[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.''.
____________________