July 30, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 129 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5153-S5159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael 
T. Liburdi, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                               Venezuela

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank the leader, Senator 
Schumer from New York, for his introduction of the remarks I am about 
to make. But before I do, let me preface it by saying that I couldn't 
agree with him more. When you take a look at this empty Senate Chamber 
and realize we are in session this week with the possibility of 
bringing important legislation to the floor, you have to ask the 
obvious question: Where is everybody? Why aren't we acting like a 
Senate? Why are we meeting and having speeches instead of debate on 
important legislation? What could be more important than the security 
of an election?

  We have a lot of young people across America. We say to them: 
Register to vote. Your vote makes a difference. You get to choose the 
leaders for this country's future. Be sure and vote.
  But we have to be honest with you. Your vote is under attack--first, 
by apathy--people don't register and they don't vote--and second, by 
outside foreign influence and forces.
  We know what happened 4 years ago in the Presidential election. The 
Russians tried to invade the U.S. electoral process and change it. I 
know it firsthand because it happened first in the State of Illinois. 
Turns out someone put together a computer program that had a little 
opening in it, a little hole, and that is all they needed. Sitting in 
Moscow, these folks in front of computers were searching day in and day 
out for ways to get into the voters' list in Illinois, and they were 
successful. They were successful in invading the voting list, the 
official records of our State on the people who were eligible to vote. 
They could have done some mischievous things. They could have disrupted 
our election. Thank goodness they didn't, but it would have been as 
simple as going through and just changing the addresses, one digit in 
the address of every registered voter, so when that voter came to vote, 
the ID card or information given to the judge at the election place 
wouldn't match up in terms of their address with the official record. 
That meant they would have voted with a provisional ballot, and those 
ballots would have stacked up with the thousands of people who could 
have been victimized by the Russians in my State of Illinois.
  We said very publicly--we were the first State to say publicly: The 
Russians have done this to us.
  We didn't see any changes in the voter file. We knew they had the 
capacity and ability to do it, but they didn't. We have known ever 
since that they have been attacking our electoral process.
  Why didn't we hear about it as much in the most recent election in 
2018? Well, specifically because we were in the circumstance where we 
were fighting it. Our intelligence agencies were fighting it.
  So this is a valid issue, an important issue, and it is one that I 
hope Leader

[[Page S5154]]

Schumer made clear to those listening to this debate. Why won't Senator 
Mitch McConnell bring to the floor of the U.S. Senate election security 
legislation--bipartisan legislation--that will, in the course of 
passing it, make us safer when it comes to our electoral process? What 
is this kind of bromance between the President and Vladimir Putin? I 
don't understand.
  But now there appears to be another party on the scene. Senator 
McConnell is joining in this effort: Keep our hands off of Russia. 
Don't confront Russia. I don't understand why the Senator from Kentucky 
is taking that position. He should be pushing forward on a bipartisan 
basis to protect our election security.
  Madam President, now I see my friend and Republican colleague from 
Utah is here, and I know the purpose of his attendance. I am about to 
make a statement about TPS status for Venezuelans in the United States. 
I will preface it briefly, make my request, and allow the Senator from 
Utah, if he doesn't want to stay here, to respond, and I will continue.
  Last year, I went to Venezuela. It was my first time. I met with 
President Nicolas Maduro, and I said to him: If you have the election 
you plan to have, it will not be credible, and around the world, you 
will find the United States and many other nations will reject the 
outcome. You have to open up the process. Stop putting your political 
opponents in jail. Have a real election, a free election. Venezuela 
needs it, not just from a constitutional viewpoint, but your economy is 
in shambles, and if you want the world to join you in rebuilding the 
Venezuelan economy, you have to be the credible leader and you can't be 
if you go through with this election as planned.
  That was my speech. It didn't work. He had the election as he planned 
it. He made sure that his opponents were under house arrest or in jail. 
He fixed the vote and ended up declaring himself the winner, and no one 
accepted it. So across the world, you find this resistance to his 
leadership.
  There are some 70,000 people from Venezuela in the United States. 
They are here on visitor visas, work visas, student visas, and similar 
capacities. They are now being asked to return to Venezuela. But listen 
to the circumstances: In Venezuela--we know that it is not safe for 
Americans to visit. Senator Menendez has spoken on this issue. He is 
joining me in this effort today. We are warning Americans that it is 
unsafe to visit Venezuela, but we are telling the Venezuelans who are 
in the United States that they have to go back.
  What we are asking for is temporary protected status for these 
Venezuelans to be able to stay in the United States during the pendency 
of this contest that is going on about the future of that nation.
  People are literally starving to death in Venezuela. They have no 
medicine. It is in the worst possible situation. How can we in good 
conscience say to these Venezuelans who are in the United States that 
they have to return?
  So the purpose of my effort today on the floor is to say that we 
should discharge from the Judiciary Committee legislation that allows 
these Venezuelans to stay here while we have declared it so dangerous 
in their home country. It is a rational and thoughtful thing to do, 
although, sadly, the Trump administration has sent me a letter saying 
they don't approve of it.
  It is time for Congress to act. It is time for the Senate to act. I 
am going to make my formal motion at this point because Senator Lee has 
come to the floor.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 549

  Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 549 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; further, that the bill be read a third time and passed 
and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I reserve the right to object after raising 
a couple of observations.
  It is important to know that this bill was passed by the House of 
Representatives Thursday night. We just received the paperwork from the 
House of Representatives yesterday. This is a bill that did not pass 
unanimously in the House of Representatives--far from it. There were at 
least 158 Republicans who voted against it.
  There are a number of my colleagues in the Senate who, like me, would 
like to see this and many other bills considered but would also like 
the opportunity to adequately review the legislation as passed and to 
propose amendments and have those amendments voted on. So passing this 
bill right now without that opportunity to review it, to propose 
amendments and have those considered, and just passing this unanimously 
is not the way we ought to be passing this legislation.
  I am happy to work with my distinguished colleague and my revered 
friend from Illinois in moving in that direction, but we are not ready 
to pass this by unanimous consent right now. We have amendments to 
propose. So on that basis, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague from Utah. 
I am sorry he objected to my request.
  Why are we moving so quickly on this? Because it is a matter of life 
and death, that is why. Why did we decide that this is of such an 
emergency nature that the House has moved on this already? Because, 
literally, people who are forced to return to Venezuela may face death. 
That is why we are moving on this as quickly as we are.
  I want to thank the House of Representatives for passing this 
measure. It is time for the Senate to act, and we certainly have the 
time on the floor to achieve that.
  As I mentioned, if you go to Venezuela, as I did last year, you can 
see literally on the streets the impact of this disintegration of their 
economy and the problems they are facing.
  I visited Children's Hospital in Caracas, and it was heartbreaking 
for the medical staff to sit down at the table and tell me they didn't 
have the basic medicines we find in our medicine chests at home or in 
the clinics of America when it came to treating these children. They 
did not have antibiotics. They didn't have cancer drugs.
  The economy in Venezuela is disintegrating before our eyes, and these 
people--Venezuelans in the United States, students and others--are 
saying they would like to remain in the United States and stay here 
until it is more stable in their country. Historically, there were no 
questions asked, and we did that. We have done it over and over again. 
But under this administration, whenever the word ``immigrant'' comes 
into the conversation, they freeze.
  The same Trump administration has told us that the Maduro regime is 
unacceptable and that we have to get rid of it because of the terrible 
things that are happening, that the people of Venezuela should have a 
free election to decide their leader. This same administration will not 
help the Venezuelans who say they are fearful of heading home to a 
country that is so dangerous.
  Let me read what this administration, which refuses to give temporary 
protected status, says to people from the United States who may want to 
visit Venezuela. To me, it tells the whole story. Here is what the 
Trump State Department says about Venezuela today in the following 
travel advisory to American citizens:

       Do not travel to Venezuela due to crime, civil unrest, poor 
     health infrastructure, and arbitrary arrest and detention of 
     U.S. citizens. . . . Violent crime, such as homicide, armed 
     robbery, kidnapping, and carjacking, is common. . . . There 
     are shortages of food, electricity, water, medicine, and 
     medical supplies throughout much of Venezuela.

  Those are the words of the Trump administration about this country of 
Venezuela, and when I ask that those who are Venezuelan who are in our 
country not be forced to return to those conditions, there is an 
objection not only from my friend the Republican Senator from Utah but 
also from the Trump administration.
  Now, make no mistake, if temporary protected status is granted, that 
does not mean we won't ask any questions of the Venezuelans here. They 
will have to go through a criminal background check. If they are a 
dangerous person, they are gone, period. No questions. They are gone. 
And that is the

[[Page S5155]]

