[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1478-1482]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. Murray, Ms. 
        Warren, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Coons, Mr. 
        Franken, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. 
        Gillibrand, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Brown, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, 
        Mr. Murphy, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Casey, Mr. Schatz, and Mr. 
        Blumenthal):
  S. 302. A bill to establish in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 
and Labor of the Department of State a Special Envoy for the Human 
Rights of LGBT Peoples; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, throughout my career, I have been proud to 
stand up for equality for all Americans regardless of their sexual 
orientation or gender identity. While I have seen much progress with 
respect for the rights of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, 
LGBT, community within the United States, the struggle for equality and 
justice abroad remains significant. Many countries have laws that 
criminalize homosexuality, prohibit public support of the LGBT 
community and persecute those who identify as LGBT. To adequately 
address the challenges posed by these discriminatory laws, the United 
States must make LGBT rights a priority in all of our foreign policy 
and there needs to be dedicated position responsible for coordinating 
that effort. That is why, today, I am introducing the International 
Human Rights Defense Act of 2015, which directs the Department of State 
to make international LGBT human rights a foreign policy priority and 
would establish a Special Envoy position in the Bureau of Democracy, 
Human Rights, and Labor responsible for coordinating that effort.
  Over the past few years, conditions have deteriorated for LGBT 
individuals in many regions of the world. Russia enacted a ban on 
arbitrarily-defined ``homosexual propaganda,'' endangering the position 
of many LGBT individuals and their allies. Russia's law has been the 
basis for similar legislation threatened or introduced in countries 
across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, including Lithuania, 
Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus. In December 2013, India's Supreme Court 
reversed a lower court ruling and reinstated the criminalization of 
homosexuality in the second most populous nation on earth. Nigeria, 
Uganda, and Gambia have all passed laws that make homosexuality a crime 
punishable with life imprisonment. While Uganda's law was overturned by 
its Constitutional Court, leaders have pledged to pursue similar 
legislation. Conditions for transgender individuals are particularly 
troubling in Brazil, where 113 transgender individuals were murdered in 
a 1-year period.
  In light of these alarming developments, I am introducing the 
International Human Rights Defense Act of 2015. It is critical that the 
United States fight for LGBT equality both at home and abroad. The 
Obama Administration has taken great steps in affirming and 
strengthening the United States' commitment to LGBT equality as a 
critical component of our international human rights objectives. 
However, our government does not yet have a comprehensive strategy for 
addressing LGBT discrimination overseas and we lack a central 
individual office responsible for inter-bureau and inter-agency 
coordination to achieve these objectives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Heller, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Moran, and Mr. 
        Blumenthal):
  S. 304. A bill to improve motor vehicle safety by encouraging the 
sharing of certain information; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last year we saw an all-time record number 
of motor vehicle recalls, including those by General Motors, Toyota, 
Honda, and others.
  The commerce committee held five vehicle safety hearings, examining 
GM ignition switches, Takata airbags, and the related question of 
whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, 
is up to the task of providing effective oversight of the auto 
industry.
  What is absolutely clear, from our hearings and other media coverage, 
is that we need to ensure potential vehicle safety defects are 
identified as early as possible so we can protect consumers and 
hopefully prevent deaths and injuries. That is why earlier today 
Senator Nelson and I introduced the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower 
Act.
  I am pleased to note that Senators Heller, McCaskill, Klobuchar, 
Ayotte, Moran, and Blumenthal have cosponsored this important 
legislation. Senators Moran and Blumenthal being added as original 
cosponsors of this legislation is important because of their respective 
responsibilities as the chairman and ranking member of our subcommittee 
on consumer protection, which has played a large role over the years on 
various automobile safety efforts.
  This afternoon I am pleased that Senator Nelson has joined me on the 
floor as a lead sponsor to discuss this important piece of legislation 
and our ongoing work on vehicle issues. As the chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, one thing that has remained constant on our committee 
is the spirit of bipartisanship.
  With regard to S. 304, the Motor Vehicle Whistleblower Act, this 
legislation will incentivize auto employees who uncover serious 
allegations of vehicle defects or violations of motor vehicle safety 
laws that could lead to death or serious bodily injury to voluntarily 
provide that information to the Department of Transportation.
