Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee--which I chair--will hold a hearing on competition in the prescription drug market and its impact on the prices that Americans pay for medication.

Patients in the United States pay the highest prescription drug prices in the world. Nearly three times what people in other developed countries pay for common medications and sometimes for exactly the same drug as prescribed in America. Take a well-known name, Jardiance, a diabetes treatment--you can almost hear the young lady singing the song, can't you? It retails for $700 a month in the United States. Do you know what the exact same drug made by the same company in the same place goes for in Canada? It is $150. Madam President, $700 for American citizens; $150 for Canadians for exactly the same drug.

What is the difference? The difference is the Canadian Government cares, and the Canadian Government started acting years ago to protect the consumers in their country.

The average new cancer drug entering the market last year had an annual list price of more than $200,000, and the prices keep going up. In 2022, drug manufacturers raised prices on more than 1,200 medications by an average--an average--of 32 percent, four times the rate of inflation.

For patients already facing a gut-wrenching diagnosis, the last thing they should have to worry about is whether they can afford lifesaving treatment. Yet 20 percent of seniors report that the sky-high cost of their medication forces them to skip doses or cut pills.

No drug is more representative of this problem than insulin, the life-or-death drug for those with diabetes. Do you know when it was discovered? One hundred years ago. By Americans? Not this time. Canadian inventors not only found this new, lifesaving drug, they surrendered their patent rights--the rights to control it, and their rights to receive profit from it--for $1.

Why? They said a life-and-death drug should not be a matter of bargaining, and they believe no one should profit off this lifesaving medicine.

When Eli Lilly launched its insulin product--Humalog--in 1999, a vial cost a modest $21, but over the next 20 years, the company raised its price more than two dozen times to more than $330 for a vial.

Thankfully, President Biden and Democrats in Congress capped the price of insulin at $35 a month under Medicare in the Inflation Reduction Act. It is unfortunate and impossible to explain--not a single Republican joined us in voting for this historic legislation to cap the price of insulin at $35 a month for Medicare.

Eight pharmaceutical companies raced to the Federal courthouses in the hopes of stopping another component of that bill, which enables Medicare to negotiate for lower drug costs.

Big Pharma participates in the Veterans Health Administration, which has the authority to bargain for lower costs for our veterans, thank goodness. They have had that authority for decades. Yet we heard cries of price controls and socialism from Big Pharma as they opposed letting Medicare simply negotiate a better deal on behalf of senior citizens and taxpayers.

Last fall, President Biden announced the first 10 drugs that would see price reductions from these negotiations. These drugs cost the Medicare Program more than $50 billion last year alone. When the President announced his list, I am sure many Americans already recognized the names of all 10 popular drugs. Why would we recognize them? Because they are the most heavily advertised drugs on television.

Here is a trivia question you want to take to the next party you attend: How

many countries on Earth make it legal to advertise prescription drugs? Two. We know one; it is the United States. Anybody know the other one? New Zealand. The United States and New Zealand are the only countries in the world where you can legally advertise prescription drugs.

Americans see an average of nine drug ads on television every single day. By filling the airwaves with these ads, Big Pharma is inflating demand for the most expensive drugs on the market. Some manufacturers are willing to spend more than $100 million a year to make sure that all of us can spell ``Xarelto'' and ask the doctor for it, but they never tell you the price, do they? You see all those ads and all the information and all the gibberish they put at the end of it. Don't you think it is worth knowing that Xarelto costs more than $500 a month in the United States, when a generic or other lower priced alternative may be just as effective? That is why Senator Grassley, Republican Senator of Iowa, joined me in introducing a commonsense, bipartisan bill to end the secrecy surrounding drug prices in advertising. Our bill would require Big Pharma to disclose the price on the ad.

Incidentally, in 2020, Xarelto's manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, spent $22 billion that year on advertising--nearly double the $12 billion it spent that year on research for new drugs.

Big Pharma will tell you that the high prices paid by Americans are just the cost of innovation. They point to the money they spend on research and development to create the next generation of lifesaving drugs. I want them to come up with new drugs. I want them to make a profit in doing that. But I want them to be reasonable in the process.

They always fail to mention one fundamental fact that we as taxpayers should not forget: Taxpayers fund the bulk of basic biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health. In fact, studies have shown that 99 percent of drugs introduced by the drug companies and approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2019 benefited from NIH research to get their start.

Too often, the prices charged by Big Pharma do not reflect scientific advancement; rather, they are the result of manipulation, not by researchers or doctors but by lawyers in the patent system.

Take the blockbuster drug Humira--at one time, the most heavily advertised drug on television. Its manufacturer, AbbVie, introduced the drug in 2002. For more than 20 years, the company exploited intellectual property laws to build a thicket of 165 patents.