way it should be. But for those, for example, in my State who are 
university students, who have their student visas coming to an end--
they are asking me: Senator Durbin, will you allow me to stay in the 
United States until it is safe in my country?
  Is that an unreasonable request? If it were Americans in similar 
plights in places around the world, wouldn't we say: Give them a break. 
Give them a chance to stay in a safe place.
  I will close. I want to defer to my friend from New Jersey, Senator 
Menendez, on this issue.
  When I went to Venezuela last year, in Caracas, I had a meeting. It 
was a dinner meeting, and it was an unusual one because it was with six 
members of the General Assembly who are opponents of President Maduro, 
who is currently their leader in that country. These opposition leaders 
opposed him, and their lives were at stake because of it.
  We had dinner in a restaurant. It was an unusual dinner. It was 
upstairs in a back room, and the door was closed so that no one could 
see us. There were six of them, and they said to me: If you come back 
next year, Senator, two of us will have been deported, two of us will 
be in prison; and two of us will have disappeared.
  That is what happens to the opposition in Venezuela if you happen to 
oppose President Maduro. It is that dangerous.
  One of those six was a man named Juan Guaido. I met him that night 
for the first time. Little did I know that he would step up several 
months ago and put his life and his family's lives on the line to say: 
I think Venezuela needs new leadership. Exceptional courage on his 
part. I met him then. I have met his wife since. They are literally 
risking their lives for their country. They understand how dangerous it 
is.
  All I asked for today on the floor is for those Venezuelans who wish 
to stay here in safety until this political scenario plays out, that 
they be allowed to stay here. That is all I was asking for--temporary 
protected status. I am sorry that Senator Lee objected. He did note, 
though, that in some period of time--I hope very soon--he will 
reconsider that position and give us a chance to provide safety for the 
Venezuelans who are visiting here in the United States.
  Because he is here and has been such a great ally of mine in this 
effort, I would like to yield the floor to my friend from New Jersey, 
Senator Menendez.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, let me thank my colleague from 
Illinois, who has been a clarion voice in this regard, a strong 
proponent of human rights and democracy in Venezuela and in other parts 
of the world, but in this case, in Venezuela; who has traveled there at 
a time when people could not travel--certainly from the Congress--in an 
effort to see if there was a pathway forward and to see the plight of 
the Venezuelan people. I really appreciate his cosponsorship with me on 
this temporary protected status for Venezuelans. His leadership is 
critically important, not only as the Democratic whip but also as a 
senior member of the Judiciary Committee that I hope can take up this 
legislation.
  I will say this: I regret that our colleague from Utah, No. 1, 
objected, and No. 2, left. I would just make two observations on his 
comments. No. 1, there was a strong bipartisan vote in the House of 
Representatives. So, no, there was not unanimity, but there was a 
strong bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives. Secondly, this 
legislation has been over here in the Senate for some time. We have 
offered it for some time, so it is not new.
  Thirdly, I would just say as to whether we get to legislate in this 
Chamber, that depends on the majority leader and his side of the aisle, 
who control the floor. We would like to see legislating take place. We 
would be happy to have a debate on the fierce urgency of this as it 
relates to this issue of TPS, temporary protected status.
  I fear my colleague was unaware of what he objected to. This is 
urgently needed legislation that would have granted that temporary--
underline temporary--protected status. This is a class of people who 
need to be protected, the approximately 200,000 Venezuelans currently 
residing in the United States.
  As we all know, the Maduro regime has created an unprecedented 
humanitarian crisis in Venezuela that has now forced more than 4 
million Venezuelans and migrants to flee their homeland--more than 4 
million. Think about it. This is on the verge of becoming one of the 
greatest humanitarian catastrophes in a refugee situation that we have 
in the world--and that is something considering what has happened in 
Syria and other places in the world--right here in our own hemisphere.
  In response to this humanitarian tragedy, last December--this has 
been around several months--Senator Durbin offered the first bipartisan 
bill to provide TPS for Venezuelans, which we reintroduced in February. 
Last week, the House passed their own bipartisan version of the 
legislation with support of dozens of Republican Members. It is an 
unconscionable moral failing for the Senate not to approve this 
legislation.
  Earlier this month, as the senior member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, I traveled to the Venezuela border to see the 
crisis firsthand. I returned convinced that we cannot afford to sit on 
the sidelines any longer. My colleague, I think, would not have 
objected to TPS for Venezuelans if he saw what I saw.
  During my trip to Cucuta, I walked on the Colombian side of the Simon 
Bolivar International Bridge, between Colombia and Venezuela, amidst 
thousands of Venezuelan refugees--30,000 cross each and every day--and 
migrants who cross into Colombia each and every day. I joined thousands 
of Venezuelans who were fleeing hunger as they sought food at the 
Divine Providence soup kitchen.
  I visited patients seeking medical care that is no longer available 
in Venezuela. By the way, Venezuela should be one of the wealthiest 
countries in the Western Hemisphere. It has huge oil and natural gas 
reserves, but despite that they can't get medical care in Venezuela 
because the hospital system has completely collapsed. When I was there 
in Colombia at the border, the United Nations High Commissioner for 
Human Rights issued a report decrying that the Maduro regime's security 
forces had murdered nearly 7,000 Venezuelans in the last 2 years--
7,000. My colleague cannot possibly want to return Venezuelans to the 
cruel conditions they are fleeing. That is what temporary protected 
status is all about.
  I have applauded--I don't find too many times in which I am in 
agreement with the Trump administration, but I supported their efforts 
on sanctions and other efforts around the Maduro regime so we can 
restore democracy and human rights, but how can you say and do all the 
things you are doing in Venezuela and then have a deportation force 
that wants to round up these people who have done nothing wrong and 
send them back to the country where 7,000 have been killed by Maduro?
  These extraordinary conditions have scattered millions of Venezuelans 
in countries across the Americas. Today 1.3 million reside in Colombia, 
750,000 in Peru, 250,000 in Ecuador, and the numbers keep growing. 
Colombia and its neighbors have largely welcomed Venezuelans as they 
flee a devastating humanitarian catastrophe.
  By not approving this bill today, the United States is failing to 
match their efforts and failing to approve temporary protected status 
for the vulnerable of Venezuelans already living in our country.
  For those who doubt whether TPS would make a difference for these 
Venezuelan families, let me share with you a few stories provided to my 
office by the respected Venezuelan human rights group Foro Penal.
  Yuley Gomez is the mother of Luis David, a 4-year-old who has a 
delicate heart condition. In Venezuela, Yuley asked for help from 
everyone she could, but all she received was a prescription for 
painkillers. In a closed-door meeting, she was told privately to wait 
for the inevitable death of her child, a 4-year-old. Just imagine being 
told to wait for a son or daughter to succumb to a treatable illness. 
No parent would do that.
  After great personal sacrifice, Yuley made it to the United States 
and admitted her son into Boston Children's Hospital. Three years 
later, David is

