[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 110 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4777-S4781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTION

      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Sinema, Mrs. Murray, 
        Mr. Casey, and Mr. Cardin):
  S. 2204. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to 
clarify the mailing requirement relating to social security account 
statements; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madame President, Senator Cassidy and I are reintroducing 
a simple bill that can have a big impact: the Know Your Social Security 
Act. The bill clarifies the law about Congressional intent so that 
every worker over 25 receives a paper Social Security statement in the 
mail each year, unless the worker has accessed their statement online 
or declined to receive the statement in the mail.
  The story is well known in Social Security circles, but it bears 
repeating: the origin story of the Social Security statement all 
started with the ``powerful'' Committee on Finance. Senator Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan spelled out the reasoning: ``All of us pay into Social 
Security but rarely, until we become beneficiaries, do we ever hear 
from Social Security . . . in every paycheck, we see money withheld for 
Social Security, but we hear nary a word from the Social Security 
Administration. Let us take this simple step [ sending statements] to 
reassure Americans that Social Security will be there for them.''
  After enactment and once fully phased in, every worker aged 25 and

[[Page S4778]]

older received an annual statement from Social Security starting in the 
year 2000. After a few years, Social Security's website allowed workers 
to access their statement online. At the time, that was a nice 
feature--and did not impact the mailing of statements. Later--to fund 
more pressing needs--SSA viewed the online option as ``providing'' the 
worker with a statement and fulfilling the requirements of the law. SSA 
stopped mailing the statements in 2011 to everyone over 25. Currently, 
only individuals over the age of 60 who are not receiving benefits 
receive statements automatically through the mail.
  Paper statements delivered through the mail are desirable because no 
action is necessary by the worker and the statement is a yearly 
reminder to the worker to think about the future. Research has shown 
that workers provided with statements are significantly more likely to 
save, more certain about their retirement income, and have higher 
satisfaction with their finances relative to those who are not provided 
with any type of financial planning materials. Providing Social 
Security statement through the mail is a simple policy that could help 
many workers, hopefully leading to better decisions about their 
financial future.
  Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John Larson and 
Ways and Means Committee Member Vern Buchanan are reintroducing the 
companion bill in the House of Representatives. The bill is endorsed by 
AARP, Alliance for Retired Americans, Envelope Manufacturers 
Association (EMA), Justice in Aging, NAACP, National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
Social Security Works, Strengthen Social Security Coalition, The Arc of 
the United States, and The Senior Citizens League. I hope our 
colleagues in the Senate will join us and cosponsor the Know Your 
Social Security Act. Together, we can work towards better retirement 
outcomes for all workers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THUNE:
  S. 2207. A bill to temporarily increase the availability of temporary 
nonimmigrant nonagricultural workers for the purposes of restoring 
American forests, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2207

