Floor Statements

Mr. President, we do a lot to protect our identity and financial security from scammers and thieves. We guard our PIN numbers and passwords. We shred bills and financial documents. We are on guard for phishing attacks and cyber scams.

But there is another, growing threat to our financial safety that many Americans are unaware of. Across the country, we are seeing a surge in armed robberies of letter carriers. In many of the attacks, the robbers steal

an ``arrow key.'' That is a master key that unlocks the blue collection boxes you drop your mail into, as well as cluster mailboxes in subdivisions and other multi-unit mailboxes. With an arrow key, a robber can open mailboxes and steal whatever is in there, including packages and prescription medications. And often, they steal checks. This can lead to identity theft, financial fraud, and other serious crimes.

Here is how it works: The robbers use the dark web and messaging apps to sell the stolen checks. The cyber criminals who buy the stolen checks then use nail polish remover to wash and rewrite the checks for any amount they choose. A $15 check to your doctor can become a $15,000 check to someone you have never heard of.

Listen to these figures from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service: Between 2018 and 2021, robberies of letter carriers more than tripled, and robberies involving a gun more than quadrupled.

And between March 2020 and February 2021, the Postal Inspection Service received 299,000 reports of mail theft, a 161-percent increase in mail thefts in just 1 year. And the problem is getting worse. In Chicago, at least a dozen postal carriers were robbed at gunpoint between early March and early April this year. Police say the robbers were armed with semi-automatic handguns. I have met with letter carriers in Chicago. They tell me they are fearful about what is happening. They worry that they could be next. And the looming threat of armed robbery is making it even harder to fill letter carrier vacancies.

And this is not just a Chicago problem. Last year in Orlando, FL, two men were caught on video approaching a letter carrier at a condo complex. The postal worker was found robbed and beaten with a severe head injury. In January of this year, a 66-year-old letter carrier was kidnapped and robbed in Charlotte, NC. The list goes on and includes nearly every State in the country. These are not simply random attacks. Police say organized crime groups and gangs appear to be driving the increase in letter carrier robberies.

We have seen something like this before. In 2011, after a similarly disturbing trend, I urged the former Postmaster General to implement a rapid alert system to inform letter carriers of any crimes committed in their vicinity. The alerts were a warning to letter carriers to be vigilant, and they helped. But now, the alerts have stopped. Now, I have serious concerns about many decisions by the current Postmaster General, but this decision seems especially wrong-headed.

Yesterday, I met in Chicago with members of the National Association of Letter Carriers' Illinois chapter. I told them that I was sending a letter to both Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and Attorney General Merrick Garland. I am asking the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Justice to work together to prevent robberies of letter carriers-- and punish those who commit the robberies. They also need to crack down on the cyber thieves who buy and sell checks, arrow keys, and other property stolen from the Postal Service.

And the Postal Service can act right now to reduce this surge in robberies by making some simple changes on its own. They should restart crime alerts to letter carriers. USPS also can reduce the financial motivation driving many of these robberies by investing in new technology that would enable two-factor authentication for dropboxes and cluster mailboxes.

Letter carriers are proud of their long tradition of braving rain, snow, and sleet to deliver the mail. But they cannot brave this threat on their own. USPS and DOJ must step up to better protect letter carriers and the tens of millions of American families and businesses that depend on the U.S. Postal Service.

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.

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.

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.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 2, on adoption of the Van Hollen amendment to provide grants fire station construction through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 85. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, 24 years ago today, tragedy struck Littleton, CO. It was a day that began like any other but--in a matter of hours--would scar our Nation forever.

Today, the word ``Columbine'' is synonymous with an act of terror that every parent fears: school shootings. If you had told me 24 years ago that the scenes we witnessed that morning--students and teachers being shot down, traumatized children being escorted out of classrooms by armed officers, if you told me this would become a common--almost weekly--occurrence in America, I wouldn't have believed you.

But here we are. In the years since Columbine, hundreds of American students have died--or been injured--in school shootings, and thousands more have been traumatized. Gunfire has become the No. 1 cause of death for our Nation's children. And one in five Americans now say they have lost a loved one to gun violence. Some politicians have resigned themselves to the idea that this is just part of American life we must accept. Shame on them. This is a uniquely American crisis--and lawmakers have the power to resolve it.

