Floor Statements

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations, I welcome the nomination of Ambassador and former Member of Congress Mark Green to be the next Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Ambassador Green brings a wealth of experience to this important position. He has been president of the International Republican Institute since 2014. In 2013, he was president and chief executive officer of the Initiative for Global Development, and before that, he served as senior director at the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a network of 400 businesses, nongovernmental organizations, policy experts, and others supporting the role of development in U.S. foreign policy. He served as the U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania from 2007 to 2009. While there, he led a mission of more than 350 Americans and Tanzanians and was ultimately responsible for some of the largest U.S. overseas development programs. Prior to his serving as U.S. Ambassador, Mark Green served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Wisconsin's 8th District.

Ambassador Green also served on the board of directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, after being appointed to that position by President Obama. He is currently on the Human Freedom Advisory Council for the George W. Bush Institute and cochairs the Consensus for Development Reform, a coalition of policy and business leaders devising new principles for making development policy more effective and growth-oriented. He is a board member of WorldTeach and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Since 1989, as either chairman or ranking member of the subcommittee that provides the funding for USAID's operations and programs, I know the critical role that it plays in promoting and protecting U.S. interests around the world. Its field missions are its greatest strength, and countless lives have been saved, conflicts avoided, and government institutions strengthened, thanks to the global health, social and economic development, and democracy programs administered by USAID. These programs are not charity. They are essential and complementary to the roles played by our diplomats and soldiers.

President Trump has talked about ``America First.'' We all want this country to be the best it can be, but slogans are not a substitute for effective policies. Creating jobs at home is not, by itself, a foreign policy. The United States cannot remain a leader in the global economy, where the gravest security problems we face can only be solved by working with other countries, if we reduce our engagement with the world. The vacuum we leave will quickly be filled by our competitors, and it will be difficult if not impossible to recover lost ground.

At a time when OMB is proposing to slash USAID's budget and downgrade its overseas presence, the nomination of Ambassador Green is a positive signal. If confirmed, I look forward to working with him and subcommittee Chairman Graham, as well as with our House appropriations subcommittee counterparts Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, to ensure that USAID has the resources it needs to continue and expand its presence and impact around the world.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, as the Senate continues to consider nominees to lead our Nation's top agencies, we are once again faced with the difficult decision to confirm an individual whose interests run counter to the mission of the agency he or she will be tasked to lead. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the nominee for Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, is another such nominee.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb is a physician and current medical consultant for pharmaceutical, medical device, and other healthcare companies. From 2003 to 2007, Dr. Gottlieb was a senior adviser to the FDA Commissioner for Medical Technology. He was also the Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs under two different FDA Commissioners. In 2013, Dr. Gottlieb served on the Federal Health IT Policy Committee for the Department of Health and Human Services. He also

worked as an adviser to Mitt Romney during his 2012 Presidential campaign.

While I appreciate that Dr. Gottlieb has qualifying experience, I remain concerned about his policies and conflicts of interest. For instance, while serving as the FDA's Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Gottlieb defended the Bush administration's position to deny the availability of certain contraceptive care drugs over-the-counter, despite the science that pointed to lifesaving benefits from such drugs. Additionally, while serving with Kure, a company that operates vaping and ecigarette products, Dr. Gottlieb was noncommittal in supporting regulations over commerce in such products, which directly targets young kids through marketing, when there is a lack of appropriate medical science to suggest vaping and ecigarettes are less harmful than tobacco products. He has also historically sought ways to ensure that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 can better support the industry instead of better protecting patients and their families. This is especially problematic, given that the law provided the FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco in order to further curb smoking.

I am also concerned with Dr. Gottlieb's public disagreement with proposals that would allow patients to access affordable medications through drug importation. I have always supported policies that would allow patients to access safe and affordable medications from Canada because this is a cost-effective method to provide patients with the resources they need to manage their health needs. Of course, Dr. Gottlieb has long been an outspoken critic of the Affordable Care Act, ACA, making troubling assertions along the way. He has been quoted as opposing the ACA's medical loss ratio, which ensures that the dollars consumers pay on their healthcare go to just that and not to CEO salaries and overhead costs. He has also publically opposed the individual mandate and has supported converting the ACA's premium tax credits from an income-based to an age-based rating system, which would significantly bar patient access to quality, affordable care.

Most concerning are Dr. Gottlieb's undeniable ties to some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the marketplace. As an adviser for New Enterprises Associates, Dr. Gottlieb currently manages more than 40 drugs now in development that could come before the FDA for approval. He has also received compensation from many of these companies, earning more than $400,000 from multiple pharmaceutical and medical device companies from 2013 to 2015 alone. Dr. Gottlieb also served on six pharmaceutical company boards, two insurance company boards, one medical laboratory company board, and several other similar boards, all of which have hundreds of drugs currently awaiting FDA approval. Without proper recusal, which Dr. Gottlieb has not committed himself to in full, these conflicts are in direct contradiction to the ethics and objective work required of the Commissioner of the FDA.