[[Page S5156]]

thriving, but he requires frequent checkups and treatments that remain 
unavailable in Venezuela to this day.
  Then there is Leila Calderon, who resides in my home State of New 
Jersey. Her nephew, who once lived with her in Caracas, is a pilot in 
the Venezuela Armed Forces. He was wrongly arrested for plotting to 
overthrow Maduro. In the absence of evidence, he was released from 
jail, but on his way home, he received a call warning him that military 
counterintelligence agents were waiting for him. When he tried to hide, 
security forces arbitrarily arrested his mother, his girlfriend, and 
his father-in-law. The following day, he was detained and charged once 
more, again with no evidence. He remains imprisoned today.
  Even Leila, who has publicly advocated for his release, has been 
labeled as a ``terrorist'' on national television by the regime thug 
Diosdado Cabello.
  Let me share the story of Omar Acosta. His brother, Captain Rafael 
Acosta Arevalo, was detained on June 21, 2019, by members of the 
Venezuela military counterintelligence. After being forcibly imprisoned 
for a week, on June 28 of 2019, Captain Acosta was rolled into an 
arraignment hearing in a wheelchair, visibly affected by torture. He 
died the following day. The kind of torture that took Captain Acosta's 
life is one of the many dangers Venezuelans in the United States would 
need to fear if we don't approve TPS.
  The Maduro regime's unthinkable abuses have created a full-blown 
refugee crisis in our own hemisphere. These extraordinary, and what we 
pray are temporary, conditions prevent millions of Venezuelans from 
safely returning home, including nearly 200,000 in our own country.
  There has been a broad bipartisan support for the Trump 
administration's effort to confront the Maduro regime. However, as we 
confront Maduro, we cannot turn our back on the Venezuelan people. 
Unfortunately, today the Senate has chosen not to act. We could have 
sent legislation to the President's desk that ensures that vulnerable 
Venezuelans in the United States are not sent back into harm's way--
into potential death or imprisonment. Instead, we did nothing.
  This is a tragedy in its own right. This is what we could have 
avoided today. I am sure Senator Durbin and I will continue to push 
forward. We will both challenge the leadership here to allow us either 
to have this passed or give us a vote. I think the community should 
know who stands on their side and whether they are willing to protect 
them temporarily from the enormous humanitarian catastrophe--the great 
risk of the loss of life or liberty that exists for Venezuelans in the 
United States who have fled to freedom.
  We are going to go out of session the end of this week. That means 
all these people will languish for the summer, not knowing whether, in 
fact, they can be deported back to a country in which they may well 
lose their life or their liberty. That is pretty outrageous. If we 
can't get it done this week, I hope to God we can get it done in 
September. If not, I worry about a continuing crisis that will only 
lead to greater uncertainty and create greater risk to those simply 
fleeing freedom and who are being, by the way, very productive citizens 
here while they are temporarily in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank my colleague from New Jersey for his 
statement and leadership on this issue.
  It is time. When you think about the circumstances, I am reminded of 
when I was in Caracas last year. It was 11 p.m. at night after I 
finished with this dinner with the opposition leaders. As I was headed 
back to the hotel, I saw long lines of people standing by ATM machines 
at 11 p.m. at night. I asked what that was all about. Well, they are 
facing hyperinflation in Venezuela--1 million percent, whatever it may 
be. Every day, these people have to stand in line to withdraw the 
maximum amount from their savings accounts so the next morning they 
have enough money to take the bus to work. That is the circumstance. 
The economy of this country has collapsed.
  The medical care, which you mentioned, and I found at this children's 
hospital and other places, is virtually nonexistent. Diseases, which 
were once eradicated in Venezuela, are returning. Children are dying 
from diseases which long ago we believed were gone. Now they are back 
because there is no vaccine, nothing to treat these children.
  When we ask the Trump administration, which has told us they want to 
get rid of Maduro, to give the Venezuelans a chance at a free election; 
when we ask them, will you at least show some sympathy for the 
Venezuelans in the United States who don't want to return, who want 
temporary protection until this political mess is over--when we ask 
them will you give them that protection, we get a letter from Mr. 
Cuccinelli, who is now the head of citizen services, saying: No, we are 
not going to do that.
  How can you have it both ways? How can you say you care for the 
people of Venezuela, you acknowledge the terrible circumstances of 
their leader, Maduro, yet when it comes to those in the United States, 
you force them to return to this circumstance?
  As you just described, for many of them, you are forcing the return 
to a circumstance which is threatening, if not deadly, with 7,000 
already killed by their secret police and who knows how many have not 
been reported who could have been victims as well.
  Today we made this request on the floor. A Republican Senator 
objected. The next time I am going to come to the floor, I will ask our 
Republican cosponsors to join us. This is a bipartisan effort to try to 
protect these Venezuela people. If they will come join us, perhaps the 
leadership on the Republican side will have second thoughts and give 
these people of Venezuela a chance to be protected here until their 
country is safe.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, one final comment to my colleague. The 
7,000 who have been killed by Maduro's secret police is reflective of 
the fact that those who are here are some of the earliest opponents of 
Maduro--those who tried to create change but fled. They have a 
heightened reason why, in fact, going back--in addition to the chaos 
and in addition to the danger--they are particularly threatened, at the 
end of the day, because they are the ones who were trying to create 
change and found a situation in which the threat of their life was at 
risk so they came to the United States.
  Getting protected status--if there was ever a moment in which 
temporary protected status was envisioned, it is for this situation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Senate Accomplishments

