Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in recent years, the opioid epidemic has resulted in steadily climbing numbers of kids entering foster care. However, in 2018, the number of children in foster care has declined for the first time since 2011. This is evidence that prevention programs are working. It is important this renewed focus on prevention continues as all 50 States work to implement the Family First Prevention Services Act. When child welfare agencies have more tools, which they will have through this new legislation, to help families before children must be removed, outcomes are better for communities, better for parents, and, more importantly, better for the children we are trying to protect. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the financial crisis facing the private sector multiemployer pension system calls for comprehensive reform and getting it done soon. The crisis is severe and growing worse every day. Would you believe about 125 multiemployer plans are in so-called critical and declining financial status? These plans report that they will become insolvent over the next two decades. There will be a lot of people without a retirement plan if we don't act. Several large plans, including the United Mine Workers Pension Fund and the large Central States Pension Fund, predict these plans will become insolvent in the next few years. That is not a very comfortable environment for those retirees. This will leave more than 1.3 million participants without the pension benefits they have been promised and, of course, worked for probably throughout their whole lives. In just my State of Iowa, the benefits of close to 10,000 participants of multiemployer plans are at risk if the system fails. Ten thousand Iowans being affected by what we do or don't do, obviously, gets my attention. That figure of 10,000 will represent over $70 million in benefits paid out annually that these individuals rely on in retirement. More broadly, another large group of multiemployer plans are in critical status. They report that no realistic combination of contribution increases or allowable benefit reductions--options available under the current law to address their financial condition--will enable these plans to emerge from their current, poorly funded financial condition. So it is very important that Congress act to save these retirement plans. These plans cover millions more workers and retirees across the Nation, and those workers and retirees face significant benefit cuts under existing law. We should also be concerned about the financial health of the Federal insurance system that backs up these retirement benefits. The Federal insurance system goes by the name of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The PBGC's multiemployer pension program may itself become insolvent if only one or possibly two larger multiemployer plans fail. One of these plans, the United Mine Workers, just lost its last large contributing employer to bankruptcy. Without reforms, the Federal guaranty system, the PBGC, reports it will be insolvent no later than 2026. When that happens, the PBGC will not be able to pay either current or future retirees more than a very small fraction of the benefits they have been promised. Consequently, substantial reductions in retirement income are a very real possibility for the millions of workers and retirees who depend on benefits from these plans. We need to act very soon to protect the hard-earned pension benefits of the workers who participate in these plans. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am on the floor today to join with Chairman Alexander from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to release a responsible reform plan to address the immediate financial challenges of a number of plans in critical financial condition and also at the same time to secure the multiemployer pension system over the long term, not just a quick fix that is going to last a short period of time. As we looked at options for reforming the current system, we relied on several important reform principles. I will go through these principles. First, a reform plan should provide balanced assistance to the most poorly funded plans. The second principle is that Federal assistance to the failing plans should rely on as little taxpayer dollars as possible. The third principle is that reforms must promote long-term stability of the multiemployer pension system and the long-term solvency of the PBGC. To help the sickest plans recover their financial footing, our proposal creates a special partition option for multiemployer plans. I want everybody to know that this is not a new concept. In fact, quite simply, it expands on the PBGC's existing authority. It is based on banking industry reforms that Congress enacted after the Great Depression and at other times. The partition option permits employers to maintain a financially healthy multiemployer plan by carving out pension benefit liabilities owed to participants who have been ``orphaned'' by employers who have exited the plan without paying their full share of those liabilities. By removing these liabilities, we allow the original plan to continue to provide benefits in a self-sustaining manner by funding benefits with contributions from current participating employers. In effect, partitioning creates a healthy pension that continues to meet all of its obligations to retirees and a separate ``sick pension'' that requires attention and assistance from the PBGC. For this partition program to operate effectively and address the plans that are in immediate danger, a limited amount of Federal taxpayer funds will be needed to support the PBGC. We expect the necessary Federal resources to comprise only a small--I should say very small--portion of the financial assistance