Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I was on the floor 2 days ago when the Republican Senate leader came to the floor and said something which I still don't quite understand, and I would like to refer to it in a statement.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the cloture motion with respect to the Merle nomination.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the confirmation vote on the Williams nomination, the Senate vote on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 920, the nomination of Bernadette M. Meehan, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Chile.

Madam President, now, back to my statement.

I came to the floor and heard a speech by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Now, it wasn't the first. I have heard many, and I listen closely so that I can divine the strategy of Senate Republicans. And for weeks we have heard speeches about the plight of American families dealing with inflation. It is a real problem. If you go to buy anything these days, you are shocked by the price, starting at the gas pump, if you have aspirations to buy a car or truck, ordinary food items--much more expensive. Most families are not seeing any increase in income so it is a real hardship for them to keep up.

Well, the Senator from Kentucky has given that speech so many times, I could almost repeat it verbatim. And I don't quarrel with his premise. Inflation is painful for working families.

But then--but then--he went into an area of pricing and took an exactly opposite point of view. What he said was he thought, if there was an effort to control the price of prescription drugs, it was ``socialist price control,'' it was really asking for something for nothing, and he didn't support it.

And I stopped to think for a second. Wait a minute. All the polling, when you ask American families what they worry about, tells you that this is a big headache for families. They go to a doctor. Somebody is sick. The doctor prescribes a drug. They take the prescription to the drug store. They get it filled. And then comes the moment of truth, the moment at the cash register when the family is told: Incidentally, that will cost you $100, $200, $300 over your insurance coverage.

And you know what some families say?

I wish I could afford that; I can't.

And they don't pick up the drug or they pick it up and, instead of taking it, they kind of wait and say: I will see if I get any better by myself. They do the wrong thing because of the cost of prescription drugs.

So when the Republican Senators come to the floor every day talking about family expenses, it comes as a shock to know that they are planning to oppose the Democratic effort to establish prescription drug pricing. They complain about high prices for everything else, but they don't seem to want to do anything when it comes to prescription drugs.

Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, an average of nearly four times as much paid by an American family for exactly the same drugs that are being sold in Canada and Europe. Where are those drugs made? All made in the same place, all made by the same company, four times the cost for America.

To add insult to injury, many of these prescription drugs only exist because of the successful investment by American taxpayers in the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health is an amazing research organization. They do the research, the basic research. The drug companies capitalize on it, make the drugs, and sell them at a profit. So taxpayers pay on the front end for the drugs. American taxpayers and tax-paying families pay on the back end for the actual cost of the pharmaceuticals.

Out-of-control prescription costs aren't just hurting people financially; they hurt the health of Americans. One in five Americans don't take the medications as prescribed because they can't afford them. They cut their pills in half or they skip doses because they can't do it; they can't pay it.

``Your money or your life''--you expect to hear that from a stickup artist, not from a pharmaceutical company. That is the choice Americans face.

So we want to do something about it. Democrats don't want to hear speeches about the costs to families. We want to do something. We want to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for seniors first and then for families in general.

If you really care about inflation, most families would say, start with prescription drugs. That is what we are doing. And the Republicans are going to oppose this.

Ironically, Senator McConnell gives a speech calling it socialism to deal with the cost of prescription drugs, and, within an hour, the senior Senator from Iowa gives a speech on the floor of the Senate-- Republican Senator--how he wants to cut prescription drug prices for seniors. One of them didn't get the message at the caucus. I think the Senator from Iowa is right, incidentally.

So Democrats are proposing to allow Medicare to negotiate fair prices for drugs. We have been doing that for a long time when it comes to the Veterans' Administration. The Veterans' Administration buys a lot of prescription drugs for our veterans--and I am glad they do--and they negotiate with these companies to get a fair price. We think Medicare ought to do the same thing. It reduces the cost of prescription drugs. It makes them more affordable for seniors.

Now, a lot of people say: Well, if you do that, then the prescription drug companies, the pharmaceutical companies, just aren't going to be able to make it.

Well, here is the reality. Studies have found that Big Pharma could lose $1 trillion in sales over the next decade and still remain the most profitable industry in America--lose $1 trillion in sales and still be the most profitable industry. Higher profit margins in pharma than in the telecom industry, than in the defense industry, in the banking industry, and the Republicans are saying they are afraid that they are going to get hurt if consumers can buy drugs at lower prices.

But good news for those who fear that if you cut the amount of money going to pharma, it will cut research. That is not what we have learned. We know Bayer. It has been around a long time. It started off as a German company. It made aspirin. Now they have made some sizable acquisitions in the business.

They make a drug called Xarelto. Now, you would have to watch that television ad 10 or 12 times to be able to spell ``Xarelto,'' but they are trying to convince American consumers they can't live without it. Bayer spent $18 billion on sales and marketing last year compared to $8 billion on research for drugs.