  If such information leads to the Department of Transportation or the 
Department of Justice enforcement action that totals more than $1 
million in penalties, the whistleblower would be eligible to share in a 
portion of the total penalties collected. This bill will protect the 
whistleblowers' identities and allow DOT to share information with the 
Department of Justice and other Federal agencies where appropriate.
  Other agencies have similar programs, including programs that 
incentivize individuals to report information to the Securities and 
Exchange Commission and to the Internal Revenue Service. NHTSA plays a 
key role in ensuring the safety of vehicles that consumers drive on our 
roadways. Record fines have been levied against Toyota, General Motors, 
Honda, and other manufacturers.
  In 2014, NHTSA issued more than $126 million in civil penalties, a 
record amount, exceeding the total amount collected by the agency in 
all of its 43-year history.
  Ensuring the safety of American motorists is a priority, but the 
public's trust has been shaken due to the record number of recalls this 
past year. Almost 64 million vehicles were recalled in 2014, which is 
about 3 times the number of vehicles recalled in 2013--and the concerns 
many have about problems in the industry and at NHTSA.
  After my repeated calls on the President to fill what had been a 
lengthy vacancy regarding the Administrator position at NHTSA, which 
operated without a Senate-confirmed Administrator for 389 days, I am 
glad to say the commerce committee did its job to ensure that Dr. Mark 
Rosekind was confirmed as Administrator before the end of last year. 
However, there is much more work that needs to be done.
  The defects associated with the GM ignition switch recall and the 
Takata airbag recalls were apparent failures with serious safety 
consequences that

[[Page 1479]]

resulted in death and serious injury. As we learned from the GM 
incident, delays in reporting safety-related defects to the government 
can cost lives.
  In recent years, Congress has enacted, and NHTSA sought to implement, 
a robust early-reporting regime. I believe we can do more to ensure 
that NHTSA is informed of potential defects as early as possible. Some 
of the major automakers and other manufacturers have also instituted or 
sought to improve internal safety reporting systems that encourage 
employees to report safety problems.
  I applaud these efforts, but reports of employees whose concerns may 
have been ignored, silenced, or possibly even covered up persist. If 
there are potential whistleblowers with important information to help 
NHTSA identify more defects that are not being addressed, we want them 
to come forward so these problems can be identified much earlier in the 
process.
  I think we would all agree it is better to address a problem before 
injuries or deaths occur, if at all possible, rather than relying 
primarily on fines imposed after the fact. This is a commonsense, 
bipartisan bill that will help to prevent injuries and deaths for 
American drivers.
  NHTSA and other stakeholders have provided input on this legislation. 
I look forward to working with these groups and my colleagues, and 
particularly with Senator Nelson, as we move forward with the committee 
to process and pass this legislation.
  I yield the floor to Senator Nelson for his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, in light of the late hour, just before our 
votes, I will submit for the Record a statement which correlates with 
the chairman of our committee, and I thank the Senator for so much of 
his cooperation over last year and all the investigations and the 
hearings that we did, as well as now.
  What I will say that is new is I will provide an update on the status 
of the committee's investigation into the defective Takata airbags. 
When we had the hearing last November which I had the privilege of 
chairing, we received testimony from several witnesses, including a 
senior executive from the Takata Corporation, which manufactures the 
airbags involved in the rupture and the explosive incidents that 
basically have lacerated people with pieces of metal. The airbag that 
is supposed to save their lives, in fact, is endangering their lives, 
and in some cases killing them. This has happened to two of my 
constituents in Florida.
  While the hearing produced some basic information about the problem, 
many questions still remain.
  Senator Rockefeller, then the chairman of the committee, other 
Senators, and I sent a letter to Takata requesting information and 
documents related to Takata's airbag defects. In their initial response 
provided to the committee in early December, Takata included a list of 
all the incidents it was aware of that had allegedly involved a death 
or injury caused by a ruptured Takata airbag.