provided to the faltering multiemployer plans, and it is our intent, as we should be fiscally responsible, to offset those costs. We should also acknowledge the reality that action right now means lower taxpayer involvement than if we wait for the PBGC to become insolvent, which would lead to a far larger commitment of taxpayer funds in the not too distant future. Congress needs to be ahead of the real catastrophe we know is coming. Over the long run, the reforms we are proposing will be sustained primarily by shared-sacrifice funding reforms and a new premium structure for all stakeholders of the multiemployer plans. Because taxpayer dollars would be at risk if the sickest plans fail to move to fully funded status, the proposal also includes a number of plan-governance reforms to strengthen multiemployer plans, to protect the taxpayers' contributions to the overall reforms, and to shield taxpayers from future risks. While partitioning addresses one element needed for reform, Senator Alexander and I propose to go a step further to make significant changes to the management and operation of all multiemployer pension plans. This is something that should have been done years ago so that plan trustees would have had to act in a responsible way, and maybe we wouldn't be where we are today, but we want to make sure this doesn't happen in the future. If we go that way--and we must go that way-- moving forward, the entire multiemployer pension system will be better funded and more transparent to participants, to sponsoring employers, and to government regulators. Providing relief to critical and declining plans is contingent on making changes to the legal framework of the multiemployer pension system to ensure that all plans operate, as people would expect, in a financially sound way in the future. To help finance the partition relief and to provide a stronger PBGC insurance guarantee to participants in the system, our reform proposal creates a new premium structure. That structure includes raising the flat-rate premium to $80 per participant in a multiemployer plan, putting the multiemployer program on par with a single-employer guarantee program. The new premium structure also broadens the base on which premiums are assessed to more equitably spread the cost of insuring benefits and to ensure PBGC solvency. The new structure applies a copayment to active workers and retirees. However, because of the broader contribution base, the copayments are significantly less than the amount of the typical benefit cuts retirees face under current law if their plan should fail. Older retirees and disabled participants will also be protected. In addition, our reform package establishes a variable-rate premium. This variable-rate premium, which parallels the variable-rate premium that has long applied to single-employer plans, is tied to a plan's funding status to manage risks stemming from more poorly funded plans. This also creates an incentive for plans to improve their funding over time. The new premium structure not only helps to secure the finances of the PBGC but also funds an increase in the guaranteed benefit level for the vast majority of participants in the system. Raising the guaranteed benefit will greatly reduce the risk to retirees of significant reductions in retirement income, which would otherwise occur if their multiemployer plan becomes insolvent. While the changes to the premium structure will fundamentally strengthen the financial status of the multiemployer pension system and the PBGC, the reforms we are proposing make other important structural changes to the multiemployer system to help ensure that the entire system moves to a well-funded status over the long haul. We achieve this goal by addressing key flaws in the current legal framework governing multiemployer plans. Current multiemployer plan rules do not serve the best interests of workers and retirees. You can tell that by the bad condition, financially, some of these plans are in today, threatening the retirement of our workers who have paid into them over a lifetime. These rules have not been sufficient to keep plans in good financial health, and they tend to underestimate liabilities and result in insufficient contributions to the plans. To ensure that benefit promises offered in a multiemployer plan are ultimately met, our proposal strengthens the rules for measuring the value of promised pension benefits and the amount of employer contributions necessary to pay them when the worker retires. These changes will require plan trustees and actuaries to measure and project plan assets and liabilities in a more prudent and accurate way than has been required under present law. These changes also are designed to help move plans toward full funding and at the same time protect the interests of plan participants and the taxpayers who would otherwise be required to bail out these multiemployer plans. Our reform proposal also improves the so-called zone rules. Plans will be required to look further into the future when estimating their financial status, and will have to institute a form of stress testing to check whether a plan can remain financially sustainable through potential economic and demographic stresses. Depending on its health, plans will have to bolster the steps they take when signs of financial hardship arise. That is a pretty commonsense approach. We will also replace current withdrawal-liability rules with a simpler, more transparent, and consistent method for determining an employer's liability if it withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan. We have to look to the future. In doing so, the proposal includes a new option for sponsors of multiemployer plans to establish a new hybrid pension plan that we are going to call a composite plan. We have heard a great deal of