The leader of the FDA has a firm responsibility in promoting policies and overseeing drug development with the purpose of enhancing the health and well-being of the American people. We should put ourselves in the shoes of the American people, our constituents, in evaluating nominees to head agencies that bear directly on the public's healthcare needs. Given Dr. Gottlieb's significant conflicts of interest, combined with his ideological approaches to public health policy, which suggest that he would rather deny patients access to lifesaving resources than support ways to improve healthcare and promote prevention efforts for all, I cannot in good conscience support his nomination.

Mr. President, as one of the Senators who has read this bill, I would note that most of this bill has been here since November. We were prepared to go in November and vote on each part of it separately.

I would advise the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, who is a friend of mine, that his party did not want to go forward in November. They were asked by the then-President-elect not to go forward with it, and his party said it would not go forward with it. We could have passed all of the bills separately in November.

I would also note, as the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska said on the floor a few minutes ago, that Republicans and Democrats have been working very closely on this appropriations bill. She expressed--and I absolutely join her in this--that we go back to the way it always has been. My party is not in control of the schedule in the Senate, but I would ask that all of us in both parties work together and start doing the appropriations bills one by one, as we always have. In fact, this bill is the product of many long weeks and days and nights and weekends. I know. A lot of times, I went to bed at midnight, and my staff kept on working.

I thank Republican Chairman Thad Cochran, of Mississippi, for his leadership in reaching this agreement of keeping the government open for business. It is how Congress can and should work.

Forget the rhetoric. Forget political brinkmanship. This agreement shows something we have worked on and that when we come together and work through our differences--both parties here and both parties in the other body--that we can do the work of the American people.

I think the package before us is a good deal for the American people, and I will vote for it, but we should not be celebrating this fact. On this, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Arizona in that we should not be finishing our work 7 months into the fiscal year. I wish his party had allowed us to do it last November. These bills could have been and should have been finished then. In fact, we were 98 percent done with our negotiations, both Republicans and Democrats, when then- President-elect Trump said: Pencils down, and put everything on hold. The Senator from Arizona and his party have been operating on a continuing resolution ever since. I am glad to hear him say this is not the way he wants to do it.

I, certainly, agree with the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska when she says this is not the way to do it. Those of us who have been here for a while know that does not work and it is no way to govern.

It is my goal--and I believe Chairman Cochran shares this goal--to return to regular order, which is when we consider each appropriations bill in committee, debate each one publicly on the floor, and then vote it up or down. That is the way we should operate. That is what the American people deserve. I look forward to working with Chairman Cochran to make this a reality when we return, in very short order, to the fiscal year 2018 bills.

I have been on the Appropriations Committee for decades, and I have served as either chairman or ranking member of different subcommittees there, just as I have served as chairman or ranking member on Agriculture and the Judiciary. Yet I decided this year to take on the vice chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee because I believe in the power of the purse, in the ability of this committee to make a real difference in people's lives, and because of the respect I have for Chairman Cochran.

Our national budget is a reflection of our Nation's priorities, and the appropriations bills are where our priorities become realities. I am pleased to report we have worked hard to reflect Americans' values in the fiscal year 2017 consolidated appropriations bill before us. I think we have reached a good deal.

I am pleased that on a bipartisan basis we have rejected President Trump's ill-considered proposal to slash domestic programs by $15 billion, including deep cuts in the NIH and low-income energy assistance. I am glad to see a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health. I was proud to have brought then-Vice President Biden to the University of Vermont last October to discuss his Cancer Moonshot Initiative and to see and hear how Vermonters are contributing to research to better treat--and hopefully cure--cancer. NIH funding is central to this effort.

Last year, the NIH accounted for nearly $40 million in research funding for the University of Vermont. Everybody--Republicans and Democrats--agree they have spent it well. This research is leading to advancements in lung disease treatments, cancers, and to more effectively using genome testing to advance the emerging and promising field of precision medicine.

In this bill, we were able to protect funding for LIHEAP. As the distinguished Presiding Officer and I know, we are in States in which the temperatures can often plunge way below zero. LIHEAP is a vital lifeline--certainly in the State of Vermont--to prevent people from being forced to make the wrenching choice of putting food on their tables for their families or keeping them warm.

We have also put in $512 million--nearly double the resources available last year--to combat the opioid epidemic. This is a plague that grips every community in the country. It does not make any difference whether one is a Republican or a Democrat. It is hitting all of us. It is a problem that does not know the difference between rich or poor, urban or rural, Republican or Democrat. I think every Senator probably knows someone or a family with someone who has been in the grips of opioid addiction. My wife and I have sat down at kitchen tables with grieving parents who have lost their children. We have spoken to first responders who have seen so many people die. We have to confront this problem head-on in this country.

We are doing a number of other things. We are protecting funds for the EPA at the critical moment of confronting climate change. In that regard, I was pleased that Marcelle and I were able to host hundreds of Vermonters who had driven all night long in order to join the hundreds of thousands of people in the Nation's Capital for the Climate March.

I see that the distinguished chairman has come on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield to him, without losing my right to the floor, so I may finish my speech when he is finished.

Mr. President, I note that the chairman and I are well aware of how well things go when we take each one of these bills. He certainly has led that effort, and that is the way we should do it.