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM H-2B NUMERICAL LIMITATION FOR 
                   CERTAIN FORESTRY CONSERVATION WORKERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 214(g) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(12)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     numerical limitation under paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply 
     to principal aliens described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) 
     who are employed or have received an offer of employment for 
     the work of--
       ``(i) orchard work and seed collection;
       ``(ii) tree planting;
       ``(iii) nursery care;
       ``(iv) forest management;
       ``(v) harvesting pine straw or other minor forest products;
       ``(vi) timber stand improvement;
       ``(vii) herbicide application;
       ``(viii) fire prevention and fire management activities;
       ``(ix) brush clearing and vegetation management;
       ``(x) maintenance of right of ways;
       ``(xi) habitat protection and restoration;
       ``(xii) watershed protection and restoration;
       ``(xiii) land reclamation; or
       ``(xiv) other activities with a direct forest health or 
     conservation nexus.
       ``(B) The exemptions described in subparagraph (A) shall 
     not apply to landscaping or groundskeeping.''.
       (b) Sunset.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
     remain in effect until the date that is 5 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Shaheen, and 
        Mr. Kelly):
  S. 2223. A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002 to improve assistance to community wood facilities, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Ms. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Community 
Wood Facilities Assistance Act of 2021. My colleagues Senators Collins, 
Shaheen, and Kelly are joining me as original cosponsors of the bill.
  This bill will assist with the construction of facilities for mass 
timber, tall wood, and other innovative wood products, in order to make 
sustainable use of small-diameter timber from forest thinnings and 
other needed treatments in Eastern and Western forests.
  The bill will also help to create jobs in disadvantaged rural and 
forest-dependent communities, and will help to reduce wildfire risk by 
removing dangerous fuels that can build up.
  The Forest Service reports that 80 million acres of Forest Service 
lands alone are at risk of catastrophic wildfire or abnormal levels of 
insect and disease infestations.
  While Federal land management agencies are working to increase the 
pace and scale of restoration activities, clearly we need to do more. 
In California we are facing a severe drought, and even before the onset 
of this most recent drought there were 150 million dead or dying trees 
due to insect damage. We are truly facing a monumental challenge.
  A recent comprehensive analysis by The Nature Conservancy and Bain 
and Company management consultants found that creating a restoration 
economy can play an important role in expanding the pace and scale of 
ecologically based forest restoration. The report recommended funding 
and incentives to ``bridge the gap between the cost of ecological 
thinning and the economic viability of wood-processing 
infrastructure.''
  As the report explains, ``If more aggressive restoration targets can 
be met, there will be significant need for additional processing 
capacity to defray restoration costs and provide valuable end uses for 
thinned material.''
  Our bill responds to the challenge of developing funding measures to 
improve the economic viability of wood-processing infrastructure to 
reduce the cost of forest restoration and provide valuable uses for the 
small diameter material.
  Fortunately, we do not need to create a whole new program to improve 
the economic viability of wood-processing infrastructure. The Forest 
Service has two existing grant programs that can help: the Community 
Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program and the Wood Innovations 
Program.
  These programs would benefit from amendments to increase their 
utility for improving the viability of wood-processing infrastructure. 
In particular, the program could benefit from higher Federal cost-
shares and an increased ability to provide more funding for each 
project, in addition to a higher authorization of funding overall.
  More specifically, our bill will revise the Forest Service's 
Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovations Grant Program, which 
provides assistance to the capital cost of small wood products 
facilities. Specifically, our bill would:
  Increase the authorization from $25 million to $50 million per year;
  Increase the maximum grant per facility from $1 to $5 million;
  Increase the Federal cost-share from 35% to 50%; and
  Increase the maximum size for community wood energy systems eligible 
for grant funding from 5 to 15 megawatts, among other provisions.
  Our bill will also revise the Forest Service's Wood Innovations Grant 
Program, which provides grants for proposed innovative uses and 
applications and the expansion of markets for wood products. Our bill 
would reduce the minimum non-Federal cost-share from 50% to 33.3% and 
makes other technical changes identified by the Forest Service.
  I thank the Senators who have joined me in cosponsoring this bill, 
and I urge the full Senate to promptly take up this bill and pass it as 
soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KAINE (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2244. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 
for teacher and school leader quality enhancement and to enhance 
institutional aid; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, as career opportunities and the requisite 
skills

[[Page S4779]]