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I always find that the end of the July 
work period in Washington, DC, is a good time to take stock of the year 
so far.
  I am looking forward to getting out of DC in the next few days and 
heading home to South Dakota. I am lucky enough to get to meet with 
South Dakotans on most weekends, but congressional recesses provide me 
with unbroken blocks of time to spend in the State and hear about South 
Dakotans' needs and priorities.

  It has been a busy year here in Washington, DC, so far. In the last 7 
months, the Senate has worked to confirm nearly 50 well-qualified 
judges, has provided funding to address the humanitarian and security 
crisis at our southern border, has given our military the resources it 
needs to defend the country, and much more.
  I am proud that in May, by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, the 
Senate passed my bill to address illegal and abusive robocalls. My 
legislation would increase the financial penalties for making illegal 
robocalls, and it would give law enforcement more tools to go after 
these scammers who prey on vulnerable populations. The TRACED Act, 
which is my bill to address illegal robocalls, is one of more than 80 
pieces of legislation I have introduced or cosponsored this year. My

[[Page S5157]]

robocall bill grew out of the work that I did on the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which I have served on now for 
11 years, including having served four of those years as chairman.
  My serving on the Commerce Committee has given me an up-close look at 
the issue of consumer privacy. Last year, as chairman of that 
committee, I convened hearings into consumer data privacy and the 
accessing of millions of Facebook users' personal data by the political 
intelligence firm Cambridge Analytica. I also led a hearing to discuss 
the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation and 
California's new privacy-related law.
  This year, as chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on 
Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet, I have 
continued to focus on consumer privacy. I recently convened a hearing 
to look at the use of persuasive technology on internet platforms like 
Facebook and YouTube and on how these technologies can be and have been 
abused. I believe that developing bipartisan consumer privacy 
legislation needs to be a priority, and it is an issue I will continue 
to focus on here in Congress.
  Another thing on which I have focused on the Commerce Committee is 
paving the way for 5G technology, which is the next phase of the 
wireless revolution, and of ensuring that Americans in rural 
communities have access to the same broadband technology that residents 
of more urban areas enjoy.
  Last year, the President signed my bipartisan MOBILE NOW Act into 
law, which I introduced to help secure an adequate spectrum for 5G 
technology. In June, I reintroduced my STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment 
Act in order to address the other part of the 5G equation, and that is 
infrastructure. Among other things, the STREAMLINE Small Cell 
Deployment Act will make it more affordable to bring 5G to rural areas 
by addressing the cost of small cell deployment.
  I am privileged to represent South Dakota's farmers and ranchers here 
in the U.S. Senate, and year after year, one of my major priorities has 
been to make sure that the needs of our Nation's farmers and ranchers 
have been addressed. One of my priorities right now is to push for the 
passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement here in 
Congress. Farmers and ranchers have been through a few tough years, and 
one of the things they tell me they need the most is market access for 
their products around the globe. The United States-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement will preserve farmers' access to two of our Nation's most 
significant agricultural export markets--Canada and Mexico--and will 
substantially expand market access for U.S. dairy products in Canada. 
It will expand market access for U.S. poultry and egg producers, and it 
will make it easier for U.S. producers to export wheat to Canada.
  Senate Republicans are ready to pass this agreement as soon as the 
President formally submits it to Congress. We are just waiting for the 
Democrats in the House, who--despite the significant steps that have 
been taken to address their priorities--have still not indicated they 
are ready to take up the agreement. I will continue to urge them to 
take up this agreement so that our Nation's farmers and ranchers can 
experience the benefits. I will also continue to push for swift 
conclusions to the other trade agreements the administration is 
negotiating.
  Being a Member of Congress doesn't just allow you to push for 
legislation. It also gives you an important platform on which to 