  Takata's response reveals that the scope of injuries involved in the 
Takata airbags appears to be greater than we previously thought. In its 
initial response, Takata identified 5 deaths and 64 injuries. Although 
some of these incidents may be ultimately tied to other causes, this 
potential injury figure is far bigger than what had been reported in 
the press. Unfortunately, 1 death and 17 of these injuries occurred in 
my State of Florida--more than any other State. Among the alleged 
injuries in my State, many were serious, including lacerations and 
fractures to the face, burns to the neck, face, and torso, and 
traumatic brain injury and hearing loss.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. NELSON. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to 
conclude my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON. Sadly, I have even more bad news to report today. Through 
public information, we have learned that an exploding Takata airbag 
appears to be responsible for yet another death. Less than 2 weeks ago, 
a Texas man who was driving with his 11-year-old cousin was involved in 
a low-impact crash. When the airbag deployed, instead of protecting 
him, the airbag ruptured and sent a metal piece of shrapnel into the 
man's neck. When the police arrived, he was already dead.
  We are awaiting more information from Takata and we are determined to 
get to the bottom of this.
  I look forward to working with the chairman on this issue. We plan to 
continue the investigation until all of our questions have been 
answered. We are going to do everything possible to get to the bottom 
of this issue so that consumers are made whole.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 312. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 regarding school libraries, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues Senators 
Cochran and Whitehouse in introducing the Strengthening Kids' Interest 
in Learning and Libraries, SKILLS, Act.
  Fifty years ago, when President Johnson urged Congress to enact what 
would become the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, he 
specifically called for an investment in school libraries, decrying 
that school libraries were ``limping along.'' Results from a recent 
National Center for Education Statistics survey show that there are 
still gaps in access to school libraries. Approximately 8,800 schools 
did not report having a library media center, and only about \2/3\ of 
the traditional public schools that did have libraries reported having 
a full-time, certified librarian. One in five traditional public 
schools reported having no paid, State certified library staff at all.
  Effective school library programs are essential supports for 
educational success. Multiple education and library studies have 
produced clear evidence that school libraries staffed by qualified 
librarians have a positive impact on student academic achievement. 
Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for 
college, careers, and life in general. A good school library, staffed 
by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these 
skills.
  Our bipartisan legislation would reauthorize and strengthen the 
Improving Literacy through School Libraries program of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, the only federal initiative explicitly 
dedicated to supporting and enhancing our nation's school libraries. 
The key improvements to the program include ensuring that elementary, 
middle, and high school students are served; expanding professional 
development to include digital literacy instruction and reading and 
writing instruction across all grade levels; focusing on coordination 
and shared planning time between teachers and librarians; and ensuring 
that books and materials are appropriate for and gain the interest of 
students with special learning needs, including English learners.
  The SKILLS Act would also strengthen Title I by requiring State and 
school district plans to address the development of effective school 
library programs to help students gain digital literacy skills, master 
the knowledge and skills in the challenging academic content standards 
adopted by the State, and graduate from high school ready for college 
and careers. Additionally, the legislation would broaden the focus of 
training, professional development, and recruitment activities under 
Title II to include school librarians.
  Absent a clear Federal investment, the libraries in many of our high 
poverty schools will languish with outdated materials and technology or 
cease to exist at all, and in turn, students will be cut off from a 
vital information hub that connects them to the tools they need to 
develop critical thinking and research skills necessary for success. 
This is a true equity issue, which is why I will continue to fight to 
sustain our Federal investment in this

[[Page 1480]]

area and why renewing and strengthening the school library program is 
of critical importance.
  I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the bipartisan 
Strengthening Kids' Interest in Learning and Libraries Act, and to work 
together to ensure that it becomes a part of the upcoming 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Cardin):
  S. 318. A bill to prioritize funding for the National Institutes of 
Health to discover treatments and cures, to maintain global leadership 
in medical innovation, and to restore the purchasing power the NIH had 
after the historic doubling campaign that ended in fiscal year 2003; to 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Accelerating 
Biomedical Research Act.
  The bill allows more funding for the National Institutes of Health by 
allowing NIH funding to grow even while we continue to live under 
austere funding caps.
  NIH funding has been a bipartisan effort working with Democrats--
Senators Kennedy and Harkin, as well as Republicans--Senators Hatfield 
and Specter. We successfully fought to double NIH's budget from $13.6 
billion in 1998 to over $30 billion today. We supported it to speed the 
transition of discoveries from science to treatment and maintain 
America's global competitiveness.