for success adapt to the demands of the 2lst century, so too must the 
instruction and preparation educators receive. Educators are tasked 
with designing educational experiences that rise to the rigorous State 
academic standards and reflect the needs and interests of our Nation's 
diverse student population. This past school year with the pandemic was 
even more demanding our Nation's educators as they were faced with new 
teaching challenges and adapting to virtual or hybrid learning 
environments. Prior to the pandemic, school districts were faced with 
widespread teacher shortages, with nearly every State reporting 
shortages of teachers in high-need subjects like math, science, ahd 
special education. Data from the U.S. Department of Education shows 
COVID-19 has only exacerbated those needs with 43 States reporting 
shortages in math teachers, 42 in science teachers, and 44 in special 
education for the 2020-21 school year.
  We must find ways to strengthen the educator talent pipeline to 
ensure our students have access to high-quality educators and school 
leaders. We also must address the fact that schools in high-need 
communities are often staffed by a revolving door of underprepared and 
inexperienced teachers who unable to meet students' needs. According to 
the U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Data Collection, in 
2016, schools with high enrollments of students of color were four 
times as likely to hire uncertified teachers as were schools with low 
enrollments of students of color. This in part due to State teacher 
shortages.
  This is why I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague, 
Senator Collins, the Preparing and Retaining Education Professionals 
Act, or PREP Act. As schools across our Nation continue to face growing 
class sizes, many are struggling with a shortage of qualified teachers. 
Rural communities in particular are experiencing a dearth of teachers 
equipped to meet their growing needs. The PREP Act aims to create high-
quality teacher residency programs to develop a diverse workforce that 
is well prepared to provide the educational opportunities students need 
to be successful in the 21st century.
  More specifically, this legislation would expand the definition of 
``high need'' districts under the Every Student Succeeds Act, ESSA, to 
include those experiencing teacher shortages in rural communities and 
in areas such as special education, English language, science, 
technology, engineering, math, and CTE, to allow for access to 
additional support and improvement. It would also encourage school 
districts to establish partnerships with local community colleges and 
universities to ensure their education programs are developing future 
teachers in content areas where there is currently a shortage of 
educators. It would increase access to teacher and school leader 
residency programs and preparation training while requiring States to 
identify areas of teacher or leader shortages by subject across public 
schools and use that data to target their efforts. Additionally, the 
PREP Act bolsters support for teacher preparation programs at minority 
serving institutions, MSIs, or historically Black colleges and 
universities, HBCUs, to invest in a diverse and well-prepared educator 
workforce.
  Improving our Nation's educational system is contingent on our 
ability to prepare, support, and retain quality educators. Research 
shows that better prepared teachers stay longer in the profession and 
are more likely to remain in their roles and positively impact young 
people and their communities. As we continue to focus on recovering 
from the pandemic, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
see the PREP Act as a commonsense opportunity to help ensure that 
students in every ZIP Code across the country have the well-prepared 
teachers and school leaders they deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWN:
  S. 2255. A bill to extend the trade adjustment assistance program for 
one month; considered and passed.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, one week from today, on July 1st, Trade 
Adjustment Assistance will expire.
  This is our only tool to support workers who lose their jobs because 
of countries like China that cheat the rules. And in one week, it goes 
away. This is an economic problem and a China problem.
  All of us, of both parties, recognize the threat that countries like 
China pose to our economy. It's why just two weeks ago, we came 
together and passed the Endless Frontiers Act on a broad, bipartisan 
basis: To secure and expand our domestic supply chains, to support R&D 
to ensure the next generation of manufacturing is developed in America 
and made in America, and to finally--finally--ensure that Americans' 
tax dollars are used to buy American products that support American 
jobs.
  This should not be controversial.
  We are working to undo decades of bad trade policy with China, and 
decades of neglect for our domestic supply chains. That's going to take 
years. We know corporations won't stop outsourcing jobs on July 1st. We 
know China isn't going to stop cheating and undermining American 
industries on July 1st. And we know our manufacturers will still have 
to compete against governments that prop up their competitors on July 
1st.
  We owe it to workers, who we know are going to have their lives 
upended through no fault of their own to unfair trade, to do everything 
we can to ease the transition. Today, I'm not asking for a complete 
renewal of the program. I'm not even asking for an extra year of the 
program.
  I, on behalf of my Democratic colleagues and American workers, asked 
for unanimous consent from this body for a straight 3-month extension 
of TAA, so that we can keep having the conversations about how best to 
structure the program going forward. It appears that my friends on the 
other side would prefer a 1-month extension. I would like more, but in 
the spirit of compromise--this beats the alternative--letting TAA 
expire and leaving workers in the lurch.
  And while that dialogue continues, workers get the help they need.
  We know workers are losing jobs to China all over the country. Sadly, 
that happens every week, every day.
  By extending this program, service workers and people whose jobs get 
shipped overseas to countries without trade agreements will get help.
  Training funds, will continue being provided, at a time when we need 
to train people for the new jobs that we want industry to create. We 
all want the US economy to be more resilient in the face of economic 
shocks. We all want to see fewer communities devastated by unfair 
trade. We all want American workers' hard work to pay off TAA is part 
of that.
  We came together to extend it in 2011. We came together to extend it 
in 2015. We must do the same today.
  If you love this country you fight for the people who make it work. 
That's what we do with Trade Adjustment Assistance.