advocate on your constituents' behalf with the President and his 
administration. This year I was able to help persuade the Department of 
Agriculture to move the hay and grazing date to September 1 of this 
year for cover crops on prevent plant acres. This will allow farmers 
and ranchers in Northern States like South Dakota to sow cover crops 
without worrying that they will not be able to harvest or graze them 
before the winter weather sets in.
  Both here in Congress and with multiple Presidential administrations, 
I have been advocating for higher blends of ethanol for more than a 
decade, and I was very pleased this year to know the Trump 
administration moved to lift the ban on the year-round sale of E15, 
which is a 15-percent ethanol blended fuel. This is a big win for 
American consumers, for our growing energy independence, and especially 
for U.S. corn producers, including those back home in South Dakota. 
Corn producers are thankful that the President delivered on his 
commitment to the year-round sales of E15.
  Yet it is still a tough environment for agriculture. That is why we 
need to update the EPA's emissions modeling to reflect ethanol's 40-
percent reduction in life cycle greenhouse gasses, which will boost its 
export potential. Most pressing, the administration needs to curb the 
issuance of small refinery waivers, which are, in part, forcing ethanol 
plants to slow down, idle, or shutter across America's heartland. This 
is critical to our seeing through the President's commitment to 
farmers.
  Throughout my time in the Senate, I have been proud to advocate for 
Ellsworth Air Force Base, which is near Rapid City, SD. I have spent 
years working with the other members of the South Dakota delegation in 
Ellsworth and with community leaders to build up Ellsworth. Among other 
things, our efforts have resulted in the expansion of the Powder River 
Training Complex into the largest training airspace in the continental 
United States. Undoubtedly, it is partly thanks to this airspace that, 
this May, Ellsworth was chosen as the first home for the future B-21 
bomber, and it will host both training and operational squadrons. I am 
very proud of Ellsworth for receiving these exciting new missions, and 
I look forward to there being more great developments for Ellsworth in 
the future.

  I have worked on a lot of other bills this year to make life better 
for South Dakotans and for the American people. I have introduced tax 
reform bills to help small businesses, to update the Tax Code for the 
21st century economy, to encourage charitable giving, and to 
permanently protect family farms from the death tax. I have introduced 
legislation to strengthen the agricultural economy, to support the 
Second Amendment, to help States like South Dakota--those that have low 
unemployment rates--to address workforce shortages, and much more. 
There is a lot more to come.
  This fall, I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue 
building on the economic progress that we have made, to tackle our 
Nation's infrastructure needs, and, among other things, to lower 
healthcare costs.
  I am proud to represent the people of South Dakota here in the U.S. 
Senate, and I will continue to do everything I can to address South 
Dakota's priorities and to expand opportunities for South Dakotans and 
all Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from Maine.


                        Prescription Drug Costs

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to highlight the bipartisan work 
that is underway in the Senate to help Americans who struggle with the 
high cost of prescription drugs. This problem particularly affects our 
seniors, 90 percent of whom take at least one prescription drug. It is 
critical that we continue to build on the momentum of this important 
pocketbook issue that, I believe, bridges the partisan divide.
  Since 2015, as the chairman of the Senate's Special Committee on 
Aging, I have chaired eight hearings on drug pricing, and we have heard 
so many heartbreaking stories from people who struggle to afford the 
medication that they need.
  I will never forget standing in line at the pharmacy counter in 
Bangor, ME, where I live, when the couple ahead of me received a 
prescription drug and the unwelcomed news that the couple's copay was 
going to be $111. The husband turned to his wife and said: ``Honey, we 
simply cannot afford this.'' They walked away and left that needed 
prescription on the drug store counter. I told the pharmacist I didn't 
mean to overhear but that I just happened to be the next in line. I 
asked him how often this happens, and he gave me the terrible news that 
it happens every single day.
  At a hearing on the skyrocketing price of insulin, we heard 
compelling testimony from Paul Grant, a father of four who lives in New 
Gloucester, ME, who discovered one day, because the 90-day supply of 
insulin for his 13-year-old

