signing those, but I know there is a lot more that we can and should do.

Today I am introducing another piece of legislation called the Back the Blue Act, which I am introducing along with our colleagues Senator Cruz from Texas and Senator Tillis from North Carolina. This legislation sends a strong message to the more than 900,000 law enforcement officers serving in our country that we support them and that we will not tolerate any act of violence against them, period.

In recent years, we have seen brutal and inexcusable attacks on law enforcement officers across the United States, including one in Texas that rocked our entire State.

In 2016, a man killed five police officers and injured nine others in Dallas. It was a sobering reminder of the danger these officers face every day and a call for us to take action to do more to support them.

This bill makes clear our support for these public servants who dedicate their lives to protecting and serving us. The Back the Blue Act would add stiff mandatory penalties and make it a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill a law enforcement officer, a Federal judge, or a federally funded public safety officer. It would also make it a Federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer.

There is zero justification for attacking a police officer--none. We need to show that we value their lives, and we need to make it absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry out crimes against them accountable. The Back the Blue Act sends that message loud and clear.

I think it is important to point out that this legislation would also help make our communities stronger by allowing grant funds to be used for efforts that help foster more trust between the police and the communities they protect. This bill would better serve the men and women who work tirelessly in our communities each day.

There is no doubt in my mind that our Nation is better and safer because of the hard work and dedication of our law enforcement officials. Here in the Senate we should do all we can to help them do their job as effectively and as safely as possible. The Back the Blue Act would be a great start.

I hope my colleagues will consider this legislation and decide to support it and, more importantly, show our law enforcement across the country that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

Mr. President, I think many of our colleagues here in the Chamber know that Senator Alexander and I host a breakfast on Tuesday Mornings called Tennessee Tuesday. This week at the breakfast, one of our Tennesseans said: I have seen so many men and women in law enforcement uniforms in DC. What is going on? Is this normal?

It gave me the opportunity to say: Actually, this is National Police Week, and this is a week we set aside to honor those men and women who are in law enforcement.

There are tens of thousands of police officers and sheriffs and highway patrolmen across our country. My hope is that each of us will stop this week when we see them and say ``thank you'' to them for the service they provide our communities, because when it comes to fighting so many of the issues that affect our communities on a day-to-day basis--the issues we face because of drugs and drug trafficking, human trafficking, gangs--it is our local law enforcement that is on those frontlines, and we say ``thank you'' to them.

This year in Tennessee, three officers have lost their lives. During this week, we remember them and express our gratitude to their families for their service and their sacrifice. We lost Trooper Matthew Elias Gatti from the Tennessee Highway Patrol, who died on Monday, May 6, 2019; Sergeant Steve Hinkle from the Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, who died on Tuesday, February 26, 2019; and Police Officer Nicholas Scott Galinger from the Chattanooga Police Department, who died on Sunday, February 24, 2019. As I talk to our sheriffs and police chiefs and patrol captains, I know there are many more who have been injured, and we remember them.

We also say ``thank you so much'' to the families of these men and women who have chosen--you know, they really are called. This is their calling to public service, and we thank them for answering that call and that they choose to serve in our communities to keep us safe so that we know our communities are a place where we can rear our families, where we can enjoy camaraderie with family members, with friends, with our churches.

I will tell you, as I was thinking about this week, I thought, there are so many moms and grandmoms who I think are pretty much like me. Many times I will say I am a ``security mom.'' I want to make certain that my children and my grandchildren are safe, that our children are safe when they go to sporting events and when they go to school. We say a prayer when they get behind the wheel of a car. We are so grateful that there are law enforcement officers who are there at public events to keep them safe, who watch out if they are going to be speeding on the road and provide the security that is so essential to our way of life.

I have the opportunity as one of these security moms, if you will, to serve on our Senate Judiciary Committee. Just last week, Chairman Graham brought forward three bills that we approved. These are things that are going to help law enforcement officers and their families-- providing mental health support for law enforcement and their families, which is vitally important, and, of course, lifesaving bulletproof vests, which are now essential, and ensuring that our first responders get the benefits they have earned by standing for that duty. When they get ready to retire, those benefits are going to be there.

This week, I have joined Senator Cornyn on his Back the Blue Act, and I thank him for his leadership. I think many of us who stand in this Chamber know that we stand to back that ``thin blue line''--that line is the difference between order and chaos in our communities. This bill is going to create new penalties for killing or assaulting law enforcement officers and will protect officers from lawsuits when they intervene to stop a violent crime. It is a commonsense provision, and I am pleased to be in support of this bill.