I mentioned this when the Vermonters were here last weekend. Marcelle and I hosted them, so many of whom had driven through the night to join the hundreds of thousands of people in the Nation's Capital for the Climate March. Many of them asked: Why can't we do it the way we used to? I told them we were ready to go to all of the bills in November, and I am sorry that leadership said no.

There are things on which we have done a lot in this bill. Those of us on the Appropriations Committee have read this bill, and we have read most of it since last November.

The EPA provides funding to improve the environmental quality and ecological vibrancy of our small State's great Lake Champlain, the jewel of New England, as well as crucial funding for similar partnerships all over the country.

I am also pleased to report what is not in this bill. In a bipartisan way, we get rid of more than 160 poison pill riders--riders that would have undermined the health insurance of millions of Americans by attacking the protections they have under the Affordable Care Act and riders that would have slapped restrictions on women's access to healthcare, especially in rural areas, and riders that would have rolled back consumer financial protections of Dodd-Frank regulations and weaken environmental protections. Let's have votes up or down on those issues, anytime you want, but not in a must-pass spending bill.

I also particularly welcome the fact that not a single cent in the bill will go toward building President Trump's misguided wall on the southern border. When that issue came up in our debate, I said: Well let's have a vote, up or down, in the House and in the Senate, on the wall, where all Republicans and all Democrats vote. If it passes, then I will stop my objection. Nobody wants such a vote because not enough people support it. The American people should not, and they will not, be forced to pay tens of billions of dollars for a bumper-sticker solution to an incredibly complex problem--a wall that the President promised that Mexico, not American taxpayers, would pay for, even though all American taxpayers know that Americans, not Mexicans, would pay for it. His own department estimates that it would cost U.S. taxpayers $22 billion. Some said during the debate: Show me a 30-foot wall, and I will show you a 31-foot ladder. I can also show you pictures of small prop planes and boats and tunnels. A wall is nothing more than an illusion. It is a false promise of security. Instead of debating this boondoggle, which Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents oppose, let's consider real solutions with comprehensive immigration reform.

In 2013, the Senate passed the large effort of Republicans and Democrats working together on comprehensive immigration reforms. Let's resume that debate and not throw money at this expensive illusion, where we are cutting vital medical research at the National Institutes of Health and others to pay for it.

There are a lot of anti-science proposals and impulses in the proposals that came from the administration, and I am proud that both Republicans and Democrats rejected them.

So I support the bill before us. I am proud to join with Chairman Cochran. It is not a perfect bill, but no products we all come together on are perfect. But on balance, it is a good deal for the American people. It reflects values of both Republicans and Democrats. The bipartisan work that brought us to this point shows what is possible and it lays the groundwork for our negotiations on the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills.

So I want to extend again my thanks to Chairman Cochran and to the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. It takes a tremendous amount of work to draft each of the underlying bills contained in this consolidated appropriations bill. While we were negotiating, I remember being on the phone at 10, 11 o'clock at night, night after night, but I went to bed, and the staff would keep on working until 2 or 3 in the morning.

So I thank the staff of the Appropriations Committee and subcommittee clerks on both sides of the aisle, who have been here day in and day out for many weeks. I certainly thank my staff director, Charles ``Chuck'' Kieffer, deputy staff director Chanda Betourney, and Jessica Berry, Jay Tilton, JP Dowd, and Jean Kwon, as well as Senator Schumer and his staff, including Gerry Petrella, Meghan Taira, Mike Lynch, and Mike Kuiken for the assistance they provided. I want to recognize and thank Bruce Evans and Fitz Elder from Chairman Cochran's staff, the majority staff director, and deputy staff director. They worked very, very hard and in their usual professional and courteous manner. I want to thank Bob Putnam, Hong Nguyen, and George Castro for the support they provide to the committee every day. And finally, I want to thank the editorial and printing staff, without whom we could never have produced this bill. Valerie Hutton, Penny Myles, Elmer Barnes and Karinthia Thames were here day and night, week after week, editing the dozens of drafts that ultimately became this consolidated bill. They work in relatively obscurity, but their expertise and dedication is not lost on us. We depend on them and we greatly appreciate what they do.

Lastly, on a personal matter, I wish to take a moment for special recognition of Charles Kieffer. Chuck is well known to the Senate. He is a familiar figure here in this Chamber. He has served on the Appropriations Committee for many years, under numerous chairmen and vice chairmen. I was grateful that he was willing to take on and continue there when I took over as vice chairman.

What a lot of people don't know is that he has been working around the clock on this, and in March he lost his father Jerry. Just a few weeks ago, he lost his mother Fran.

If you know even a little bit about his parents, there is no doubt where Chuck gets his dedication to public service. His father Jerry served as the executive director of the National Cultural Center at the Kennedy Center. He held positions in the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations.

Chuck's mother Fran was a longtime member of the League of Women Voters. She dedicated time to numerous civic institutions throughout her lifetime. At 93 and 89, respectively, Jerry and Fran lived a long and full life, including a marriage of 68 years.