[[Page S5158]]

son with type 1 diabetes had tripled to more than $900, that he had to 
resort to paying out-of-pocket for a much lower cost insulin from 
Canada without his receiving any credit toward his insurance 
deductible.
  At our hearing on the cost of treating rheumatoid arthritis, Patty 
Bernard, from Falmouth, ME, testified that her out-of-pocket costs 
soared from $10 to $3,800 per month for Enbrel when she transitioned 
from employer-sponsored insurance to Medicare. She simply could not 
afford this expense and had to switch to a different drug that was not 
self-administered. This switch required her to go to her doctor's 
office once a month for a 2\1/2\-hour infusion, and it did not work 
nearly as well for her.
  At another hearing, we heard from Pam Holt, who was diagnosed with 
multiple melanoma. Ms. Holt is among the 1 million Medicare 
beneficiaries who have annual out-of-pocket prescription drug costs 
that exceed $5,100, which places her in the catastrophic part of 
Medicare Part D. Seniors still pay 5 percent of a drug's cost above 
that threshold, and Ms. Holt had to refinance her home to be able to 
afford her treatment. The price of her medication is staggering at more 
than $250,000 per year, and this is not an optional cost. These are 
costs that are necessary to preserve the lives and well-beings of, in 
particular, our seniors.
  These stories of Americans like Paul, Patty, Pam, and millions of 
others who find it extremely difficult to afford the exorbitant costs 
of the medications they need in order to maintain their health or the 
health of their loved ones have motivated Congress to act on a 
bipartisan-bicameral basis.
  The Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, for 
example, recently approved the Lower Health Care Costs Act, which 
incorporates more than 14 measures to increase drug price competition 
and uses market forces to do so. It includes major provisions from the 
Biologic Patent Transparency Act, which is a bipartisan bill that I 
coauthored with Senator Kaine and is also cosponsored by Senators 
Braun, Hawley, Portman, Shaheen, Stabenow, Paul, and Murkowski. It is 
intended to prevent drug manufacturers from gaming our patent system.
  Patents play a key role in encouraging what can be billions of 
dollars of investment to bring new drugs from the lab table to a 
patient's bedside, but the patent system should not be misused to 
prevent lower priced generic drugs from coming to market once an 
initial patent has expired. Our bill requires an earlier and greater 
disclosure of the web of patents that is held by biologic 
manufacturers, thus making it easier for their competitors, which are 
known as biosimilar companies, to develop more affordable alternatives 
without their being stymied by the filing of last-minute new patents 
that are intended simply to keep competition out of the marketplace.
  It is particularly important that we look at biologics. They have 
been miracle drugs for many Americans, but they are also the most 
expensive category of drugs, accounting for approximately 40 percent of 
total drug costs.
  According to former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, if all of the 
biosimilars that have been approved by the FDA were successfully 
marketed in the United States in a timely fashion, Americans would have 
saved more than $4.5 billion in 2017. This is an expert calculation 
from the former FDA Commissioner.
  Instead, what happens in too many cases is that the biosimilar 
competitor is available now in Europe or in Canada but not in the 
United States.
  The HELP Committee package also includes the CREATES Act, which 
addresses anti-competitive practices of companies that delay or even 
block access to a sufficient quantity of the brand name drug to conduct 
the bioequivalency test required by the FDA as part of the generic drug 
approval process.
  This addresses one of the problems identified by a major 
investigation that the Aging Committee undertook in 2016, examining the 
explosion in prices of off-patent prescription drugs for which there 
still is no generic equivalent. What we found in some cases is that the 
brand name manufacturer was making it extremely difficult for the 
generic competitor to buy up a sufficient quantity of the drug to do 
these bioequivalency tests that are required as part of the generic 
approval process. That is just plain wrong.
  Due to the provisions in the bill to spur competition, the CBO--the 
Congressional Budget Office--estimates that ``the entry of certain 
generic or biosimilar products could be accelerated by one or two 
years, on average.'' This would make a tremendous difference and would 
reduce consumer as well as Federal and private insurance spending for 
prescription drugs.
  The point I want to make is that this is just allowing the market to 
operate as it should, with competition, transparency, and an end to the 
obstacles and the gaming of the system that prevent lower priced 
pharmaceuticals.
  In addition, the Lower Healthcare Costs Act contains several 
important provisions to shed light on what is currently a complex and 
opaque system. In fact, I cannot think of any other product we buy 
where the price is so opaque and lacking in transparency and in which 
there are such variations in what the cost may be from plan to plan, 
from pharmacy to pharmacy, from manufacturer to manufacturer, and that 
is due to a very complex system that I am going to refer to.
  At the Aging Committee's hearing on the high cost of insulin, the 
American Diabetes Association spoke about the lack of transparency when 
you trace insulin from the manufacturer to the pharmacy counter. Keep 
in mind that insulin was first isolated nearly a century ago, in 1921 
in Canada, and the discoverers provided it for only a dollar because 
they wanted to make it widely available.
  The ADA chart illustrated the complexity and the perverse incentives 
in the supply chain for prescription drugs, and what was clear was that 
rebates are a key problem in driving up the cost of insulin.
  There is a system here that is rife with conflicts of interest. If 
the manufacturer has a high list price, then the pharmacy benefit 
manager, who is negotiating on behalf of the insurer, has an incentive 
to choose that manufacturer's version of insulin rather than another 
manufacturer's because the pharmacy benefit manager is usually 
compensated by getting a percentage of the list price.
  Well, obviously, the manufacturer wants to have its version of 
insulin chosen to be offered by the insurer to its customers. So here 
we have this system, which is rife with conflicts of interest and 
incentives that encourage higher prices because then the middleman is 
going to make more money, and that discount that the middleman--the 
pharmacy benefit manager--is negotiating almost never makes it to the 
pharmacy counter, to the patient who is purchasing the prescription 
drug.
  Sometimes part of that does, indeed, go to the insurer, which can use 
it to lower overall premiums slightly, but we are talking about trying 
to help the person who desperately needs the drug and who is buying it 
at the pharmacy counter.
  As cochairs of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, Senator Jeanne Shaheen and 
I, as well as Senators Cramer and Carper, have introduced legislation 
to address the flaws in the system and to hold PBMs and manufacturers 
accountable.
  We have come up with a bill that would help to reduce the price of 
insulin, and what a benefit that would be for the parents of children 
who have type 1 diabetes, for whom insulin is literally a matter of 
survival. It would also help those older Americans with type II 
diabetes, some of whom are insulin dependent.
  Another significant change included in the Lower Healthcare Costs Act 
requires significantly more disclosure on the costs, the fees, and the 
rebate information associated with PBM contracts. It also includes an 
amendment that was offered by Senator Baldwin, which I supported, to 
require more reporting of drug prices to the Department of Health and 
Human Services and a justification for why prices have increased.
  These provisions all build on a law that I authored last year to 
block pharmacy gag clauses.
  I told the story about the pharmacist who was so frustrated because 
so many people, day after day, were unable to afford the copays or the 
deductibles on