The way it works is this: If you discover a new drug, you have a legal right to be the exclusive salesman of that drug during a certain period of time. If there is a variation on that formula on that drug, the patent time can be extended. So patent lawyers are always at work to make sure they extend the patent period of price monopoly for these drug companies. It is supposed to reach a point where there is competition over a generic form of a drug. The lawyers do their darndest to make sure they don't reach that point. The result: more than $200 billion in revenue over Humira's 20 years of exclusivity.

That drug is not unique. A recent study found that the top 10 bestselling drugs in 2021 had a combined 1,429 patent applications filed, 72 percent of which were filed after the FDA approved the drug for sale. These blockbusters were covered by an average of 42 active patents, blocking generic competition and generating windfall profits for the drug companies.

The Judiciary Committee has taken a leadership role in addressing Big Pharma's abuse. Last year, the committee unanimously reported five bipartisan drug-pricing bills to address anticompetitive pay-for-delay agreements, sham citizen petitions, patent thickets, and product hops, among other issues. This includes my bill with Senators Tillis, Coons, and Grassley to improve information sharing between the FDA and the Patent Office to ensure accuracy in the representations made by pharmaceutical companies to prevent gamesmanship.

Tomorrow's hearing is going to be cochaired by my colleague and friend from Vermont, Senator Peter Welch. He told me when he recently came to the Senate, replacing Senator Pat Leahy, that this was an issue near and dear to him. I assured him there would be a hearing on this subject because it is so important to the country and so many people have an interest in it.

I have been watching all those drug ads day in and day out like everybody else. It is time that we have the facts put in front of the American people instead of just the advertising and the jingles.

Our committee work is far from done. Tomorrow's hearing will shed light on additional obstacles to reducing drug prices and how our committee can help solve this problem for the American people.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Seth Aframe to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Mr. Aframe has deep ties to the First Circuit. Born in Boston, he received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Tufts University and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center before clerking for Justice Judith A. Cowin on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He then entered private practice in Boston, where he worked at a large firm and primarily practiced employment law. In 2003, he moved to New Hampshire, where he clerked for Judge Jeffrey R. Howard on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Concord.

In 2007, Mr. Aframe joined the civil division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Hampshire as an assistant U.S. attorney. In 2010, he was appointed to serve as the appellate chief within the criminal division, and he was promoted to chief of the criminal division in 2023. Mr. Aframe has tried 19 cases to verdict, including 18 jury trials; and he has argued approximately 100 cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In addition to his work as a litigator, Mr. Aframe also serves as the District of New Hampshire's elections officer and civil rights coordinator, and he represents the U.S. attorney on the District of New Hampshire's alternative drug court.

Mr. Aframe is strongly supported by both of his home State Senators-- Mrs. Shaheen and Ms. Hassan--and the American Bar Association unanimously rated him as ``well qualified'' to serve on the First Circuit. His significant litigation background and extensive experience in Federal court ensure that he will be a valuable addition to the First Circuit.

In a letter supporting Mr. Aframe's nomination, a bipartisan group of former U.S. attorneys for the District of New Hampshire wrote that, ``[t]o our minds, there is no one better-suited or better qualified to join the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.'' I am of the same mind. I am proud to support this nominee, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey, (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Camela Theeler to the U.S. District Court for District of South Dakota.

Judge Theeler's deep ties to South Dakota and her experience in the courtroom--as a litigator and on the bench--have prepared her to serve as a U.S. District Judge. After receiving her B.A. and J.D. from the University of South Dakota, Judge Theeler began her legal career in private practice before clerking for the judges of the First Judicial Circuit of the South Dakota Unified Judicial System. Thereafter, Judge Theeler returned to private practice, working on a range of cases, including personal injury/worker's compensation, business litigation, employment law, and criminal defense work. From 2012 to 2018, Judge Theeler served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of South Dakota, becoming deputy civil chief in 2016.

Over the course of her legal career, Judge Theeler tried eight cases to verdict, judgment, or final decision. Since 2018, she has served as a circuit court judge for the State of South Dakota, located in the Second Judicial District. Judge Theeler has presided over 57 trials that have gone to verdict or judgment.

Judge Theeler has the strong support from her home State Senators, Mr. Thune and Mr. Rounds. In addition, she was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association.

I urge my colleagues to support Judge Theeler's nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth),

the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, this week marks the 70th anniversary of one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of all time. It is part of our march toward justice.

On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Brown v. Board of Education, unanimously--unanimously--declaring the racist legal doctrine of ``separate but equal'' unconstitutional.

Today, we celebrate this historic anniversary and how far we have come as a country since the dark days of Jim Crow. Thankfully, we have made substantial progress in addressing racial disparities in education. However, significantly, systemic disparities do still exist today. More work needs to be done to promote racial equity and end discrimination inside and outside the classroom.