Their loss will be profoundly felt by their family and friends. My and Marcelle's thoughts are with Chuck, his wife Meg, and their family. I thank him for his tireless dedication to this institution, even during a time of great

personal sorrow. I would like to think that his parents are looking down from their place of eternal reward with a great deal of pride in their son.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I thank the distinguished Acting President pro tempore.

Madam President, as we know, the Senate is considering a stopgap--continuing resolution--to keep the government of the American people open for business. The stopgap, of course, helps us forget the fact that in November we had all the appropriations bills ready to go, but the leadership asked us to hold it off.

Now, I am going to support this 1-week continuing resolution, because I believe we are close to a bipartisan agreement that would avoid the devastating consequences of a government shutdown and save the Congress from once again facing the disruption and humiliation of failing to meet Congress's obligation to fund the basic functions of our government.

But we shouldn't be in this situation. We shouldn't have allowed partisan politics to once again turn a looming deadline into a political standoff and what is really a manufactured crisis.

As I have said, our work could have been and should have been completed in November. We were prepared to do that. We were 90 percent to the finish line--98 percent, actually, to the finish line. Republicans and Democrats had worked together. But at the request of then-President-Elect Trump, all work ground to a halt. For 5 months we have faced one partisan obstacle after another from the Trump administration, including a demand to fund a misguided wall on the southern border at the expense of billions of dollars that would have to be paid for--not by Mexico or anybody else. It would be paid for by the American taxpayers. The administration then threatened to hold hostage the basic health insurance of millions of Americans, crippling the Affordable Care Act. This is more than insulting. It is malicious, and it is wrong.

Now the other side of the aisle is holding the budget of the American people hostage, insisting we include dozens of poison pill riders as the price for funding the people's government and to advance their partisan agenda on abortion, Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reforms, and the environment.

The Republicans control both Houses of Congress and the White House. If they want to pass legislation on these divisive issues, then bring the bills to the floor and vote on them, instead of trying to hide them in an appropriations bill. If they really believe in all these poison pill amendments, then vote on them. Bring up legislation. They control the House and the Senate. They can bring it up anytime they want.

Partisan politics should not be tied to must-pass spending bills, because it is never the right time to play politics with the lives of the American people and the government of the wealthiest and most powerful Nation on Earth.

I think it is very obvious why they want to hide them in an appropriations bill. They don't want to vote on it and give great speeches on the wall, on our southern border. They know that they don't have enough Republican votes to pass it.

One party now controls the White House and both Chambers of Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republicans to ensure that the government of the American people stays open and is fully funded. I am afraid that the partisan bluster threatens to derail months of bipartisan negotiations.

As vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, I have been involved in those negotiations. Charles Kieffer and Chanda Betourney have worked almost around the clock for weeks representing us on the Appropriations Committee. If the bluster and the posturing would stop, we could wrap this up.

I hope that with one more week, our bipartisan and our bicameral negotiations, consistent with the bipartisan budget agreement and without poison pills, can continue, because this is no way to govern.

To date, negotiations have produced many positive outcomes for the American people. We have increased investments in the National Institutes of Health. We secured full year Pell grants. We made investments in transit.

As to something that should be of concern to every single Senator from every single State, we made funding available to address the opioid crisis. That is not a Democratic or Republican issue. That is a human issue. Every single State in this country is facing an opioid crisis. I am pleased that Republicans and Democrats came together to address it.

Let's not govern by partisan manufactured crises. Let's do what the American people expect us to do and come together to pay the bills of our country. Stop posturing. We are the greatest democracy on Earth, the most powerful and the wealthiest Nation on Earth. Let's start acting that way. Let's start governing as we should. Let's not hide these divisive issues in an appropriations bill. Let's have votes straight up or down. Let people vote and show their constituents, the American people, where they stand. Don't hide behind a must-pass appropriations bill. It is not the way we should govern. It is not the way I want to do it. I am perfectly willing to cast votes on major issues, even if they are controversial.

We have 6-year terms here. We ought to be willing to be the conscience of the Nation. That is what the Senate is supposed to be. In my years here, I have seen times when we have been under both Republican and Democratic leadership. We are not acting as the conscience of the Nation now. We have to go back to that. I really hope we will.

We have good men and women in this body on both sides of the aisle. Let's start showing the conscience of this great Nation. Let's start governing in reality, not by rhetoric. Governing is not a Twitter feed. Governing is debating the issues and coming to a conclusion for the American people.

I see nobody else seeking recognition.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Vermont Small Business Development Center, VtSBDC, is joining SBDC's across the country in celebrating its 25th anniversary as a crucial resource for entrepreneurs. These centers provide services to facilitate the creation, sustainability, and growth of viable businesses. In Vermont, it is no secret that we take particular pride in our local businesses. Our entrepreneurs and their businesses are at the heart of our vibrant communities, and they are the roots of a thriving economy.