As we talk about law enforcement and security and having safe communities, we also need to remember our Customs and Border Patrol agents and officers who are on the southern border. When you talk about being a security mom, of course you are going to talk about economic security, healthcare security, job security, and national security, but border security is a part of that. It is a way that we work to keep our communities safe.

We all know there is a humanitarian crisis on the southern border. Much of it is fueled by cartels that are big business. They deal in drug trafficking and human trafficking. It is our first responders who address this in our communities and on our city streets. The issues and the lack of security at that border have created an environment where now, at this point, every State is a border State and every town is a border town because those problems that come across the southern border with the human trafficking, with the drug trafficking, with the gangs-- all of this ends up on the streets in your community.

We are working on legislation that we hope is going to help with this situation. It will target traffickers of unaccompanied minors in the care of Health and Human Services. One of the things that has not happened and needs to happen is that Health and Human Services and Homeland Security need to be able to share all of the information they have on individuals who are bringing these unaccompanied children, individuals who say ``I am a next of kin,'' individuals who say ``I am here, and this child is coming to me.'' We want to make certain they are in the country legally. We want to make certain they have a relationship with these children so that we are protecting and looking out for the security of these children and making certain they are not being trafficked.

As we talk about our children, some of the trafficking--of course, much of the trafficking takes place in the virtual space. It takes place online. It seems impossible, but that is what happens with the human trafficking and the sex trafficking. The adverse impact that this has on young girls and women is horrifying.

Because of my work to prohibit these traffickers from working online, we are pushing forward with privacy legislation. You and I do not want our children to be followed online. That is what is happening, and it is why we need to make certain that moms have the tools they need--that parents have the tools they need--to guard the privacy of their families online.

I recently introduced the BROWSER Act. This is legislation I introduced while I was in the House of Representatives. It is one of the first bipartisan privacy bills we have had. The BROWSER Act will require you to give your consent if you are going to opt in and allow someone to share your information, to have access to your sensitive information.

In this Nation, we have a history of respecting informed consent, and that is what we are saying--that individuals need to give their consent to a company before that company looks at their private information or, worse yet, data mines or, worse yet, shares that information about those individuals with third parties--people they do not know, people they have never seen, people they never will see. Then that tech company--guess what--sells ads. It is paid with your information.

The BROWSER Act also prohibits companies from denying their services to users who refuse to waive their privacy rights. You have a right to privacy, and these companies should not deny you their services because you

say: You cannot share my information. You cannot share my sensitive information. I am not going to opt-in to allow you to do that, big tech company. I am also going to opt-out on non-sensitive data. I am not going to allow you to do that. I do not want my children followed, and I do not want you to be following me. I do not want you to sell my information. I do not want my spam to run crazy with ads and information I do not want.

Individuals deserve their privacy. Americans deserve to know they are protected and have that privacy in the online universe. They deserve to know they are not going to be followed and they are not going to be tracked.

While we are talking about technology, I'd like to bring attention to the global race for 5G, or fifth-generation wireless technology. You are hearing a good bit about this. It doesn't matter if it is in our commercial sector or in our military sector; we are at the forefront of this debate to make certain that we win this race on 5G--that China does not get a foothold, that Huawei does not penetrate our delivery systems--and to make certain that we win this race just like we did the race to 4G, which brought forward a lot of the technologies we all use and take for granted, like those devices we hold in our hands on which we receive our emails, make our phone calls, send text messages, pull up maps, get to a favorite site on which we want to make a purchase, and log on to social media accounts. This is all from a handheld device, and it is what 4G brought us. Well, 5G is going to be as revolutionary as going from analog to digital, and we are going to stay on top of this to make certain we win this race.

Because of this, we have a couple more pieces of legislation that I am going to discuss on the floor at a later date. We have the SECURE 5G and BEYOND Act. Senator Cornyn has the lead on that. I have the SUPPLY CHAIN Act, which will be focused on security in the virtual space and make certain that we will be rooting out these threats that may come to our supply chain and affect our private sector or our governmental sector.

We know it is imperative that, yes, we win the race in 5G but that we protect our networks and that we secure them so the American public knows that its information is not being exploited.

As a mom who values and puts a priority on keeping children and grandchildren safe, it is an honor for me to come to this floor to salute the men and women of law enforcement and to talk about what we need to do every single day from this Chamber to protect our Nation's security and to protect our citizens.

I yield the floor.