  But the NIH budget hasn't kept up with inflation. Its budget has been 
growing, but slowly. That means the NIH budget buys 20 percent less 
than what it did when the doubling was completed in 2003. Which means 
we are missing out. Missing out on potential treatments, potential 
breakthroughs, potential cures. We have no shortage of ideas. 
Scientists have ideas but they cannot test them without funding. What 
is the solution?
  We need to redouble our commitment to medical research. This bill 
creates a 6-year plan to put NIH back on stable ground. It is steady 
growth, it is predictable, and it is fiscally sound.
  The bill allows for new spending for NIH that does not count against 
the strict budget caps. So we can put more money into cures without 
taking it away from other compelling human needs funded within the 
Labor-HHS Appropriations bill.
  Why NIH? Why should we have new spending for NIH when other spending 
is stagnant or being cut? Personally, I would lift the sequester caps. 
I think they are doing real harm, but I recognize we do not all agree 
on that. I think we do all agree that NIH research is worth increasing 
because it both helps the economy and saves lives.
  First, let me talk about how NIH helps the economy. The NIH is a 
world-class institution. I call it the National Institutes of Hope, 
serving as the foundation for U.S. medical innovation which employs 1 
million U.S. citizens, including 19,000 at NIH and 14,000 NIH employees 
who live in Maryland. NIH generates $84 billion in wages and salaries, 
exports $90 billion in goods and services. Every dollar we invest in 
NIH generates $2-$3 in economic activity. Every patent NIH generates 
provides the foundation for 8 private sector patents. In 2013, products 
built on licensed NIH and FDA inventions reported a total of $7 billion 
in sales. Investing in NIH is good for our economy
  But I do not call NIH the National Institutes of Hope because of its 
economic impact. NIH gives hope because of its human impact. Just look 
at what we have done with Federal investments in NIH, cutting the 
cancer death rate by 11 percent in women and 19 percent in men. HIV/
AIDS is no longer a death sentence. Polio and small pox are essentially 
eradicated in this country.
  These medical breakthroughs did not just happen. They occurred 
because our government supported the NIH. And because the NIH supported 
dedicated scientists seeking knowledge and medical breakthroughs.
  And now, that support is being eroded.
  I have heard the American people say, they want Congress to be 
frugal. But I haven't heard anyone say: ``Let's delay finding a way to 
prevent Alzheimer's'' or ``Let's encourage our young scientists to work 
abroad'' or ``Let's put a hold on finding a cure for cancer'' or 
``Let's discourage our universities from researching treatments for 
rare pediatric tumors''.
  I am for being frugal but we must not jeopardize or hamper America as 
the gold standard, as the worldwide leader in medical research and 
innovation.
  I am for being frugal but not at the expense of the next generation 
of scientists and the health of American families.
  Discovery is the genius of our country. When President Jefferson 
commissioned Lewis and Clark to find water route to the Pacific, the 
mission was called discovery. Discovery is part of our Nation's DNA. It 
is what makes this Nation great.
  To have innovation we must have discovery. This requires: Investing 
in our human capital, educating our people, and funding their research. 
That is why I support funding for NIH. And that is why I am introducing 
the Accelerating Biomedical Research Act today.
  I hope my colleagues will agree and support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Sullivan):
  S. 319. A bill to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as 
Mount Denali; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation 
which has been proposed in the past by the Alaska Congressional 
Delegation to officially restore the traditional name of the nation's 
highest peak, currently Mount McKinley, to its traditional
Interior Alaska Athabascan name, `Denali.' I am joined in sponsoring 
this bill by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Dan Sullivan.
  Since passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
in 1980 the Alaska Delegation has been trying to change the name of the 
tallest mountain in North America back to its Alaska name. In 1980 
Congress did change the name of the national park and preserve where 
the mountain is located to Denali National Park and Preserve, from its 
earlier name of Mt. McKinley National Park. But unfortunately the name 
of the peak itself continues to refer to a President who never set foot 
in Alaska.
  While I have great respect for President William McKinley and great 
respect for the wonderful State of Ohio where he was born, the peak at 
20,230 feet has always been called by Alaska's first Athabascan 
residents as Denali, meaning ``the high one.'' It is simply fitting in 
this day and age of greater awareness of Native history that the 
mountain return to a name that honors its Native ancestry.