                                S. 2255

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     Extension Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension of Termination Provisions.--Section 285 of 
     the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 note) is amended by 
     striking ``June 30, 2021'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``July 23, 2021''.
       (b) Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance.--Section 
     246(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2318(b)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``June 30, 2021'' and inserting ``July 
     23, 2021''.
       (c) Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers.--Section 
     245(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2317(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``June 30, 2021'' and inserting ``July 
     23, 2021''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on the earlier of--
       (1) the date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) June 30, 2021.
       (e) Application of Prior Law.--Section 406 of the Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2015 (title IV 
     of Public Law 114-27; 129 Stat. 379; 19 U.S.C. 2271 note 
     prec.) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``July 1, 2021'' and inserting ``July 24, 2021''; and
       (B) in paragraphs (5) and (6), by striking ``the 1-year 
     period beginning on July 1, 2021'' and inserting ``the period 
     beginning on July 24, 2021, and ending on June 30, 2022''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``July 1, 2021'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``July 24, 2021''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Durbin, Mr.

[[Page S4780]]

        Booker, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Warren, Mr. Wyden, 
        and Mr. Markey):
  S. 2272. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase 
funding for lead reduction projects, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Lead-Free 
Drinking Water for All Act.'' This legislation would authorize $45 
billion to replace every lead pipe and service line in America over the 
next 10 years, ensuring clean water for all.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the most 
common sources of lead in drinking water are lead pipes, faucets, and 
plumbing fixtures. Nationwide, there are 6 to 10 million lead service 
lines serving up to 22 million Americans, affecting Americans living in 
all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The only way to 
guarantee lead-free drinking water is to remove and replace every lead 
pipe and service line in America--and that's precisely what this 
legislation calls for.
  The Lead-Free Drinking Water for All Act would reauthorize EPA's lead 
reduction projects grant program and increase the authorization to $4.5 
billion per year for 10 years. It would prioritize disadvantaged 
communities and set a ten-year deadline for projects to complete the 
lead service line removal. It would also guarantee that funded projects 
pay a prevailing wage.
  Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated that there is no 
safe level of exposure to lead. According to the EPA, lead is 
particularly harmful for young children: low levels of exposure have 
been linked to damage to the central and peripheral nervous system, 
learning disabilities, impaired hearing, impaired physical development, 
and impaired formation and function of blood cells. EPA has set the 
maximum contaminant level goal for lead in drinking water at zero 
because lead can be harmful to human health, even at low exposure 
levels.
  This problem is particularly prevalent in California's Central 
Valley, where, for example, in 2017 approximately 25 percent of schools 
in Fresno County reported lead in their drinking water while statewide, 
almost 1 in 5 kids attended a school that served drinking water with 
lead contamination.
  The Lead-Free Drinking Water for All Act would protect public health 
by guaranteeing that all Americans have access to lead-free drinking 
water. By providing funding for grants and prioritizing disadvantaged 
communities, this legislation would also reduce disparities in access 
to clean water and ensure that the burden of paying for lead service 
line replacement does not fall on disadvantaged communities.
  I thank my co-lead, Senator Stabenow, for her tireless leadership 
fighting for clean water for her constituents in Michigan and all 
Americans. I also thank the cosponsors of this bill for championing 
this vital effort with us in the Senate.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the ``Lead-Free 
Drinking Water for All Act'' as quickly as possible.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. King):
  S. 2304. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to 
require that direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs 
and biological products include an appropriate disclosure of pricing 
information; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2304

