Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as in legislation session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1250; that the Durbin amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I think I would like to----

I thought that they told me the script was for some other reason.

I ask consent to withdraw the request until--I made a misstatement, and Senator Grassley and the Senator from Idaho would agree.

Thank you. I am new here. I am sorry I made that mistake.

Mr. President, for years, one of the greatest challenges facing American families has been the rising cost of prescription drugs. A recent AARP survey found that the price for the top 25 medications used by seniors has tripled, on average, since those drugs came to market. Those drugs include: Xarelto, Trulicity, Januvia, Jardiance, Humira, and Eliquis.

Now, I imagine most Americans already recognize the names I have read. They sound familiar because they are among the most heavily advertised products and medications on television. You may even have seen one of these ads during the Thanksgiving parade you and your family watched or while you watched a football game this weekend.

Every year, Big Pharma spends more than $6 billion each year on ads. That is the size of the entire budget of the Food and Drug Administration. In fact, we know that most pharma companies spend more on advertising than on drug research and development of new drugs.

It turns out, the United States is one of only two countries in the world that allows people to run ads on television for prescription drugs. Anybody want to guess the name of the other one? New Zealand. That is the only other country that allows this to occur.

You want to know why pharmaceutical companies spend so much money promoting their drugs? Because it increases their profits dramatically. The average American sees an average of nine ads per day, nine. Pharma thinks if they pummel you with enough ads that you will finally learn how to pronounce and spell Xarelto. You will insist to your doctor that this is the one blood thinner you really need. Sometimes it is easier in a 10-minute meeting for a doctor to just write the prescription than to take the time to explain why the drug may not be needed or a generic version might be just as good for a lot less money.

With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information but kept in the dark about one fact. Of all the things they mumble and chatter about at the end of these ads, the one thing they never want you to know is how much these drugs cost, the price.

This name is probably familiar to you if you watch television at all, Rinvoq. With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information like the name of this drug. Take Rinvoq--which is manufactured by an Illinois-based company, AbbVie, for eczema and arthritis--it is now the most advertised drug on TV.

AbbVie spent $315 million last year on TV ads for Rinvoq alone, but nowhere in the ad did they tell you how much it would cost. Want to guess what it costs for Rinvoq each and every month? The figure is $6,100. Think about that for a moment.

Well, Senator Grassley and I think it is time for Big Pharma to end the secrecy about the real cost of these drugs. If they are advertising a drug, they should disclose the price upfront. It is a basic transparency measure for patients.

We have introduced bipartisan legislation to require price disclosure in direct-to-consumer drug ads. Our plan is very simple. It has actually passed the Senate once before in 2018. In a minute, we are going to ask consent to pass it again.

Here is why we think this transparency is so important. Earlier this year, a study found that more than two-thirds of drugs advertised on TV were considered ``low value.'' Those pricey wonder drugs with ads showing people golfing and having fun, they are often no better than the other, more affordable versions of the drugs. So don't you think it is worth knowing right away that Rinvoq is going to cost you $6,100 per month rather than waiting for that moment of truth at the pharmacy counter?

One in five Americans do not take their medications as prescribed because they cannot afford it. They cut their pills in half or skip doses because they can't afford to take the medications as prescribed. Don't take my word for it. These advertisements often urge you to ``ask your doctor if it is right for you.'' So we did.

The American Medical Association said:

Direct-to-consumer advertising . . . inflates demand for

new and . . . expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not

be appropriate.

Think about that--inflating demand for new and expensive drugs, even when they are not the best drug that the person should take.

In 2018, Senator Grassley and I asked the GAO to look at the impact of these ads on television on Medicare's budget. The GAO found that between 2016 and 2018, these drugs accounted for 58 percent of Medicare spending on drugs. The drugs on television are more than half of the budget of Medicare's spending on drugs. These ads ballooned Medicare spending to $320 billion over 3 years. Humira topped the list with $500 million in advertising in 2018, which contributed to 2.4 billion in Medicare costs.

Let me show you this Humira chart so you get an idea of what we are talking about. I used this chart in 2017 when I first introduced this legislation and when the monthly cost of Humira was a mere $3,743 a month. Guess what has happened. The cost of Humira has now risen to $6,900 per month. Shouldn't AbbVie, the pharmaceutical company that makes Humira, disclose that real cost of the drug to you so you can use the information in making treatment decisions?