  Already there are a number of towns and institutions named in honor 
of the 25th President. He has a monument for him at his birthplace in 
Niles, OH, and another on McKinley Monument Drive where the McKinley 
National Monument is located, not far from the Pro Football Hall of 
Fame in Canton, OH. There is McKinley Heights in Ohio. There are more 
than 20 schools in Ohio named for him. There is a county in New Mexico 
named after him. There are literally hundreds of streets, libraries and 
other institutions and businesses named for him nationwide. There is no 
danger than Americans will not remember and honor the assassinated 
President.
  But no official in the territory of Alaska actually named the 
nation's tallest mountain after the former President. That was done by 
a prospector William Dickey, who took it upon himself to name the peak 
in 1896. The Alaska State Place Names Board in 1975 took official state 
action to rename the peak, restoring its traditional name of Denali. I 
clearly believe that there is every reason for this Congress to follow 
Alaskans' desires and the desires of Native Americans and restore the 
name to the English translation of what it has been called for 
millennia, on Federal maps and documents.
  I hope that this Congress will finally agree to this name change.

[[Page 1481]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Brown, and Ms. 
        Baldwin):
  S. 320. A bill to authorize the collection of supplemental payments 
to increase congressional investments in medical research, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to announce the 
introduction of the Medical Innovation Act, which is a commonsense 
proposal that could dramatically increase our Nation's investment in 
lifesaving medical research.
  During much of the 20th century, America made significant investments 
in this area through the National Institutes of Health, and it has been 
a remarkable success. We have transformed medicine across America and 
around the world. NIH support helps train each new generation of 
scientists and develop each new generation of medicine. NIH-supported 
discoveries often get picked up by small, creative, nimble 
biotechnology companies, which in turn get picked up by large 
pharmaceutical companies, which in turn sometimes result in wildly 
successful blockbuster drugs. Each of these blockbuster drugs brings in 
more than $1 billion a year for the drug companies, and each one 
transforms lives.
  Nearly everyone in Congress supports increased funding for NIH, but 
for 10 years the NIH budget hasn't even kept up with the pace of 
inflation. Why? Because nobody wants to step up and find a way to pay 
for it.
  It is time to break the stalemate. The Medical Innovation Act would 
increase NIH funding without raising taxes and without stealing support 
from other critical programs. Instead, support would come from 
blockbuster drug companies--only those that relied on government-
supported research to generate billions in sales and only those that 
break the law and enter into major settlement agreements with the 
government. In such cases, the government settlements would go forward 
as they normally do, but the offending company would also be required 
to reinvest a relatively small portion of the profits it has generated 
as a result of taxpayer-supported research and put that money right 
back into the NIH.
  We celebrate the accomplishments of our pharmaceutical industry--
especially the industry's billion-dollar blockbuster drugs. These drugs 
have literally transformed the treatment of high cholesterol, diabetes, 
HIV, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer, colon cancer, and 
leukemia. They help Americans live longer, healthier lives. But we also 
know that blockbuster drugs don't just appear overnight as if by magic. 
Rarely do they result from a single giant company's individual genius.
  I agree with Republican Senators Alexander and Burr, who say in a 
report released just this morning:

       [I]n many cases, the research leading to the discovery and 
     development of these products has been advanced, funded, or 
     enabled in some way by NIH.

  Drug companies make great contributions, but so do taxpayers.
  The big drug companies are making billions as a result of these 
investments, but over the last 10 years a few of our wealthiest drug 
companies have been caught making money a second way--by skirting the 
law. These companies are not getting swept up in minor paperwork 
mistakes. They are not victims of overly eager regulators. They have 
been caught defrauding Medicare and Medicaid, withholding critical 
safety information about their drugs, marketing their drugs for uses 
that aren't approved, and giving doctors kickbacks for writing 
prescriptions for their drugs.