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Drug-Price Transparency for 
     Competition Act of 2021'' or the ``DTC Act of 2021''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription 
     pharmaceuticals is legally permitted in only 2 developed 
     countries, the United States and New Zealand.
       (2) In 2018, pharmaceutical ad spending exceeded 
     $6,046,000,000, a 4.8 percent increase over 2017, resulting 
     in the average American seeing 9 drug advertisements per day.
       (3) The most commonly advertised medication in the United 
     States has a list price of more than $6,000 for a one-month's 
     supply.
       (4) A 2021 Government Accountability Office report found 
     that two-thirds of all direct-to-consumer drug advertising 
     between 2016 and 2018 was concentrated among 39 brand-name 
     drugs or biological products, about half of which were 
     recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
       (5) According to a 2011 Congressional Budget Office report, 
     pharmaceutical manufacturers advertise their products 
     directly to consumers in an attempt to boost demand for their 
     products and thereby raise the price that consumers are 
     willing to pay, increase the quantity of drugs sold, or 
     achieve some combination of the two.
       (6) Studies, including a 2012 systematic review published 
     in the Annual Review of Public Health, a 2005 randomized 
     trial published in the Journal of the American Medical 
     Association, and a 2004 survey published in Health Affairs, 
     show that patients are more likely to ask their doctor for a 
     specific medication and for the doctor to write a 
     prescription for it, if a patient has seen an advertisement 
     for such medication, even if such medication is not the most 
     clinically appropriate for the patient or if a lower-cost 
     generic medication may be available.
       (7) According to a 2011 Congressional Budget Office report, 
     the average number of prescriptions written for newly 
     approved brand-name drugs with direct-to-consumer advertising 
     was 9 times greater than the average number of prescriptions 
     written for newly approved brand-name drugs without direct-
     to-consumer advertising.
       (8) The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is the 
     single largest drug payer in the United States. Between 2016 
     and 2018, 58 percent of the $560,000,000,000 in Medicare drug 
     spending was for advertised drugs, and in 2018 alone, the 20 
     most advertised drugs on television cost Medicare and 
     Medicaid a combined $34,000,000,000.
       (9) A 2021 Government Accountability Office report found 
     that direct-to-consumer advertising may have contributed to 
     increases in Medicare beneficiary use and spending among 
     certain drugs.
       (10) The American Medical Association has passed 
     resolutions supporting the requirement for price transparency 
     in any direct-to-consumer advertising, stating that such 
     advertisements on their own ``inflate demand for new and more 
     expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be 
     appropriate''.
       (11) A 2019 study published in the Journal of the American 
     Medical Association found that health care consumers 
     dramatically underestimate their out-of-pocket costs for 
     certain expensive medications, but once they learn the 
     wholesale acquisition cost (in this section referred to as 
     the ``WAC'') of the product, they are far better able to 
     approximate their out-of-pocket costs.
       (12) Approximately half of Americans have high-deductible 
     health plans, under which they often pay the list price of a 
     drug until their insurance deductible is met. All of the top 
     Medicare prescription drug plans use coinsurance rather than 
     fixed-dollar copayments for medications on nonpreferred drug 
     tiers, exposing beneficiaries to WAC prices.
       (13) Section 119 of division CC of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) requires the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services to increase the use of 
     real-time benefit tools to lower beneficiary costs. However, 
     there still remains a lack of available pricing tools so 
     patients may not learn of their medication's cost until after 
     being given a prescription for the medication. A 2013 study 
     published in The Oncologist found that one-quarter of all 
     cancer patients chose not to fill a prescription due to cost.
       (14) The Federal Government already exercises its authority 
     to oversee certain aspects of direct-to-consumer drug 
     advertising, including required disclosures of information 
     related to side effects, contraindications, and 
     effectiveness.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a lack of transparency in pricing for pharmaceuticals 
     has led to a lack of competition for such pharmaceuticals, as 
     evidenced by a finding by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services that ``Consumers of pharmaceuticals are currently 
     missing information that consumers of other products can more 
     readily access, namely the list price of the product, which 
     acts as a point of comparison when judging the reasonableness 
     of prices offered for potential substitute products'' (84 
     Fed. Reg. 20735);
       (2) in an age where price information is ubiquitous, the 
     prices of pharmaceuticals remain shrouded in secrecy and 
     limited to those who subscribe to expensive drug price 
     reporting services, which typically include pharmaceutical 
     manufacturers or other health care industry entities and not 
     the general public;
       (3) greater insight and transparency into drug prices will 
     help consumers know if they can afford to complete a course 
     of therapy before deciding to initiate that course of 
     therapy;
       (4) price shopping is the mark of rational economic 
     behavior, and markets operate more efficiently when consumers 
     have relevant information about a product, including

