[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 116 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3303-S3304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Executive Calendar No. 968, Julianna Michelle Childs, of 
     South Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit.
         Richard J. Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Alex Padilla, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Gary C. Peters, Elizabeth Warren, 
           Mazie K. Hirono, Tammy Baldwin, Tina Smith, Mark R. 
           Warner, Edward J. Markey, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Martin 
           Heinrich, Jeanne Shaheen, Sherrod Brown, Margaret Wood 
           Hassan.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Julianna Michelle Childs, of South Carolina, to be United 
States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Blumenthal), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and 
the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Hagerty), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), and the Senator from 
Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 255 Ex.]

                                YEAS--58

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--33

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Blumenthal
     Cramer
     Hagerty
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Markey
     Portman
     Sasse
     Schumer
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). On this vote, the yeas are 
58, the nays are 33.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The senior Senator from Maryland.


                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a critical issue 
that continues to take a heavy toll on the health and financial well-
being of Americans: high prescription drug prices.
  This uniquely American problem has U.S. families paying the highest 
price compared to other countries, leading to millions of Americans 
having to leave their pharmacies with their prescription drugs left on 
the table. No one should have to go into debt to buy prescription drugs 
that they need to stay healthy, productive, and to have a healthy life.
  Twenty-nine percent of Americans either cannot afford their 
prescription drugs or are rationing them. And the United States stands 
alone in this among the developed nations of the world.
  The United States spends approximately $575 billion annually on 
prescription drugs, or about 14 percent of the total healthcare 
expenditures. In 2019, the United States spent, on average, $1,126 per 
capita on prescription medicines, twice as high as a comparable amount 
spent in the industrial world.
  Americans and Marylanders are struggling to pay their prescription 
drug medications, and it is long past time for Congress to remedy this 
problem. Prescription drugs have been lifesaving for millions, but if 
they are not affordable, then their benefit is moot. High prescription 
drug prices drive health inequalities that we are fighting to eradicate 
since groups in fair or poor health most struggle to afford their 
medications.
  For years, Congress has been working on commonsense solutions to 
increase access to affordable prescription medications, reducing costs 
for patients and taxpayers. It is now time to act.
  U.S. prescription drug prices are set through an opaque process by 
manufacturers, pharmaceutical benefit manufacturers, and payers. Prices 
are often disconnected from the health impacts of the products being 
purchased.
  Opponents of addressing the high drug costs claim that more 
affordable prices will come at the expense of innovation. I say, and 
the research agrees, this is a false choice. To ensure access through 
innovative treatments and prescriptions, the U.S. Government makes 
significant investments in biomedical research. The Presiding Officer 
knows that very well from his position on the Appropriations Committee. 
No greater example of this investment is the National Institutes of 
Health located in our home State of Maryland, which is the world's 
largest government funder of biomedical research. Almost all drugs rely 
on NIH-supported basic research, and the returns on these investments 
are very high.
  Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have found 
that every $125 million NIH grant leads to $375 million more in private 
market value, 33 more patents, and one new drug.
  Another study estimates that the rate of return on NIH investment is 
43 percent and that each dollar in NIH funding leads to an additional 
$8.40 in private research and development spending. So the government 
investments are well done--it leverages a lot more--but the government 
is the key player.
  Further, the Small Business Innovation Research and the Small 
Business Technology Transfer, SBIR/STTR programs, also support 
innovation. SBIR/STTR currently are the largest U.S. Federal Government 
programs supporting small businesses to conduct research and 
investment. SBIR began in 1982 and currently requires that each Federal 
Agency spending more than $100 million annually on external research 
set aside 3.2 percent of those funds for awards to small businesses. 
SBIR is very selective, with only about 22 percent of the applicants 
receiving funding. For many small firms, the SBIR ``serves as the first 
place many entrepreneurs involved in technological innovation''--where 
they get their funding.
  Through the SBIR/STTR programs, NIH supports drug innovation by 
setting aside more than 3.2 percent of its overall Intramural Research 
and Development budget specifically to support early stage small 
businesses through the Nation. Many companies leverage this NIH funding 
to attract the partners and investors needed to take an innovation to 
the market.
  For example, Amgen, which was founded in 1980, received SBIR 
investment in 1986. Today, it is a multinational biopharmaceutical 
company with over 20,000 employees. Despite these significant taxpayer 
investments, prescription drugs are often priced at levels that limit 
access to lifesaving drugs, particularly among those who are 
underinsured or uninsured. Even after accounting for the costs and 
risks

[[Page S3304]]

of research and development, evidence shows the returns to new products 
exceed normal rates of return.
  Drug companies continue to raise prices on consumers without 
justification, and we must crack down on price gouging and enforce 
transparency and drug pricing. That is why I strongly support the 
policies the Senate Finance Committee recently released, which comprise 
of comprehensive reform to lower prescription drug prices for 
Americans.
  One policy included in this package that I have long supported is 
empowering Medicare to begin negotiating directly for the price of 
prescription drugs. This is just common sense. This is what businesses 
do. This is a free market. We negotiate.

  In the private sector, no plan sponsor or manager would ever accept 
responsibility without the ability to decide how to negotiate. No 
private sector company would parcel themselves out in order to 
negotiate; they would use their full size as a market force. We don't 
do that in Medicare. Medicare negotiations will ensure that patients 
with Medicare get the best deal possible on high-priced drugs.
  Another policy I support in prescription drug affordability is 
capping Medicare patients' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2,000 
per year. Today, there is no cap on spending for prescription drugs for 
seniors on Medicare. This policy will prevent Medicare beneficiaries 
from paying tens of thousands of dollars to purchase lifesaving drugs 
prescribed by their doctors.
  The policies I have just outlined, along with additional reforms--and 
there are several others that are included in this package, including a 
required rebate if a drug manufacturer increases their price beyond the 
cost of inflation. There are other issues here to protect the solvency 
long term of prescription drug benefits and Medicare beneficiaries. 
This will make prescription drugs affordable for individuals and 
families who desperately need it.
  I urge all my colleagues to come together to address this urgent 
issue. We have done the work. Now it is time to vote, getting these 
savings back into our constituents' pockets.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________