Over the past 25 years, VtSBDC has helped countless businesses capitalize on their potential. From glassblowers to forestry and sugarmakers to restaurants, VtSBDC has delivered thousands of hours of professional business counseling and training that is focused on strategic planning, business development, financial planning, and cash flow management. After the devastation of Tropical Storm Irene, VtSBDC reached out with State and Federal partners to offer small business owners the assistance and support necessary to undergo full recovery efforts. I am regularly reminded of VtSBDC's worth to entrepreneurs through client testimonials, regularly highlighting that, without the assistance of VtSBDC staff, their business would not have been able to reach the next levels. In addition to working with individuals to achieve their dreams, VtSBDC has also supported business incubators, or coworking spaces, where fledgling businesses and industries find their footing alongside other new businessowners.

Founded as a pilot program run by the Small Business Administration in 1977, national small business development centers have a long history proving public-private partnerships and,

when done right, are a successful tool in expanding local pilot programs that benefit communities and States across our Nation. Small business owners always face many obstacles, but the professionals at VtSBDC provide invaluable resources, support, and advice to help overcome these challenges.

I want to congratulate the Vermont Small Business Development Center on their 25th anniversary and thank their dedicated staff for their commitment, energy, and time working to make sure that Vermont's small businesses remain strongly grounded and growing in Vermont.

Mr. President, over the past few years, the national headlines have been dominated by stories about the high cost of pharmaceuticals. We have seen jaw-dropping examples, such as the unconscionable price increase overnight by Turing Pharmaceuticals of their drug for patients with HIV, from $13.50 to $750 per pill.

Pharmaceutical companies should be compensated for their important work developing lifesaving treatments. But when companies engage in predatory practices at the expense of consumers, we must act. That is why today I am reintroducing the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples, or CREATES, Act, bipartisan legislation to end inappropriate delay tactics that are used by some brand-name drug manufacturers to block competition from more affordable generic drugs. I am glad to be joined by Senators Grassley, Klobuchar, Lee, and Feinstein, and several other Senators of both parties in introducing this bill today.

The first delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the withholding of drug samples that generic manufacturers need to gain regulatory approval. Federal law requires generic competitors to prove that their low-cost alternative is as equally safe and effective as the brand-name drug with which they wish to compete. Unfortunately, some brand-name companies are preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining the samples they need to make the necessary comparison. This simple delay tactic uses regulatory safeguards as a weapon to block competition. The FDA has reported receiving more than 100 inquiries from generic product developers who were unable to access samples of a brand-name drug to compare their generic product.

The second delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the development of shared safety protocols. For some high-risk drugs, Federal law requires a generic drug manufacturer to join the brand-name drug manufacturer in a single, shared safety protocol for distribution of the drug. Despite this requirement, some brand-name companies are refusing to negotiate shared safety protocols with potential generic competitors, again undermining those competitors' ability to gain FDA approval for their generic versions of such drugs.

The revised version of the CREATES Act also allows the FDA more discretion to approve alternative safety protocols, rather than require parties to develop shared safety protocols. Any safety protocol approved by the FDA must meet the rigorous statutory standards already in place.

These exclusionary practices thwart competition and deny consumers the benefit of lower drug prices. I share the concerns of Vermonters and Americans across the country that many prescription drugs are simply too expensive. When brand companies can artificially raise the price of drugs by using predatory practices, patients suffer. Illnesses get worse. Families, government programs, and other payers in the healthcare system ultimately bear those added, unnecessary costs.

This legislation is not a silver bullet to address all of the complex problems driving the high costs of medications. In addition to the delayed entry of generic drugs, I am troubled by the rising cost of treatments for opioid overdoses, which remain expensive for local law enforcement agencies, even though there are generic competitors. In Vermont, many patients are grappling with the extremely high cost of a new drug for hepatitis C that will likely have years of market exclusivity before generic alternatives can be made. Last year we learned the price of EpiPen had increased by almost 500 percent since 2009, now costing roughly $600 for a two-pack. The sharp increase in price combined with the relatively short shelf life of the product--1 year to 18 months--has put this lifesaving drug out of reach for many.

Think for a moment about the impact of price hikes on the family of a patient facing a life-threatening illness. Across the country, hardworking Americans feel like the system is rigged against them by corporations that are looking to make a profit at any price. With examples like Turing and Mylan, it is no wonder they feel that way.

The CREATES Act is one piece of the puzzle, addressing anticompetitive behavior that delays the creation of affordable generic drugs. Drug affordability is a bipartisan issue that affects each and every American. These reforms will make a difference. I hope other Senators will join us in supporting these bipartisan reforms.

Mr. President, over the past few years, the national headlines have been dominated by stories about the high cost of pharmaceuticals. We have seen jaw-dropping examples, such as the unconscionable price increase overnight by Turing Pharmaceuticals of their drug for patients with HIV, from $13.50 to $750 per pill.

Pharmaceutical companies should be compensated for their important work developing lifesaving treatments. But when companies engage in predatory practices at the expense of consumers, we must act. That is why today I am reintroducing the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples, or CREATES, Act, bipartisan legislation to end inappropriate delay tactics that are used by some brand-name drug manufacturers to block competition from more affordable generic drugs. I am glad to be joined by Senators Grassley, Klobuchar, Lee, and Feinstein, and several other Senators of both parties in introducing this bill today.