Yet Republicans in Congress actually want to take steps backwards. We are seeing that in the House right now, where the MAGA majority is trying to wipe off the books a gun law restricting braces that turn pistols into short-barreled rifles. This is the kind of weapon that was carried by the mass shooters in Dayton, OH; Boulder, CO; and just a few weeks ago at a school shooting in Nashville, TN. Parents shouldn't have to worry that, when they send their kids to school, they may not return home. Children shouldn't be forced to live with the fear that their classroom could be the next target.

People of all political stripes are calling on Congress to act. Let's start by keeping assault weapons and short-barreled rifles off of our streets and out of our classrooms.

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.

Madam President, most Americans spent more time at home watching television during the pandemic. I know I did. And what was one of the most common commercials we saw? Direct-to-consumer drug ads. You know, those fancy commercials with catchy music, celebrity actors, and swinging golf clubs? Even before COVID, Americans saw an average of nine ads per day. Every year, the pharmaceutical industry spends more than $6 billion on ads--$6 billion. That is the same as the entire budget of the Food and Drug Administration. In fact, we know that most top Pharma companies spend more on their advertising budget than on drug research and development.

It turns out, the United States is one of only two countries in the world that even allows these commercials. Can you guess the other? New Zealand.

Do you want to know why Pharma spends so much money promoting their drugs? Because it increases their profit margins. Pharma pushes these ads because they steer patients to specific, expensive medications-- whether a patient actually needs the drugs or not. And sometimes it is easier in a 10-minute meeting for the doctor to just write the prescription than to take the time to explain why the drug may not be needed or a less expensive, generic version might be a better choice. Pharma thinks if they pummel you with enough ads that you finally learn how to spell Xarelto, you will insist to your doctor that this is the blood thinner you need though a less expensive option would be just as effective.

With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information--don't take Xarelto if you are allergic to Xarelto--but kept in the dark on one crucial factor--the price.

Take Rinvoq, which is manufactured by Illinois-based AbbVie for eczema and arthritis. It is now the most-advertised drug on television--replacing two other AbbVie medications, Humira and Skyrizi. AbbVie spent $315 million last year on TV ads for Rinvoq alone. But nowhere in the ad do they tell you it costs $6,100 per month.

Well, Senator Grassley and I think it is time for Big Pharma to end the secrecy. If they are advertising a drug, they should disclose the price right up front. It is a basic transparency measure for patients. Consumer protection 101. So today, we are reintroducing bipartisan legislation to require price disclosures in direct-to-consumer drugs ads, or DTC ads. Our plan is simple, and it has actually passed the Senate once before.

Here is why we think this transparency in drug ads is so important. Earlier this year, a study found that more than two-thirds of drugs advertised on television were considered, quote, ``low-value.'' Those pricey drugs that show you whitewater rafting or rock climbing? They are often no better than other, more affordable drugs.

One-in-five Americans do not take their medications as prescribed because of the cost. They cut their pills in half or skip doses because they can't afford to take their medications as prescribed. So don't you think it is worth knowing right away that Rinvoq could run you $6,100 per month rather than waiting for that moment of truth at the pharmacy counter?

Don't just take my word for it. These advertisements often urge you to ``ask your doctor if it is right for you.'' Well, we asked those doctors. The American Medical Association says: ``Direct-to-consumer advertising inflates demand for new and expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.''

As Democrats are working in Washington to avoid default and prevent our economy from crashing and to preserve the solvency of Medicare, we asked the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to look at the impact of these DTC ads on Medicare's budget. The GAO found that between 2016 and 2018, drugs advertised on television accounted for 58 percent of Medicare's spending. These DTC ads ballooned Medicare spending on a small handful of drugs, costing the Medicare Program $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.

I used this chart in 2017 when I first introduced this legislation, and when the monthly cost of Humira was $3,700 per month. But as you can see, the cost of Humira is now $6,900 per month. Shouldn't AbbVie-- makers of Humira--disclose that price to you so you can use this information when making treatment decisions? If they did, AbbVie may think twice before raising the price.

Our DTC bill is supported by Democrats and Republicans, the AARP, American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, and 88 percent of Americans. President Trump supported our bill. This bill has passed the Senate before. And several Republicans have included this provision in larger packages they have supported. The only opposition comes from one place: Pharma. They hate the idea of being honest with patients about the price of their drugs and they are looking for Senators to help keep their secret.