  Between 2007 and 2012 the world's largest pharmaceutical companies 
paid over $13 billion in fines and settlements. Despite those numbers, 
it is clear that for the biggest drug companies this is simply a cost 
of doing business. In fact, several of the biggest drug companies have 
been caught breaking the law, have paid a fine, and then have broken 
the law again. And why not? Even the biggest pharmaceutical settlement 
ever--a $3 billion penalty for withholding life-threatening safety data 
and engaging in illegal marketing practices--accounted for less than 10 
percent of what the company made selling those drugs. In fact, the day 
the settlement was announced, that company's stock price actually went 
up.
  It doesn't have to be this way. The Medical Innovation Act would 
serve double duty--requiring more accountability from the biggest drug 
companies while giving medical research the support it deserves.
  This isn't a tax; it is simply a condition of settling to avoid a 
trial in a major case of wrongdoing. If a company never breaks the law, 
it will never pay. If an accused company goes to trial instead of 
settling out of court, it will never pay. It is more like a swear jar. 
Whenever a huge drug company that is generating enormous profits as a 
result of Federal research investments breaks the law, it has to put 
some money in the jar to help fund the next generation of medical 
research.
  Since we announced this proposal, we have seen an outpouring of 
support from hospitals, doctors, patient groups, and research 
universities. All of them want to break the stalemate on NIH funding 
and get back to the business of saving lives.
  We have also heard some grumbling from the army of lobbyists that 
works for some of the biggest drug companies--companies that would 
prefer not to pay a bigger penalty when they break the law. If they 
have better ideas for ending this congressional stalemate and getting 
more money into NIH, I am eager to hear them.
  These lobbyists have also claimed that there is ``no logical basis'' 
for asking these companies to pay up when they break the law. Well, I 
disagree. If a company that is making literally billions of dollars as 
a result of taxpayers' NIH investments turns around and engages in 
allegedly illegal conduct and wants to settle to make the case go away, 
that seems like a pretty logical basis for asking them to invest a 
little in the next generation of medical breakthroughs.
  Lobbyists have also written that the Medical Innovation Act might 
create ``unnecessary litigation.'' Well, it is illegal to defraud 
Medicare. It is illegal to pay kickbacks to doctors. It is illegal to 
hide safety data from the FDA or manufacture drugs in dirty, 
contaminated facilities. Our biggest and most successful drug companies 
make billions of dollars by inventing treatments and improving the 
public's health, and when they do, we applaud them for it. But if they 
want to avoid unnecessary litigation, then they should follow the law. 
If they don't want to put a dollar in the swear jar, then stop 
swearing.
  I don't kid myself. I know how difficult it is to get things done in 
Washington, and I understand that a handful of powerful actors with 
money and power likes things just the way they are and will fight any 
effort to change. But even if a few of the biggest drug companies don't 
like it, I am hopeful that we can build support for this idea because 
the Medical Innovation Act is a major move toward substantially 
increasing Federal support for medical research in a way that doesn't 
raise taxes and doesn't cut other critical programs.
  If this policy had been in place over the past 5 years, NIH would 
have had nearly $6 billion more every year to fund thousands of new 
grants to scientists and universities and research centers around the 
country. That is almost a 20-percent increase in NIH funding.
  It has been 10 years of stagnant Federal investments followed by 
sequester cuts, 10 years of rejecting potentially life-changing 
research proposals at NIH, 10 years of telling young researchers that 
their innovative ideas have almost no chance of getting off the ground. 
We are running out of time.
  Today we are choking off support for projects that could lead to the 
next major breakthrough against cancer, heart disease, Ebola, 
Alzheimer's, diabetes, or other deadly conditions. We are starving 
projects that would transform the lives of our children on the autism 
spectrum. We are suffocating breakthrough ideas that would give new 
hope to those with ALS.

[[Page 1482]]

  That is not who we are. We are not a nation that abandons the sick. 
And we are not a nation that says, ``I've got mine, the rest of you are 
on your own.'' We are a nation of people who work together. We are a 
nation of people who invest in each other. We have done it for 
generations--and for generations we have led the world in medical 
innovation.
  It is time to renew that commitment--our commitment to our children, 
our commitment to our parents, our commitment to ourselves, by making 
it a little easier for the biggest drug companies to help develop the 
next generation of cures and making it a little harder for them to 
profit from breaking the law and defrauding taxpayers. It is time to 
pass the Medical Innovation Act.

                          ____________________