Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

I will yield when the minority leader, Senator Schumer, comes to the floor.

Madam President, a recent briefing told us a story that most Americans can, certainly, understand. People are saying: I can't afford to have cancer. What does that mean? It means the obvious--that 40 percent of Americans lose their entire life savings in 2 years or less after having a cancer diagnosis. The cost of healthcare, particularly for a serious illness, is so high that if you don't have a really good health insurance plan, it will wipe you out. That is the reality.

So is it any wonder that we are concerned about the lawsuit filed by the Trump administration and supported by Republican State attorneys general that would remove the guarantee in the law that reads that people with preexisting conditions can have health insurance? That, to me, is fundamental.

Over a majority of Americans either have a preexisting condition or have someone in the family with such a condition. Without the protection of health insurance, people can find themselves literally wiped out. When we hear that fewer than 50 percent of the people in this country have $1,000 in savings, we can understand that even a trip to an emergency room can wipe out the meager savings people have been able to put together during the course of their lifetimes.

Why do Republicans and this President still seem determined to lessen the coverage of health insurance for an American population that is so vulnerable to the high cost of healthcare?

When you ask the major insurance companies what is driving up the cost of health insurance premiums, they tell you it is pretty obvious. More than anything, it is the cost of prescription drugs.

Last night, in Florida, President Trump announced his plans for reelection. I guess my first question to him is this: Will you finish what you promised 4 years ago? On two of the things he promised-- infrastructure and doing something about prescription drugs--he has done nothing.

How bad is the prescription drug situation in this country? As I said, it is the biggest driver of the increase in health insurance premiums. When you look at the specifics, you can see it.

Take a look at America's insulin scandal. Insulin was discovered almost 100 years ago by two Canadian researchers who surrendered the U.S. patent rights for $1 and said at the time that no one should ever get rich on this lifesaving drug. Now look at what we are faced with-- Humalog, made by Eli Lilly, a common insulin product. Humalog cost $21 a vile in 1996. That same vile of Humalog today costs $275--$21 to $275 unless you live in Canada. If you live in Canada, the exact drug, made by the same company, sells for $39. It costs $39 just across the border in Canada and $275 here in the United States.

Is it any wonder that people with diabetes are rationing their insulin and, in doing so, endangering their health, with, sadly, many losing their lives because of that decision?

Why aren't we taking this on? The American people identify this as one of their major concerns when it comes to their economic vulnerability.

We are not taking it on because of the political muscle of PhRMA and the pharmaceutical companies. Sadly, they have this Chamber in a position where we are not entertaining legislation that would control prescription drug pricing, and, frankly, we have no legislative proposal coming forward by the Trump administration.

There are many good ideas out there. For example, do you ever see an ad for a pharmaceutical drug on television? If you don't, then you don't own a television. You can barely turn them on now without some ad for pharma drugs. It reaches the point where people learn how to pronounce and even spell Xarelto, having watched the ad so many times, and they can recite back to you what is said about various drugs that are advertised over and over.

The problems is, of course, that all of the information they give you, as fast as they can talk in 60 or 90 seconds, never includes the price. It never includes the price. HUMIRA, the most heavily advertised drug on television today--how much does it cost for this drug to treat psoriatic arthritis and to clear up the little red spot of psoriasis on your elbow? It costs $5,000 a month--$5,000 a month.

If they were forced to advertise the price of the drug, with all of the claims that they make for the drugs, Americans would at least be notified about what they are getting into if they go to a doctor and ask for HUMIRA, but they will not. They refuse to disclose it.

So in fairness, the Trump administration's Dr. Azar, the head of HHS, called me last year and said he supported the bill that I had introduced calling for price disclosure. The administration is trying to do this by regulation, and I applaud them for that. There is so much more we can do, but I applaud them for that.

Who turned around to sue them in court to stop the requirement of price disclosure on ads? The pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, the one I just mentioned that has the scandalous pricing of insulin. They don't want Americans to know what they are charging for these drugs. They would rather fight this out over emails between insurance companies and prescription benefit managers and the like.

Well, it is time for us as a Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to acknowledge that we have had enough of this. We want pharma to be profitable so that they engage in more research for more cures, of course, but we can't stand by idly and watch this price gouging at the expense of American patients, those with diabetes and other serious conditions. We should insist, when it comes to pharma, that they have actual price competition.