Johnson & Johnson: $22 billion on sales and marketing, $12 billion on research. GlaxoSmithKline: $15 billion on sales and marketing, $7 billion on research.

Get the pattern? There is more money being spent on advertising than on research for new drugs. Americans get bombarded with nine drug ads on TV every day telling them to ask their doctor for the newest wonder drug. There are only two nations on Earth where you can legally advertise prescription drugs on television. One, of course, is the United States. The other, for some reason, is New Zealand. Filling the airwaves with ads is what Big Pharma does to try to convince customers they can't live without their drugs.

So the claim that allowing Medicare to negotiate a reasonable price for seniors will freeze out Big Pharma' s innovation just doesn't wash.

Senator McConnell says there is no ``free lunch'' when it comes to prescription drug pricing. Let's keep in mind that the 14 largest drug corporations spent more on stock buybacks--lining the pockets of their CEOs--than on research and development over the past 5 years.

So here is what it comes down to. Look at these, just as an illustration. I will do this quickly because Members are showing up to vote. Insulin, discovered by Canadian researchers at the beginning of the 20th century--they surrendered the patent for the drug for a dollar so that it would never be overcharged to consumers because it is a life-or-death drug for those suffering from diabetes.

Take a look, from the year 2004 to the year 2022, at what has happened to the drug insulin cost--insulin cost--on a regular basis, the manufacturing price by year. You can see it tracks all the companies that make insulin. It is

as high as $300 a dose, and a person suffering from diabetes may need three doses a month--$900 for insulin.

Well, let's take a comparative cost and take a look at what insulin costs in other countries. The United States, while it is paying $98 for a dose of insulin--look--Japan is paying $14; Canada, $12; Germany, $11; France, $9; UK, $7; Australia, $6, $7. And the good news is these are the same companies, the American companies, charging a fraction of the cost to the other countries for insulin. This is one of the drugs which we are working on now, Senator Shaheen and others, to bring down the cost.

I am going to close by saying this. If you care about the costs that families face, if you care about inflation, and you care about life-or- death medications, and you want to make them affordable, don't take the position of Senator McConnell that this is socialism to demand negotiation in pricing. Don't take his position that it is just a free lunch to say that people will never have to pay more than $2,000 a year out of pocket for drugs. This is a life-or-death decision. Even 70 percent of Republicans agree with that.

I wish the Senate Republicans would agree with it and join us in supporting this bill.

Madam President, today, the Senate will continue its vital work of confirming highly qualified judicial nominees to the Federal bench. We will vote on an outstanding district court nominee: Gregory Williams to the District of Delaware.

Mr. Williams is currently a partner at the firm Fox Rothschild LLP, where he has an extensive trial practice that focuses on intellectual property and other matters. Mr. Williams joined the firm immediately after law school, rising through the ranks to become the first African- American equity partner in the firm's history.

In addition to his work in private practice, Mr. Williams has dedicated countless hours to serving the Delaware legal and judicial communities. He has worked as a Special Master in complex civil cases for the District of Delaware; as president of the Delaware State Bar Association; and as chair of the State's judicial nominating commission. A graduate of Millersville University of Pennsylvania and Villanova University School of Law, Mr. Williams received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association and has the strong support of Delaware's Senators, Mr. Carper and Mr. Coons. With his depth of experience and impeccable credentials, Mr. Williams will serve Delaware with distinction.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this outstanding nominees.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have nine 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, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from South Dakota, my friend, and I think he fairly set out the Republican agenda: Take the Trump tax cuts--the cuts that appeared during the Trump administration for the wealthiest people in America--and make them permanent. That is his idea of an economic boost that America needs; it is not mine. My idea is to try to address the challenges which working families in America face today, the challenges which many people in America of limited means face today. I think the Tax Code should be written with those people in mind, not with the wealthiest people in mind, which the Republicans did when they pushed through the Trump tax cuts, with the opposition of Democrats.

So what are we proposing that was characterized yesterday by the Republican minority leader as socialistic? Well, what we are proposing is trying to bring some fairness when it comes to prescription drug pricing.

Mr. President, ask Americans about the cost of living. They will certainly talk to you about gasoline and food and prescription drugs-- particularly our seniors.

It was ironic yesterday that after the Senator from Kentucky on the Republican side called cutting prescription drug pricing socialistic, just a few minutes later, the senior Republican Senator from Iowa took the floor and endorsed the very same policy. He said he was in favor of cutting prescription drug pricing for senior citizens. The two of them obviously are not talking with one another or certainly not agreeing on a basic issue.