Our bill is supported by AARP, which speaks for seniors across America; the American Medical Association, which speaks for doctors across America; the American Hospital Association and 88 percent of Americans support the concept of this bill. How can anyone object to it?

Hold on tight. You will find out.

In fact, President Trump supported it. After our bill passed the Senate but

was stopped by a single House Republican, President Trump issued rules to require these pricetags. Famous for his tweets, here is one that I want to advertise. Look what he said:

Big announcement today. Drug companies have to come clean

about their prices in TV ads.

This is from former President Trump.

Historic transparency for American patients is here. If

drug companies are ashamed of those prices--lower them.

I didn't always agree with President Trump, but he was sure right on in that statement. In fact, he supported our bill.

Unsurprisingly, Big Pharma went to the courts to stop this legislation. They hate the idea of being open, honest, and transparent with the American people about the price of their drugs because they are afraid it is going to cut into their profits.

Senator Grassley has been a great partner, and I want to ask him why he believes it is important to bring a dose of sunshine to these airways.

Senator Grassley.

I want to thank Senator Grassley. He is a proud Republican conservative. I am on the other side of the spectrum. I am a Democrat, proud of my progressive background.

The two of us agree on this because it is common sense. If the drug companies are going to spend a fortune, billions of dollars--more than they spend on research for new drugs--advertising these drugs, we have a right to ask: What does it cost? Is that such a tough question to answer? Not if you are proud of your product. Not if you are proud of the price you are charging.

But if you don't want the American public to know, you conceal the price and you send Senators to the floor to object.

Now, both political parties spend an awful lot of money on political opinion surveys: What are Americans thinking? Do you know what shows up as a No. 1 concern year after year after year? The high cost of prescription drugs. That isn't getting any better.

If you ask insurance companies: Why does the cost of health insurance keep going up? The No. 1 driver: the high cost of prescription drugs.

If you ask: What are we going to do about Medicare's runaway costs? You have to do something about the high cost of prescription drugs.

We are addressing that issue directly, but there are only four U.S. Senators on the floor of this Senate for this occasion, because we are not going to go to the measure and actually debate and consider it. It is going to be pushed aside for a procedural reason, and it will go back to an empty floor and an empty Chamber waiting for the next rollcall on a nomination.

The American people have lost faith in this institution because we are afraid to tackle the real issues they

care about. This is one of those issues. It is a bipartisan matter, even approved by former President Trump, and I am sitting here talking about it. It is an indication to me that this an idea whose time has come.

So, Mr. President, now at the appropriate time, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1250; that the Durbin amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

The Senator from Idaho is my friend. We have worked together and served together, and I count him as my friend.

I would just say that arguing that the list price is deceptive suggests that there is some third party, some Agency--perhaps in Government--that is creating this list price which we are asking to be on the ads that the pharmaceutical companies put on television.

Do you know who creates the list price, Mr. President? The pharmaceutical companies themselves. We go directly to them. Give us the list price. You saw what happens over the span of a few years: The list price can double.

Who is creating that doubling in the price? The pharmaceutical companies themselves. And, now, to argue that the price that they agree on, that they advertise, is one that is somehow deceptive to consumers just doesn't square.

Have you ever heard of AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons? Most of us respect them because we have worked with them over the years. They speak for seniors. They have endorsed this bill. They don't think it is confusing or deceiving to tell consumers how much these drugs actually cost.

Let's get down to reality. Whether it is from healthcare providers or pharmaceutical companies, many times the starting price is not the end price. But you never know where that is going to end up. It depends on the insurance company, for example, as to how much they are going to reimburse or whether there are any copays involved in it. So the one price we can stick with is the price created by the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

Is it so confusing to consumers that you can't state a number? They get it. They know what the cost is. What they don't get and what they may not understand is all of that mumbling that goes on at the end of the ads: Don't take this drug if you are allergic to this drug. Incidentally, this drug may kill you.

You listen to all that stuff, and you say: How in the world can they jam in all of that information in just a few seconds?

Listing the price of a drug on TV is very simple, very straight, and very honest and transparent. Pharmaceutical companies should want to join in that effort.