They can have a patent period where they have exclusive rights to sell a drug. That is the incentive for them to discover these drugs. But there comes a point when there are supposed to be other drugs on the market--generic drugs--that offer the same benefits as the original brand-name drugs but at a much lower price. That was the design of the system. It has fallen apart.

The major drugs for sale in the United States today are going up precipitously in price. In the first 2 years of the Trump administration, 2,500 major drugs in this country saw their cost increase by double digits. That is what we are faced with while the Senate does nothing.

Senator McConnell was here today speaking about the agenda and what we need to do. Well, I certainly agree with him. The situation at our border needs to be addressed, and it should be quickly. We are going to take it up this morning in the Appropriations Committee. But beyond that, we need to take a step to deal with the issues that people really care about, issues that affect their daily lives, and No. 1 on that list--and they tell us No. 1 on their own list--is the cost of prescription drugs.

Now is the time for this Congress and Senate to act. You see this empty Chamber? It should be filled with Members of the Senate debating bills to

bring down the high cost of prescription drugs. Instead, it is silent, and the best we can do is to get a speech from a Senator from Illinois.

So I hope someone is listening, and I certainly hope Senator McConnell's office is listening.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) are necessarily absent.

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

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

Mr. President, in 1901, superintendent of Joliet Township High School J. Stanley Brown and University of Chicago president William Rainey Harper committed themselves to an historic experiment. They founded Joliet Junior College, the Nation's first public community college with six students as the initial enrollment. Brown and Harper designed the school for students who wanted to remain in the community, but also wanted to pursue a college education.

The community college system is vastly different than Harper and Brown's initial work today. Community colleges are helping millions of Americans carve a pathway to middle-class prosperity and a chance to fulfill the American Dream.

Earlier this month, Mike Monaghan, a champion of Illinois community colleges with more than 40 years of legislative and higher education experience, retired from the Illinois Community College Trustees Association. During his time there, he worked hard to make sure Illinois has some of the finest colleges in the country. Mike will certainly be missed.

Originally from Springfield, he earned an associate arts degree from Lincoln Land Community College, a bachelor's degree in political science from Bradley University, and a master's degree in legal studies and administrative law from the University of Illinois at Springfield.

I have known Mike for decades from our days as staffers in the Illinois State Senate. Mike was fighting for improving education in the State as the principal staff to the State senate's higher education committee when I was legal counsel to the State senate judiciary committee. He also was my neighbor, living a block away from me. I might add Mike also was a precinct captain for a couple of my races, too.

In 1989, Mike became the Illinois Community College Trustees Associations director of government relations. In this role, he developed a statewide advocacy program and regularly organized trips to Washington, DC, with students. One of his major efforts was the successful implementation of a State insurance program for community college retirees. In 1998, the Illinois Society of Association Executives awarded him with their Government Relations Award for the program.

Mike's hard work led him to become the ICCTA's executive director in 2005. For the past 14 years, he has continued fighting for resources for community colleges. He earned the Cook County College Teachers Union 2008 Innovation in Education Award for his leadership in promoting community colleges.

When community colleges are not funded properly, the costs fall on students. When Mike started, some remarked that community colleges were 13th and 14th year schooling and dismissed them as ``Tinker Toy Tech.'' This is certainly not the case today.

Today, 35,000 students are enrolled at Joliet Junior College, and Illinois has 519,000 students enrolled in community colleges. More and more students know community colleges are one of the best investments in education for students and are the best alternative in the competitive college marketplace.

Americans hold more than $1.4 trillion in student debt, making it the largest household debt after mortgages. Community colleges, with low tuition rates and quality educational programs, are a key to breaking the debt stranglehold of our current higher education system.

I want to take this time to honor Mike for his hard work in making Illinois one of the top community college States. The future of William Rainey Harper and J. Stanley Brown's experiment looks bright because of Mike's work. We thank him for his service and look forward to his next chapter in life.

Mr. President, if you study the recent course of American history, you can note there has been the emergence of opportunity and debates on freedom many times during the last 50 years.

I think back to my time, my early years of education in high school and college, when America was in the midst of debate about the rights of African Americans--the civil rights movements in the 1960s.

We have also had debates as well on the question of liberty and freedom--freedom from discrimination for women in America and for those who are disabled. It really is the hallmark of this democracy that we continue to expand opportunity and continue to question our own beliefs when it comes to the freedom which each of us cherishes.