When the Supreme Court announced its decision in 1954, the demographics of American school-aged children were significantly different than they are today. At that time, the school-aged population, according to The Century Foundation, was roughly 85 percent White, 12 percent Black, and less than 4 percent other races. Contrast that with today. America's school-aged population is much more diverse: 48 percent White, 27 percent Hispanic, 15 percent Black, 6 percent Asian, 1 percent American-Indian, and 4 percent multiracial.

Yet, even with this increase--dramatic increase--in diversity, America's schools too often remain segregated by race. As of the 2018- 2019 school year, one in six public school students attended schools where more than 90 percent of their peers had the same racial background. Illinois has 3 of the country's top 11 most segregated urban school districts. This lack of racial diversity in our schools is caused in part by unfair, exclusionary zoning policies that keep low- income families out of schools in wealthier communities.

Education can play a significant role in helping to close the wealth gap between families, but unfortunately, due to modern-day segregation, many Black and Brown students often cannot access the same high-quality education as their White peers.

If you look at data from U.S. public schools going back to 1967, you will see that the segregation between Black and White students has increased by 64 percent since 1988 in the 100 largest school districts. While school segregation is not at pre-Brown v. Board of Education levels, it is still high and has been rising steadily since the late 1980s, and because where you go to school depends on your ZIP Code, students from poor neighborhoods in segregated cities are often trapped in underperforming schools.

Dismantling segregation has become more difficult now than it would have been 70 or 80 years ago, but we cannot ignore the challenge. Unless we focus on desegregating America and its neighborhoods, Brown's promise of integrated education will remain an unattainable goal.

The Brown decision was supposed to be the first step in a long march towards Americans' equality. It helped set the stage for challenges to other Jim Crow policies, such as barriers to fair housing, equal employment, voting rights, and public accommodations.

Unfortunately, today, the forces of intolerance are working to turn back the clock. Just last year, the Supreme Court struck down decades of precedent by ruling that affirmative action policies at two universities were unconstitutional. The attack on affirmative action threatens not just opportunities in education but also equal access to employment and contracts for minorities. The decision rewinds the clock and recreates barriers to entry for young minority students looking to pursue a degree in higher education and advance beyond college.

Quality education should be a right in our country, not a privilege. As a country, we still struggle to fulfill that promise. Public schools and many other elements of society remain separate and unequal, diminishing opportunities for millions.

Congress must focus on enacting policies and using resources to provide every student--Black, White, Brown--with the tools they need to learn and thrive in America. We must advocate for all students of every race and every place to have these resources to learn without limits.

As we celebrate 70 years since this historic decision, we honor the brave individuals who fought hard to bring it to reality. Those of us here today must honor their determination and sacrifice by continuing their mission for fairness.

On this 70th anniversary, I urge my colleagues to continue working toward equality within our education system and society. It is long overdue for us to repair the broken systems that no longer serve our children, our grandchildren, and our country.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Sanket J. Bulsara to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Born in Bronx, NY, Judge Bulsara received his A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard College and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School. After graduating from law school, he clerked for Judge John G. Koeltl on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Bulsara then began his legal career as an associate with Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. He then spent a year working as the manager of planning and data analysis with the New York City Department of Education Division of Human Resources.

From 2005 to 2015, Judge Bulsara worked in private practice at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP first as an associate and later as counsel, before becoming partner in 2012. While working at WilmerHale, he was seconded to serve as special assistant district attorney in the Kings County District Attorney's Office between 2007 and 2008. From 2015 to 2017, Bulsara worked as deputy general counsel for Appellate Litigation, Adjudication, and Enforcement at the SEC. In 2017, he became acting general counsel. Since 2017, Bulsara has served as a magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Bulsara as ``well qualified,'' and his nomination is strongly supported by his home State Senators, Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Gillibrand.

With significant litigation and judicial experience, Judge Bulsara will serve the Eastern District of New York with distinction as a district judge. I am proud to support his nomination.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Eric Schulte to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.

Born in Sioux Falls, SD, Mr. Schulte received both his B.A. and his J.D. from the University of South Dakota. After clerking for the judges of the Second Judicial Circuit in Sioux Falls, Mr. Schulte joined Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz, and Smith, where he has spent his entire legal career--first as an associate and later as a partner. In his more than two decades at Davenport Evans, he has engaged in every aspect of litigation, from drafting pleadings and conducting written discovery, to trying 22 trials to verdict. In addition, Mr. Schulte has also argued before the South Dakota Supreme Court seven times.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Mr. Schulte ``well qualified'' to serve on the district court, and he has the strong support of Senators Thune and Rounds. Mr. Schulte's deep ties to the South Dakota legal community, combined with his courtroom experience, will make him well-positioned to serve on the Federal bench with distinction.

I thank my colleagues for supporting his nomination.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.