I thank Senator Grassley for coming to the floor to join in this effort today.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with Senators be permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 28, 2023, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 28, 2023, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 476, S. Res. 477, and S. Res. 478.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, November 29; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Smith nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session ripen at 11:30 a.m.; further, that if cloture is invoked on the Smith nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:30 p.m. and that if cloture is invoked on the Semper nomination, all time be considered expired at 5:45 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I am going to follow the lead of the Democratic leader, who noted what he did last week.

I was fortunate enough to be part of a family reunion of the Durbin family, honoring my sister-in-law Lorraine on her 90th birthday. She is a wonderful person and a mother of 10--9 boys and 1 girl.

We all gathered to enjoy Thanksgiving, the inevitable birthdays during that period of time, as well as anniversaries--63 Durbins. Somehow, America survived. We all came together for a wonderful week. They are wonderful people. I am so happy to be part of the family and to give honor to my sister-in-law Lorraine.

I would just say that, when it comes to the rewards of life, there is hardly anything that can match a loving family, and I have that.

Madam President, secondly, I would like to say, in response to Senator McConnell, yes, we need to come together on a bipartisan basis to not only deal with bringing order to the border but, also, the issue of immigration. If we are going to hold up assistance to Israel and Ukraine until we try to solve the intractable problems and challenges that we have faced for over 30 years--because that is the last time we passed immigration reform--that is an unreasonable burden.

We can do things together so long as there are people of good will at the table of both political parties, but to say we are going to hold back military assistance from Ukraine and Israel until something is accomplished which we have sought to do for over 30 years may not be realistic. Let's be honest about it.

We want to make sure that the people that we support, our allies and those we have fought beside, will have the resources they need to be successful. We want to stop Vladimir Putin. We want to stop the terrorists who attacked Israel on October 7. Let's not create political hurdles of our own making and make that next to impossible.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, serving as a U.S. Senator is a singular opportunity to improve the lives of the American people and make a difference. When you think about the areas where we have made real, tangible progress in preventing suffering, disease, and death, the area of tobacco prevention and control stands out for its dramatic success in saving lives.

This has required a comprehensive campaign to shift public thinking, promote public health practices, empower the medical and scientific communities, shed light on the despicable tactics of Big Tobacco, and change the laws at the Federal, State, and local levels. That is a daunting task.

But not for Matt Myers--it has been his life's calling, and for more than four decades, he has made it his mission to save lives and hold the tobacco industry accountable. Matt recently stepped down as the president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which he helped to found in 1996. He has had an outsized impact by playing an indispensable role in just about every tobacco-related policy debate, and he is leaving a lasting legacy of success measured in lives spared.

As a leader, advocate, and lawyer, Matt helped transform our country's perception of the tobacco industry: by placing children, one of the main targets of the tobacco industry's predatory tactics, front and center. And he has produced remarkable results. While Matt has worked on this issue, the percentage of high school students who smoke cigarettes has declined from 28 percent in 2000 to 2 percent today.

He began at the Federal Trade Commission in 1980, where he worked on regulatory and litigation efforts related to tobacco tax increases, warning labels on cigarette packs, banning advertisements on television and radio, and many other topics. He worked extensively on the historic master settlement agreement to hold the tobacco industry responsible for its lies, deceit, and marketing over the years, which took millions of lives far too soon, including my own father's.

Matt worked alongside me as we pushed to finally empower and authorize the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of tobacco products. Since then, we have collaborated to further raise the prices of tobacco products out of the reach of children, increase the age to purchase tobacco products, and close loopholes that e-cigarette manufacturers have exploited. Matt also has recognized that we can make a difference through other avenues as well. We worked together to kick chewing tobacco out of Major League Baseball and out of Hollywood movies.

On virtually any issue that Matt has engaged on, he has prevailed--no matter how long it took--and our children, our public spaces, and the Nation's health are better for it. But that is not to say it has been easy--far from it. One can characterize Matt's approach as a dogged, comprehensive pursuit of what is right, no matter the challenge or the strength of the adversary. And with the riches and shamelessness of Big Tobacco, Matt has taken on the giants, and more often than not, he has come out on top.