The first delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the withholding of drug samples that generic manufacturers need to gain regulatory approval. Federal law requires generic competitors to prove that their low-cost alternative is as equally safe and effective as the brand-name drug with which they wish to compete. Unfortunately, some brand-name companies are preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining the samples they need to make the necessary comparison. This simple delay tactic uses regulatory safeguards as a weapon to block competition. The FDA has reported receiving more than 100 inquiries from generic product developers who were unable to access samples of a brand-name drug to compare their generic product.

The second delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the development of shared safety protocols. For some high-risk drugs, Federal law requires a generic drug manufacturer to join the brand-name drug manufacturer in a single, shared safety protocol for distribution of the drug. Despite this requirement, some brand-name companies are refusing to negotiate shared safety protocols with potential generic competitors, again undermining those competitors' ability to gain FDA approval for their generic versions of such drugs.

The revised version of the CREATES Act also allows the FDA more discretion to approve alternative safety protocols, rather than require parties to develop shared safety protocols. Any safety protocol approved by the FDA must meet the rigorous statutory standards already in place.

These exclusionary practices thwart competition and deny consumers the benefit of lower drug prices. I share the concerns of Vermonters and Americans across the country that many prescription drugs are simply too expensive. When brand companies can artificially raise the price of drugs by using predatory practices, patients suffer. Illnesses get worse. Families, government programs, and other payers in the healthcare system ultimately bear those added, unnecessary costs.

This legislation is not a silver bullet to address all of the complex problems driving the high costs of medications. In addition to the delayed entry of generic drugs, I am troubled by the rising cost of treatments for opioid overdoses, which remain expensive for local law enforcement agencies, even though there are generic competitors. In Vermont, many patients are grappling with the extremely high cost of a new drug for hepatitis C that will likely have years of market exclusivity before generic alternatives can be made. Last year we learned the price of EpiPen had increased by almost 500 percent since 2009, now costing roughly $600 for a two-pack. The sharp increase in price combined with the relatively short shelf life of the product--1 year to 18 months--has put this lifesaving drug out of reach for many.

Think for a moment about the impact of price hikes on the family of a patient facing a life-threatening illness. Across the country, hardworking Americans feel like the system is rigged against them by corporations that are looking to make a profit at any price. With examples like Turing and Mylan, it is no wonder they feel that way.

The CREATES Act is one piece of the puzzle, addressing anticompetitive behavior that delays the creation of affordable generic drugs. Drug affordability is a bipartisan issue that affects each and every American. These reforms will make a difference. I hope other Senators will join us in supporting these bipartisan reforms.

Mr. President, Rod Rosenstein's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General comes at a unique moment in history and critical juncture for the Department of Justice, as well as for this country. It has been 44 years since the Senate considered a Justice Department nominee who will be in charge of an active criminal investigation into a sitting President's

campaign and administration. Since the Judiciary Committee reported Mr. Rosenstein's nomination to the Senate earlier this month, further press reports underscore how important it is that we have an independent and impartial investigation into Russian interference in our elections and connections with the Trump campaign and administration.

In just the past 3 weeks, we learned that a notable Trump campaign adviser was reportedly the subject of a FISA warrant. CNN reported that this adviser was among those who ``Russian operatives tried to use . . . to infiltrate the Trump campaign.'' The AP reported that Paul Manafort, who worked for free as the Trump campaign chairman, previously received at least $1.2 million for consulting work on behalf of a Ukrainian ally of Russian President Putin. That is in addition to reports that Mr. Manafort earned $10 million per year for secret work on behalf of Vladimir Putin. We learned that President Trump's first National Security Advisor ``failed to list payments from Russia-linked entities'' on his financial disclosure forms. We also learned that the President's son-in-law and top adviser failed to disclose meetings with the Russian Ambassador and other officials on his application to obtain top secret security clearance--just like when the Attorney General provided false testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to questions from me and Senator Franken about his own Russian contacts.

If confirmed, Mr. Rosenstein will assume leadership of the sprawling investigation into Russia's multifaceted attempts to interfere with our elections, an investigation that embroils not only individuals in the Trump campaign, but also those who are now in the President's Cabinet and senior officials in the White House. Attorney General Sessions was forced to recuse himself from this investigation after the press revealed that he had misled the Judiciary Committee and the American people about his connections to Russian officials and agents. There is no question that the Attorney General's recusal was required--and should have happened on day 1 after assuming office. Justice Department regulations required him to recuse himself because of the integral role that then-Senator Sessions played in the Trump campaign and his continuing contacts with those directly under investigation. These Department of Justice regulations protect the impartiality of all Justice Department investigations.

The Justice Department's regulations regarding appointment of a special counsel are equally significant. These regulations direct appointment of a special counsel when there is ``a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances'' and ``it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.'' The current situation unquestionably meets that standard. Mr. Rosenstein acknowledged at his confirmation hearing that it would be an unusual challenge to lead an investigation that potentially includes the Attorney General, his direct supervisor. This investigation now not only includes Mr. Rosenstein's potential boss, but also several others inside the White House. Americans deserve an investigation that is independent and inspires public confidence, and that requires appointment of a special counsel who is free from political influence. This issue is too important for us to skew for partisan motivations. Country must come before party, and I hope and trust Mr. Rosenstein will understand that if he is confirmed.