[[Page S4781]]

     its price, before making an informed decision about whether 
     to buy that product;
       (5) providing consumers with basic price information may 
     result in the selection of lesser cost alternatives, all else 
     being equal relative to the patient's care, and is integral 
     to providing adequate competition in the market;
       (6) the WAC is a factual, objective, and uncontroversial 
     definition for the list price of a medication, in that it is 
     defined in statute, reflects an understood place in the 
     supply chain, and is at the sole discretion of the 
     manufacturer to set;
       (7) there is a governmental interest in ensuring that 
     consumers who seek to purchase pharmaceuticals for purposes 
     of promoting their health and safety understand the objective 
     list price of any pharmaceutical that they are encouraged 
     through advertisements to purchase, which allows consumers to 
     make informed purchasing decisions; and
       (8) there is a governmental interest in mitigating wasteful 
     expenditures and promoting the efficient administration of 
     the Medicare program by slowing the growth of Federal 
     spending on prescription drugs.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT THAT DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISEMENTS 
                   FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS 
                   INCLUDE AN APPROPRIATE DISCLOSURE OF PRICING 
                   INFORMATION.

       Part A of title XI of the Social Security Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1150D. REQUIREMENT THAT DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER 
                   ADVERTISEMENTS FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND 
                   BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS INCLUDE AN APPROPRIATE 
                   DISCLOSURE OF PRICING INFORMATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall require that each 
     direct-to-consumer advertisement for a prescription drug or 
     biological product for which payment is available under title 
     XVIII or XIX includes an appropriate disclosure of pricing 
     information with respect to the drug or product.
       ``(b) Appropriate Disclosure of Pricing Information.--For 
     the purposes of subsection (a), an appropriate disclosure of 
     pricing information, with respect to a prescription drug or 
     biological product--
       ``(1) shall include a disclosure of the wholesale 
     acquisition cost (as defined in section 1847A(c)(6)(B)) for a 
     30-day supply of (or, if applicable, a typical course of 
     treatment for) such drug or product;
       ``(2) shall be presented clearly and conspicuously, as 
     appropriate for the medium of the advertisement; and
       ``(3) may include additional qualitative or quantitative 
     information regarding the price of such drug or product 
     explaining that certain patients may pay a different amount 
     depending on their insurance coverage.
       ``(c) Enforcement.--Any person who violates the requirement 
     of this section may be subject to a civil money penalty of 
     not more than $100,000 for each such violation or to another 
     enforcement mechanism determined by the Secretary. Any civil 
     money penalty shall be imposed and collected in the same 
     manner as civil money penalties under subsection (a) of 
     section 1128A are imposed and collected under that section.
       ``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services, shall promulgate regulations to carry out this 
     section. Such regulations shall determine the components of 
     the requirement under this section, including the forms of 
     advertising, the manner of disclosure, the appropriate 
     sanctions, and the appropriate disclosure of pricing 
     information.''.

                          ____________________