It has been an honor to work alongside Matt on so many of these efforts. When a new problem arises, and I am considering what course of action to take, I often find myself asking, ``What does Matt Myers think?'' I know many others have counted on Matt's counsel and wisdom. He has been recognized for his leadership by the Harvard School of Public Health, the Surgeon General of the United States, Smokefree America, and the American Cancer Society. He has been selected to advise the United Nations and World Health Organizations on global health conventions, spreading his lasting legacy overseas to address disparities worldwide.

While I will miss Matt's trusted advice, tenacity, and creativity, I know the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the broader public health community will carry on the effort to safeguard our successes, continue to protect children from the harms of vaping, clear the market of menthol and flavored cigars, and promote smoking cessation.

I thank Matt for his service to the country and wish him the best of luck in his new, well-deserved chapter in life. I know that will include more time with his wife Louise, sons Micah and Daniel, and grandchildren Elliot, Eva, David, and Sofia. Congratulations, again.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand the concerns raised by my colleague from Kansas. I share many of them. We have all seen the horrifying videos and

images, the scenes of death and destruction perpetrated by Hamas terrorists from October 7--the deadliest single day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust. We all know that return to the status quo is unacceptable. So I support the Senator's sense of urgency that we must get security aid to Israel as it seeks to defend itself.

As a former chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, it was my privilege and honor to appropriate literally millions of dollars for Iron Dome, the air defense which today protects Israel. I believe in supporting our allies in France. In fact, I joined a quarter of my colleagues in the Senate in a letter to President Biden just last week with this very same message.

But I want to be clear. Many of my colleagues harken back in history to the days of Munich and say we are stuck in that thinking. I would say: Forget Munich for a moment. Think of the days of Moscow. Think of this impromptu visit by the Hamas terrorists to Moscow to sit down with Vladimir Putin. Coincidence? Just happened to be part of the travel plan? No. Hamas had already attacked Israel. They were branded as a terrorist group. Where did they go to find solace? Where did they go to find a friend? They went to Moscow and Vladimir Putin. Why would we get soft on Putin at this moment?

What is happening in Israel is a mirror of what is happening in Ukraine--a tyrant, atrocious conduct, an unprovoked invasion of a country, innocent people killed. That is the story in both places. Yet the Republicans come to the floor today and say to us: We are only concerned about one. We don't care about the NATO alliance and supporting it further. We don't care about supporting Ukraine further. We just want to help one of our allies.

I want to be clear. Just 2,000 miles north of Israel, there is another country fighting for its survival in the face of a brutal assault, also in need of sustained U.S. security assistance. That country is Ukraine.

Two months ago, I imagine, my colleagues all joined me and others, meeting in the Old Senate Chamber in a private, secret, confidential meeting with the President of Ukraine. President Zelenskyy told us without equivocation: Without the continued financial support of the United States and NATO, we will lose this war. He didn't say that once; he said it twice to make it abundantly clear. And now for the Republicans to say that we will step aside and let the aid to Ukraine-- if it is ever going to come--come much later is to jeopardize their future and to really make a mockery of the amazing display of courage we have seen in Ukraine resisting the Russian aggression.

Just as Secretaries Austin and Blinken argued for emergency aid for Israel before the Senate Appropriations Committee recently, they also stressed the need for aid to Ukraine. Ukrainians have fought bravely, stood up against Russian tyranny, with the United States, the European Union, and countless other countries around the world standing with them. We are the frontline of democracy in Ukraine, and to walk away from Ukraine, as the Republicans are suggesting today, is a travesty. To pull back now would be unconscionable, a reflection of an America no longer being the world leader it purports to be, and a boon for countries like Russia, China, and Iran, eager to fill the ensuing void.

Secretary Blinken said it plainly:

In both Israel and Ukraine, democracies are fighting

ruthless foes who are out to annihilate them.

Secretary Austin went further:

Today's battles against aggression and terrorism will

define global security for years to come.

The Republican suggestion today to walk away from assistance to Ukraine would unfortunately lead us to that conclusion.

And only firm American leadership can ensure that the

tyrants, thugs and terrorists worldwide are not emboldened to

commit more aggression and more atrocities.

In addition to Israel and Ukraine, we must also remain steadfast in addressing Chinese aggressions in the Indo-Pacific, including Taiwan.