We know that this administration and this President have already interfered with the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian activity and connections to the Trump campaign. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, recused himself from his own committee's investigation after what Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker called a ``coordinated effort between the Trump Administration and [Chairman] Nunes . . . to manufacture a fake scandal'' in order to distract from, as well as obstruct, any real investigation. Earlier this month, President Trump even said that ``it's not too late'' to fire FBI Director Comey. This administration cannot be trusted to respect the independence of any investigation, which is why we need an outside special counsel. Whoever assumes the role of Deputy Attorney General in this administration will face extraordinary tests of integrity. Mr. Rosenstein has a reputation for integrity that is unusual for this administration's nominees, and I hope he is up to the challenge.

We already know from the intelligence community's public report that Russian President Putin waged a multifaceted influence campaign to delegitimize Secretary Clinton and help Donald Trump win the Presidency. Worse, he intended to undermine public faith in our democratic process. This interference did not end on November 8th. It is ongoing and, according to the intelligence community, President Putin will continue using cyberattacks and propaganda campaigns to undermine our future elections--but there is still much we do not know.

We need a thorough, independent investigation. President Putin's goal last year was to undermine our democratic institutions--to corrode Americans' trust and faith in our government. If we do not get to the bottom of Russian interference, he will have been successful, and he will no doubt do it again. I hope that Mr. Rosenstein will do the right thing and appoint a special counsel to lead a truly independent investigation--one in which all Americans can have confidence.

If confirmed, Mr. Rosenstein will face other critical tests as well, including whether he will continue to support the Justice Department's Smart on Crime initiative, focusing the most serious criminal penalties on the most serious offenders. With his 27 years of experience in the Justice Department, I hope that Mr. Rosenstein will be an independent check on the excesses of this administration, which has already sought to undermine the principle of judicial review. He has served as U.S. Attorney under both Democratic and Republican administrations, so I hope that, as Deputy Attorney General and as Acting Attorney General in matters relating to the Trump campaign, he will remember that he is not the President's attorney, but the people's attorney.

Mr. President, tomorrow, April 26, is World Intellectual Property Day, an opportunity for people around the world to appreciate and learn about the role of intellectual property rights in promoting innovation. Our Founders believed that the right to enjoy the benefit of one's own inventions was so important to the progress of science that they included it in the Constitution. More than 200 years later, limited exclusive rights for inventors continue to incentivize the research and development and make the United States the global leader in innovation.

In the spirit of this year's theme, ``Innovation--Improving Lives,'' I am proud to partner with Senator Grassley to reintroduce the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act. Patents for Humanity is a perfect example of how intellectual property rights encourage inventors to develop creative solutions to some of the world's most pressing humanitarian challenges.

Since 2012, the Patents for Humanity Program of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, has honored patent holders whose inventions apply cutting-edge technology to meet global challenges in medicine, nutrition, sanitation, energy, and living standards. The winning inventors receive a certificate to accelerate future PTO processes, such as a reexamination or additional patent applications. The Patents for Humanity Program provides an important incentive for talented innovators to use their expertise and intellect to enhance the public good.

The winners of the Patents for Humanity Program have addressed some of the toughest challenges in the developing world. One lab developed a vaccine cooler that has been used in the fight against the Ebola virus. A nonprofit organization created a strand of rice enriched with vitamin A to prevent a nutritional deficiency that is the leading killer of children globally. A social enterprise made a low-cost solar light that can replace dangerous kerosene lamps in areas without electricity. These life saving inventions are exactly the kind of innovations that our intellectual property system should incentivize.

In 2012, the Director of the PTO testified before the Judiciary Committee that Patents for Humanity would attract even more innovators if the winners could transfer their acceleration certificates to a third party. Frequently, successful small businesses and individual inventors are unable to continue their projects or are prevented from taking advantage of the accelerated process because of acquisitions and reorganizations. Transferability of the award certificates would increase the incentive for these small businesses and individuals to develop innovative technologies that would benefit the public and international development.

This bipartisan legislation would allow Patents for Humanity winners to transfer their acceleration certificates. This straightforward, common sense reform to the Patents for Humanity Program passed the Senate by unanimous consent last Congress. I am hopeful that it will again this Congress and that we can finally enact into law this simple improvement to a successful program. We should take every opportunity we can to encourage and support enterprising Americans with bright ideas that will benefit both our country and the world.

Mr. President, tomorrow, April 26, is World Intellectual Property Day, an opportunity for people around the world to appreciate and learn about the role of intellectual property rights in promoting innovation. Our Founders believed that the right to enjoy the benefit of one's own inventions was so important to the progress of science that they included it in the Constitution. More than 200 years later, limited exclusive rights for inventors continue to incentivize the research and development and make the United States the global leader in innovation.

In the spirit of this year's theme, ``Innovation--Improving Lives,'' I am proud to partner with Senator Grassley to reintroduce the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act. Patents for Humanity is a perfect example of how intellectual property rights encourage inventors to develop creative solutions to some of the world's most pressing humanitarian challenges.