[[Page S5159]]

their needed prescription drugs. Well, I met with a group of community 
pharmacists who told me how the system worked, and they told me that 
there were actually gag clauses in their contracts where they were 
prohibited from sharing with the consumer whether it was cheaper to pay 
out-of-pocket rather than through insurance.
  Well, I am pleased to say, in working with former Senator Claire 
McCaskill and Debbie Stabenow and others, we were able to get gag 
clause prohibitions enacted into law last year. According to one study, 
banning these gag clauses could help Americans save money in nearly one 
out of four prescription transactions. So this is significant 
legislation.
  I talked recently to a pharmacist in Maine who said what a relief it 
was to her to now be able to volunteer to her patients that there may 
be a less expensive way for the patient to purchase needed prescription 
drugs.
  One out of four--nearly one out of four--prescription transactions 
should benefit from the laws that we wrote last year.
  Another bill that I authored in 2017 will promote more competition 
from lower priced but equally effective generic drugs, and it is 
already showing promise. To date, the FDA has granted nearly 200 
application requests under the new, expedited pathway that my law 
provides, and 10 have been approved. That is a much faster pace than in 
the past.
  As cochair of both the Senate Diabetes Caucus and the Congressional 
Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I know all too well from listening 
to families in Maine and across the country that the path toward 
finding new discoveries and treatments is often long and difficult and 
that success can be elusive, but we must continue our efforts. When 
pharmaceutical companies start twisting around the incentives that were 
designed to encourage innovation and, instead, distorting them into 
obstacles to competition, Congress simply must act, and that is exactly 
what we are doing.
  I want to applaud the work of the HELP Committee. All of us 
contributed to the bill, and we were ably led by Chairman Lamar 
Alexander and Ranking Member Murray. I also want to recognize the hard 
work of Senator Graham and Senator Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee 
for the bipartisan package of reforms they produced last month.
  Finally, I want to salute the Finance Committee chairman, Chuck 
Grassley, and the ranking member, Ron Wyden, for taking bipartisan 
actions just last week in passing the Prescription Drug Pricing 
Reduction Act. That has many important provisions in it that will 
require more disclosure. It includes a bill that Senator Casey and I 
have authored, as well as many other important provisions, including 
putting a medical inflation cap on certain pharmaceuticals.
  I know how much the Presiding Officer personally cares about this 
issue, and he has contributed greatly to this work as well. My hope is 
that we can build upon this momentum, that we can seize the moment when 
three different committees of the Senate have all been successful in 
reporting to the full Senate three bipartisan bills.
  Our HELP Committee bill was reported by a vote of 20 to 3. That is 
remarkable consensus.
  Let us bring all of these bills to the Senate floor this fall--or 
certainly by the end of the year--so that we can deliver real results 
to the American people by lowering the price of prescription drugs.
  We would then be very proud of listening to our constituents and 
addressing a problem that affects millions of Americans.
  I yield the floor.


                 Vote on Michael T. Liburdi Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Liburdi nomination?
  Mr. GARDNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), 
and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the 
Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 236 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--37

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bennet
     Booker
     Cassidy
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Paul
     Sanders
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________