Let me say a word about humanitarian aid. One cannot look at the scenes coming out of Gaza without realizing there are many thousands of innocent victims, people who are not part of the terrorism of the Hamas leadership, people simply trying to survive. The scenes coming from hospitals on a daily basis are a reminder to us that there is a desperate need for humanitarian aid.

Al-Shifa Hospital this morning displayed photographs of a dozen infants who have been separated from their ventilators because the electricity is off, and there is no water in the hospital.

To provide humanitarian aid to the helpless, guiltless victims in this part of the world is consistent with the values of the United States, and I support it without reservation. Humanitarian assistance is not only the right thing to do, it will save lives. It will help prevent the next conflict. It will serve as a downpayment on our own security in the future.

I urge my colleagues to resist this effort by the Republicans to walk away from Ukraine and to ignore the obvious consequences. The people of Ukraine have shown extraordinary courage. I hope a majority in the Senate will as well.

I yield to Senator Van Hollen.

Madam President, history was made today with the release of a document by the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, for the first time in the history of the United States, the Supreme Court has issued a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices. Most Americans will be surprised to learn that this was the first time this code of conduct has been issued, but that is a fact.

I know this issue better than most because 11 years ago, I wrote to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts--along with several of my colleagues--and told him that the establishment of a code of conduct for the Supreme Court Justices was long overdue.

After years of refusing to act, a series of scandalous disclosures involving several Justices on the Court, and the Senate Judiciary Committee passing legislation sponsored by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse on ethical reform, the Supreme Court has finally responded. Today, for the first time in history, the Supreme Court of the United States is at least saying to the American people: We hear you and understand that the nine Justices on the Supreme Court are members of a democratic form of government, not royalty, and that they should be held accountable as all public servants in the Federal Government are held accountable.

At a glance, this Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court is similar to the standards that apply to all other lower court Federal judges. The Court's code of conduct sets forth several important canons of conduct, including canons on upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary and avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

All of these are important steps, but they fall short of what we could and should expect when the Supreme Court issues a code of conduct. The Court's statement on the code specifically notes:

For the most part these rules and principles are not new.

That is a problem because the Court's previous practices were plainly inadequate. The Court's new code of conduct does not appear to contain any meaningful enforcement mechanism to hold Justices accountable for any violations of the code. It also leaves a wide range of decisions up to the discretion of individual Justices, including decisions on recusal from sitting on cases.

I am still reviewing the Court's new code of conduct. For now, I would note that the Court's adoption of this code marks a step in the right direction. It may fall short of the ethical standards which other Federal judges are held to, and that is unacceptable. And if it falls

short, the American people will ultimately have the last word, and the integrity of the Court is at issue.

We are going to carefully review this proposed code of conduct to evaluate whether it complies with our goal that the highest court in the land not languish with the lowest standard of ethics in our Federal Government. But this release today, long overdue, begins a dialogue which could end in restoring the integrity of the Court, and that is long overdue.

Madam President, on a separate topic totally unrelated, after nearly 7 years--6 years 8 months 21 days--of being unjustly jailed, former Philippine Senator Leila de Lima was finally released. This is a picture of her waving from the window as she was released.

In a moving interview just after leaving the prison camp, she stood by her defense of democracy, human rights, and truth and reflected on the importance of not succumbing to hate--a reminder of courage and grace.

I welcome her release and urge any and all remaining charges against her be immediately dropped. I look forward to seeing her soon. I hope she can make it to Washington.

Several Senators have followed this case carefully and closely, including the Presiding Officer. We have sent letters. We have encouraged her over the years to be strong, and she was. Senator Markey was also involved in this effort, and I want to commend him as well.

You often wonder, when you hear about these unjust jailings in lands far away from the United States, whether there is anything we can do on the floor of the Senate Chamber that can change history.

Today, finally, after 6 years 8 months 21 days, history came around for Leila de Lima, the Senator from the Philippines. She is an extraordinary woman who showed extraordinary courage. I am glad to plead her case before the American people and to plead it to the President of the United States before he met with Filipino leadership.

This is an important thing to remember: that each and every one of us have the power to speak out for those who are otherwise voiceless. She was one, and it ended with good news today.