Since 2012, the Patents for Humanity Program of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, has honored patent holders whose inventions apply cutting-edge technology to meet global challenges in medicine, nutrition, sanitation, energy, and living standards. The winning inventors receive a certificate to accelerate future PTO processes, such as a reexamination or additional patent applications. The Patents for Humanity Program provides an important incentive for talented innovators to use their expertise and intellect to enhance the public good.

The winners of the Patents for Humanity Program have addressed some of the toughest challenges in the developing world. One lab developed a vaccine cooler that has been used in the fight against the Ebola virus. A nonprofit organization created a strand of rice enriched with vitamin A to prevent a nutritional deficiency that is the leading killer of children globally. A social enterprise made a low-cost solar light that can replace dangerous kerosene lamps in areas without electricity. These life saving inventions are exactly the kind of innovations that our intellectual property system should incentivize.

In 2012, the Director of the PTO testified before the Judiciary Committee that Patents for Humanity would attract even more innovators if the winners could transfer their acceleration certificates to a third party. Frequently, successful small businesses and individual inventors are unable to continue their projects or are prevented from taking advantage of the accelerated process because of acquisitions and reorganizations. Transferability of the award certificates would increase the incentive for these small businesses and individuals to develop innovative technologies that would benefit the public and international development.

This bipartisan legislation would allow Patents for Humanity winners to transfer their acceleration certificates. This straightforward, common sense reform to the Patents for Humanity Program passed the Senate by unanimous consent last Congress. I am hopeful that it will again this Congress and that we can finally enact into law this simple improvement to a successful program. We should take every opportunity we can to encourage and support enterprising Americans with bright ideas that will benefit both our country and the world.

Madam President, today I will vote for Sonny Perdue to be the next Secretary of Agriculture. Governor Perdue, with his lifetime of experience with farming and agribusiness, stands out as one of the few nominees to this Cabinet who appears well qualified for the position to which he has been nominated.

But to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, and American agriculture, Governor Perdue must represent the broad spectrum of interests before USDA and do all he can to hear from all sides because this truly is the ``People's Department.'' USDA touches the lives of every American, in many ways that include but go far beyond farming itself. This Department's workforce is spread across all 50 States and another 99 countries.

I hope that Governor Perdue will continue the important work that Secretary Vilsack diligently led for the last 8 years, to help USDA look forward to addressing the changing needs of agriculture and rural America. We must stand by our rural communities, communities that, thus far, seem to be forgotten by this administration. These small towns desperately need USDA's help to access broadband, to make critical infrastructure improvements to their water and wastewater systems, and to support new rural businesses.

I also hope that he succeeds in elevating the status of USDA among government agencies in an administration that appears to have forgotten about both this Department, as well as the rural communities that depend on its work. I am hopeful that, as the President's top adviser on matters of agriculture, rural development, safe and affordable food, the role of immigration in our farm labor needs, research, agricultural trade, and countless other issues, he will carefully provide advice that reflects good judgment and independence from the President and respect for the law.

I was grateful when Mr. Perdue said in his confirmation hearing that he would be a voice and an advocate for agriculture at the highest levels of government. As I reminded him at his hearing and in our private meeting, he must represent all of agriculture. This includes not only the farmers he has gotten to know during his tenure as Governor of Georgia, but also our new and beginning farmers, organic farmers, Vermont's dairy farmers, those selling directly to consumers or focused on local food systems, those trying to develop new markets for energy crops, as well as researchers promoting new farm practices, forestry opportunities, and sustainable practices. He must also stand up for our hungry and malnourished families, both here and abroad, and for consumers who want to know that their food is safe to eat and grown in responsible ways.

This Department's work is vast and far-reaching--from helping those with the least, to stewarding Federal forest and range lands, combating climate change, ensuring food safety, conserving water and wildlife, and preserving farmland, to researching new technologies, feeding young school children healthy meals, advancing international trade, supporting rural communities and housing, and ensuring fair and competitive markets for farmers.

I do have concerns about some of Mr. Perdue's past statements and positions. I am concerned that he continues to question broadly accepted science regarding the role of humans in the mounting climate crisis. I don't feel that every question has been answered related to past ethical issues. I have heard from many Vermonters concerned not so much with the policies and positions of Mr. Perdue himself, but who are alarmed by this administration overall. Some Vermonters fear that Mr. Perdue will not fully defend our vital social programs and environmental regulations. I do appreciate that, in his confirmation hearings, he said that he recognizes that as Secretary he must work hard to improve the lives of the least among us and that he knows that it is our responsibility to leave the land better than we found it.

In these challenging times for agriculture and our rural communities, I call on Governor Perdue to provide a loud voice of reason and a thoughtful balance within what continues to be an undisciplined and impulsive administration led by a President who continues to put forward extreme proposals, such as budget cuts that would starve small towns and communities of jobs and opportunity and have a disproportionate impact on small towns, and the rest of the Cabinet appears in many cases to have very little understanding or interest in the needs of rural Americans.

As a chairman and most senior member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee as we begin to write the next Farm Bill, and as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working closely with Mr. Perdue in his new role.