So when the Senate considers drug pricing legislation in the coming weeks, I will ask for a vote on this bipartisan policy. Senator Grassley has been a great partner in this effort; and we will work to bring this dose of sunshine to the airwaves. It is about time Americans catch a break when it comes to the cost of drugs.

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.

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.

Madam President, most Americans spent more time at home watching television during the pandemic. I know I did. And what was one of the most common commercials we saw? Direct-to-consumer drug ads. You know, those fancy commercials with catchy music, celebrity actors, and swinging golf clubs? Even before COVID, Americans saw an average of nine ads per day. Every year, the pharmaceutical industry spends more than $6 billion on ads--$6 billion. That is the same as the entire budget of the Food and Drug Administration. In fact, we know that most top Pharma companies spend more on their advertising budget than on drug research and development.

It turns out, the United States is one of only two countries in the world that even allows these commercials. Can you guess the other? New Zealand.

Do you want to know why Pharma spends so much money promoting their drugs? Because it increases their profit margins. Pharma pushes these ads because they steer patients to specific, expensive medications-- whether a patient actually needs the drugs or not. And sometimes it is easier in a 10-minute meeting for the doctor to just write the prescription than to take the time to explain why the drug may not be needed or a less expensive, generic version might be a better choice. Pharma thinks if they pummel you with enough ads that you finally learn how to spell Xarelto, you will insist to your doctor that this is the blood thinner you need though a less expensive option would be just as effective.

With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information--don't take Xarelto if you are allergic to Xarelto--but kept in the dark on one crucial factor--the price.

Take Rinvoq, which is manufactured by Illinois-based AbbVie for eczema and arthritis. It is now the most-advertised drug on television--replacing two other AbbVie medications, Humira and Skyrizi. AbbVie spent $315 million last year on TV ads for Rinvoq alone. But nowhere in the ad do they tell you it costs $6,100 per month.

Well, Senator Grassley and I think it is time for Big Pharma to end the secrecy. If they are advertising a drug, they should disclose the price right up front. It is a basic transparency measure for patients. Consumer protection 101. So today, we are reintroducing bipartisan legislation to require price disclosures in direct-to-consumer drugs ads, or DTC ads. Our plan is simple, and it has actually passed the Senate once before.

Here is why we think this transparency in drug ads is so important. Earlier this year, a study found that more than two-thirds of drugs advertised on television were considered, quote, ``low-value.'' Those pricey drugs that show you whitewater rafting or rock climbing? They are often no better than other, more affordable drugs.

One-in-five Americans do not take their medications as prescribed because of the cost. They cut their pills in half or skip doses because they can't afford to take their medications as prescribed. So don't you think it is worth knowing right away that Rinvoq could run you $6,100 per month rather than waiting for that moment of truth at the pharmacy counter?

Don't just take my word for it. These advertisements often urge you to ``ask your doctor if it is right for you.'' Well, we asked those doctors. The American Medical Association says: ``Direct-to-consumer advertising inflates demand for new and expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.''

As Democrats are working in Washington to avoid default and prevent our economy from crashing and to preserve the solvency of Medicare, we asked the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to look at the impact of these DTC ads on Medicare's budget. The GAO found that between 2016 and 2018, drugs advertised on television accounted for 58 percent of Medicare's spending. These DTC ads ballooned Medicare spending on a small handful of drugs, costing the Medicare Program $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.

I used this chart in 2017 when I first introduced this legislation, and when the monthly cost of Humira was $3,700 per month. But as you can see, the cost of Humira is now $6,900 per month. Shouldn't AbbVie-- makers of Humira--disclose that price to you so you can use this information when making treatment decisions? If they did, AbbVie may think twice before raising the price.

Our DTC bill is supported by Democrats and Republicans, the AARP, American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, and 88 percent of Americans. President Trump supported our bill. This bill has passed the Senate before. And several Republicans have included this provision in larger packages they have supported. The only opposition comes from one place: Pharma. They hate the idea of being honest with patients about the price of their drugs and they are looking for Senators to help keep their secret.

So when the Senate considers drug pricing legislation in the coming weeks, I will ask for a vote on this bipartisan policy. Senator Grassley has been a great partner in this effort; and we will work to bring this dose of sunshine to the airwaves. It is about time Americans catch a break when it comes to the cost of drugs.

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.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein, is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.