[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.
____________________