We are now in the midst of an interesting transformation in this country on the issue of rights of people with different sexual orientation. We have seen some dramatic changes in just the last few years as we find more and more people speaking out against discrimination against those of a different sexual orientation, and, of course, the landmark decision in Obergefell, where the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right for same-sex marriage. This is not without controversy and not without dissenters, but the mainstream of America, the vast majority of Americans believe we are moving along the same path we did when we talked about the rights of those who are minorities, women, and the disabled, when we say people should be free of discrimination because of their own sexual orientation.

That is why it strikes me as unusual, more than coincidental, that in June--the LGBTQ Pride Month--our Republican colleagues decided to bring to the floor the nomination of Texas district court nominee Matthew Kacsmaryk, who has repeatedly written in his personal capacity about his opposition to LGBTQ rights and the Obergefell decision.

Mr. Kacsmaryk's nomination was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote in February, but for some reason, the Republican leadership decided to wait and force a vote on the floor of the Senate during Pride Month. Now they are calling for a vote this week.

Mr. Kacsmaryk has not been shy about his hostility to marriage equality in transgender Americans. On June 24, 2015, he wrote an article in which he noted that the Supreme Court would decide the Obergefell case in the next few weeks and speculated whether five Justices would, in his words, ``invent a constitutional right to same- sex marriage.''

After the decision, Mr. Kacsmaryk wrote a disparaging summary--which I will not quote into the Record--but it certainly shows his opposition to the fundamental premise behind that decision. He was quoted in the Liberty Institute blog of October 16, 2014 saying ``the pro-marriage movement must prepare for the long war.''

He signed a letter in 2016 relating to transgender Americans, calling them ``a delusion.'' Last December, the parents of 300 transgender children--including 39 from my State of Illinois--wrote the Senate in opposition to Mr. Kacsmaryk's nomination and said: ``Our children are not a delusion, and neither is our love and support for them.''

Even though Mr. Kacsmaryk has expressed strident personal views opposing LGBTQ rights, and even though he has litigated frequently in cases involving these matters, he would not commit to recuse himself from cases involving this issue if he were to be confirmed by the Senate.

I oppose the Kacsmaryk nomination. This is yet another extreme nominee outside the mainstream of American thinking who does not deserve to be rubberstamped for a lifetime appointment by the U.S. Senate.

The Kovler Center and Cameroon

Mr. President, just 2 weeks ago, I had a meeting in Chicago with my colleague Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. We were at Heartland Alliance's Marjorie Kovler Center. What happens at this center is truly remarkable and a reflection of America's long history of welcoming those who are fleeing political violence.

The Kovler Center is home to one of our Nation's oldest and most respected facilities, helping those recovering from complex consequences of politically sanctioned torture. This is its 32nd year in operation. More than 3,000 torture survivors from 80 different countries have received assistance and counsel at the Kovler Center in Chicago.

The problem of torture among refugees is significant.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 2 minutes.

The problem of torture among refugees is significant, with an estimated 44 percent of refugees in the United States having been victims of such horrors. Those from Bosnia, Cambodia, and many other places all receive free treatment at the Kovler Center to recover from their trauma.

During my visit I had the privilege of meeting refugees who had fled the mounting violence in Cameroon. Cameroon is a West African nation that is dealing with a complicated colonial legacy. Following World War I, the League of Nations appointed France and Great Britain as joint trustees to what was previously a German colony. Not surprisingly, the two colonial powers imposed their own cultures on the new Cameroon.

Tragically, following the country's independence in the 1960s, Cameroonian strongman President Paul Biya, one of the world's longest serving leaders--now almost 40 years in office--further favored the French-speaking population over its Anglophone regions.

The results were not surprising. The mounting resentment and calls for greater autonomy within the Anglophone population caused ensuing violent suppression from the Biya regime. The refugees I met with told harrowing stories of this crackdown and violence.

I was pleased to join Senator Van Hollen last year in a letter urging Secretary Pompeo to focus attention on the unrest in Cameroon, and I was equally pleased when the administration scaled back U.S. military assistance to Cameroon due to this government's violent repression. As a Member of the Appropriations Committee, I will be watching carefully the level of violence in Cameroon and, when the day comes, when we consider any foreign aid to this Nation.

The work of the Kovler Center is a reminder that if we are going to stand up for human rights we must be willing to be vigilant at all times, even for small countries as far away as Cameroon.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.