Here is what we think. We believe the pharmaceutical industry in America is a great industry and very profitable. We believe that they are spending more money to increase their profits--not as much on research as they are on marketing. What do I mean? Turn on the television station and try to avoid an ad for a drug. They are on constantly. Really, they spend a lot of money--the industry does--on those ads and marketing efforts, more money than they spend on actual research for new drugs.

What are they trying to do? They are trying to convince the American consumers to ask for certain drugs when they go to the doctor. They have to work overtime to try to get us to the point where we can spell Xarelto and write it down on a piece of paper and go to a doctor and ask for it, and people do, and it works. The money they spend on advertising works.

There are only two countries on Earth that allow television advertising for pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New Zealand. Most every other country says that those decisions should be made by medical professionals. Consumers can't know the whole story, can't know the medical aspects--every aspect of a drug. It is best to leave it to the professionals. But the American pharmaceutical industry sees it another way. If they can educate, inform, and motivate American consumers to ask for drugs, many doctors will prescribe them without a battle, and the cost of healthcare goes up.

BlueCross BlueShield based in Chicago, IL, told me that the push behind increases in health insurance premiums for families across America is the cost of prescription drugs. They are so expensive.

So we are trying to, on the Democratic side, come up with a plan that reduces the cost of prescription drugs for Americans and American families--particularly for senior citizens. It is long overdue. Senior citizens who can't afford their prescriptions don't fill them or take half a dose when they should take a full dose for their good health in the future. We want to reach the point where these pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are affordable.

Right now, we have what I consider to be a fair deal between the Veterans' Administration and the pharma companies. They negotiated the prices of these drugs so that our veterans get the benefit of that negotiation.

Incidentally, the pharmaceutical companies also have to negotiate with governments in other countries. Canada, selling exactly the same drugs made in the same place in the United States, charges a fraction for most drugs over what is charged to the American consumers. What is the difference? The difference is, the Canadian Government said: We are not going to let you exploit our customers in Canada. So they keep the costs of American drugs lower than what we pay in the United States. There is no fairness there. If we are going to have negotiation to bring pharmaceuticals down to an affordable level in Canada, we should do it in the United States.

The bill being pushed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans would do several things.

It would say that Medicare can negotiate prices for drugs. That will help senior citizens and will save our Treasury money.

It also says that we are going to limit the amount of out-of-pocket expenditures that seniors will face under Medicare to $2,000 a year. That is a real break for a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet among our senior citizens.

We also say that if the pharmaceutical companies dramatically increase the price of drugs, they will be subject to a penalty. There are conditions for that, but we are trying to say to them that you can make a profit, but don't try to capitalize on that profit every single year by raising the cost of drugs.

What we are talking about are actual family concerns for the affordability of lifesaving drugs. The Democrats are for it; the Republicans oppose it. They have said it is socialism; it is trying to make a buck--or whatever they want to characterize it, I don't know. They ought to sit down and talk to some of these families. In fact, they ought to talk amongst themselves when a Republican Senator took the floor yesterday and agreed with our position on pharmaceuticals.

I would say to the Senator from South Dakota, he can continue his campaign for the Republican dream of making tax cuts for the wealthiest people permanent. I want to be part of the Democratic aspiration to make life more affordable, particularly for seniors and those in need of affordable drugs.

It is not every day we get to say this, but this week, we have a chance to make history in the ``Land of Lincoln.'' Soon, the Senate will vote to confirm Nancy Maldonado as U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of Illinois. If confirmed, this eminently qualified nominee will be the first Hispanic woman to serve as an article III judge in Illinois. It marks yet another proud accomplishment in our efforts to build a judiciary that really reflects America.

Born in Skokie, Ms. Maldonado has practiced law for more than two decades. She earned her A.B. cum laude from Harvard and her J.D. from Columbia Law School. After graduating, she clerked for 2 years with Judge Ruben Castillo, who served on the court to which she has now been nominated.

In the years since her clerkship, Ms. Maldonado has dedicated herself to defending the rights of working people as a plaintiff-side employment law litigator. Throughout her career, she has continually answered the call to serve our State.

In the early 2010s, she worked as special assistant state's attorney to Cook County to investigate fraud. In 2018, our State's attorney general appointed her to serve as consent decree monitor in two employment discrimination cases. Again last year, she was appointed to serve as a special assistant attorney general to investigate consumer fraud. She was also confirmed by the Illinois State Senate to join the State Police Merit Board, a role in which she has worked to ensure that members of law enforcement who protect and serve our communities are treated fairly.

With such impressive credentials, it is no wonder that Senator Tammy Duckworth and I enthusiastically support Ms. Maldonado and that the American Bar Association rated her ``well qualified.''

Given her extensive experience and long record of service, she will be an asset to the Northern District of Illinois. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in voting for her confirmation.

I yield the floor.