interest from smaller businesses and their workers about the benefits of a composite plan approach, including less costly operations and more certainty in the financing of these plans. In closing, let me say that there are no perfect solutions to the multiemployer pension crisis. But it is very true that the longer we wait, the harder and more expensive this problem gets. But it is clear, our solution is far better than allowing the system to continue on its current path--to collapse--and far better than merely throwing Federal money into plans without changing how they operate. The problem is never going to be solved by waiting or by using taxpayers' money. The House has essentially advanced a pure, no-strings-attached bailout plan that throws taxpayer money to the plans in the hope that they can somehow earn returns sufficient to keep them going. We rely a great deal on the Congressional Budget Office around here for estimates of the future, and the nonpartisan CBO has told us that the House's proposal will not generate sustainability of pension plans or the sustainability of the PBGC. So we had better not spend our time on something the Congressional Budget Office says just isn't going to bring a solution and definitely not a long-term solution to these issues. In contrast, the proposal that Senator Alexander and I are releasing today addresses the immediate needs of the few multiemployer plans facing immediate crisis in a manner that protects participant benefits and also ensures a sustainable multiemployer pension system for the long haul, and it does this all in a fiscally responsible way. Our proposal is not a giveaway to corporations or to unions, and it is a better deal for the taxpayers than a future that would be an even larger problem and PBGC funding needs that will almost surely be met with a taxpayer bailout. All participants in the system would make a sacrifice. Let me make that clear. All participants in the system are going to sacrifice-- employers, unions, workers, and retirees. I am sure each one of those groups isn't going to consider this fair and responsible, but with a problem like this, if everybody doesn't give a little bit, it is never going to be fair and responsible anyway. But with some shared pain will come significant shared gain that will be to the benefit of over 1.5 million participants in about 125 multiemployer plans that are in serious financial jeopardy. Without changes to the current system, we can't say for sure that people are going to get the benefits that they sacrificed for over a lifetime of work. But our plan, we are confident, will benefit all multiemployer plans and their participants by providing a stronger system for the long haul and by promoting long-term solvency of the PBGC. Senator Alexander and I offer this proposal as a path forward for a multiemployer pension system that we all know is in crisis. Now, as we turn to getting this job done, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to advance this proposal. We all know that just because you lay something on the table, that it is not necessarily going to be passed that way. So maybe there is some compromise needed. But whether it is this proposal or a little bit of compromise, we have to get this piece of legislation to the President's desk before more pension holders face losses of the benefits they have earned and benefits that they were promised. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, a whole bunch of us Midwest biofuel Senators sent a cover letter with our comments to President Trump. Those comments were in regard to the biofuel rules that are out for public comment. The President has been a supporter of biofuels and the EPA shouldn't undercut President Trump's support of RFS. I urge the EPA and Administrator Wheeler to adjust the proposed supplemental rule to account for actual waived gallons, using hard data from past practices, to send an unambiguous signal to the marketplace. I am glad to have the opportunity to comment, and I encourage all farmers, biofuel producers, and anybody else interested in supporting the RFS to make their comments. Those comments should be along the lines of what was agreed to in the Oval Office on September 12, which the EPA regulations don't reflect properly. So tell the EPA that you want the September 12 agreement agreed to. Go to regulations.gov or to the Iowa Farm Bureau or Iowa Corn websites before the deadline on November 27 to tell the EPA to stand behind the President's Oval Office agreement. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the minority leader is so committed to his campaign rhetoric, calling the Senate a political graveyard, that he is killing the House-passed appropriations package that funds our national defense and pays our troops. Leader McConnell has twice moved to take up the House bill that funds the Pentagon, as well as the Departments of State, Health and Human Services, Energy, Education, and others, but the majority leader has been constantly blocked by the Democrats. The minority leader claims to be shocked and outraged that the Senate isn't taking up partisan messaging bills from the House when it is very normal for both Houses not to take up every bill passed by the other Chamber. That doesn't apply to appropriations, however, because one thing is very certain: We have to fund the government, and those bills absolutely have to come up and be passed by both Houses. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, a 5-year decline in farm income, retaliatory tariffs on U.S. ag commodities, disrupted renewable biofuel policies, devastating natural disasters, and now shortages of LP gas needed to dry harvested grain add to the growing burdens weighing heavily on the minds of Iowans and American farmers. Mounting pressure to pay the bills, to get the crops out, and to make ends meet can be overwhelming. We have lately expressed lots of worries and pressures that come from the increase in farm bankruptcies and the increase in rural and farm suicides. There are many uncertainties in farming that are beyond human control, but there are other areas where Congress can help. As a farmer and as a Senator representing the No. 1 agricultural State, I am fighting to build mental health resources--as an example, there is the Grassley-Tester bill to help preempt suicides--to uphold the RFS by fighting with the EPA, and to pass the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. These are issues that are tops on the minds of Iowans and not just the farmers. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen soldier from Iowa, Private Channing Robert Whitaker. After 76 years, this marine is finally coming home. Inspired by the patriotism and service of his four older siblings who also served during World War II, Whitaker enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1942 at the age of 17. After completing training, his unit deployed on November 20, 1943 during the D-Day operations at Tarawa Atoll in the Pacific. On November 22, 1943, Whitaker was killed in action during the effort to secure Betio Island in the Tarawa Atoll. He was 18 years old. During this battle, over 3,000 U.S. marines and sailors were killed or wounded. After the war was over, there were efforts to repatriate all of the fallen; however, almost half of the known casualties were not recovered. In March of this year, thanks to the efforts of History Flight, Inc., the Republic of Kiribati, and the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Whitaker's remains were identified. On November 22, 2019, 76 years after he gave the last full measure of devotion in service to his country, Channing Whitaker will be buried with full military honors in Des Moines, IA. Our country owes a debt of gratitude to all who have served in defense of our country and especially to those who killed in action. I am grateful that this Iowan is finally coming home and that his service and sacrifice will always be remembered.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, November is National Adoption Month. This year, we have very good news. In 2018, over 63,000 young people were adopted from foster care. That is an increase of 4,000 from the previous year. However, the number of children waiting for adoption also increased. That number rose to 125,000. Unfortunately, teenagers, sibling groups, and those with medical challenges often wait much longer to be adopted. Every child deserves a safe, permanent, loving home, so I want to commend all those who have chosen to adopt children in foster care. If you wonder where I get the opinion that it is unfortunate that people want a permanent, safe, and loving home, all you have to do is listen to the kids in the foster care system, and you always get this response: What I would like to have is a mom and dad, and I would like to have a home. In other words, they get tired of being shuffled around from one foster home to another foster home, to another foster home. That is where I come from in recognizing November as National Adoption Month. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the right to yield to Senator Collins at the end of my remarks.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, polls show a surprising interest of Americans in the high cost of prescription drugs. It seems to be an issue that unites Americans. I often point out that Washington is an island surrounded by reality. Here inside the Beltway, people are obsessed with partisan impeachment proceedings. It seems like morning, noon, and night, the relentless effort to unseat the President of the United States is a toxic strain of Potomac fever infecting Capitol Hill. Now, if only Congress would channel every waking minute to fix problems in the real world, wouldn't that be wonderful? So let me provide a reality check. For people living in the real world, impeachment inquiry is not what keeps Americans up at night. It is not what wakes up moms and dads worried sick about paying for their child's insulin. It is not what drains the pocketbooks of seniors and takes a big bite out of people's paychecks. The issue that unites Americans from Maine, to Iowa, to Oregon is the sky-high prices that Americans and the taxpaying public are paying for prescription medicine. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am working in a bipartisan way to fix what is broken in our drug supply chain. In February, we called the heads of Big Pharma to testify before the Finance Committee. Next, we heard from the largest pharmacy benefit managers to examine rebates and unravel the pricing supply chain. There was an awful lot of finger-pointing between the various interests about the soaring drug prices that Americans pay for pharmaceuticals. That finger-pointing, we heard in our committee. Finger-pointing doesn't decrease drug prices because the real problem is there is too much secrecy and not enough accountability in the industry of pricing drugs. When drug prices grow by leaps and bounds, year after year, it is time to look under the hood. It is time to kick the tires along the drug supply chain and check the gauge on the competition. Why in the world is insulin, just as an example--a drug that has been on the market for nearly 100 years--doubling or tripling in price for patients in the United States? It is surely not that way in Europe. We have gotten lots of feedback from patient advocates, healthcare providers, and free market proponents. The pushback from Big Pharma reveals that we are really on to something. Congress needs to take its foot off the brake. It is time to deliver real savings, and our bill will deliver real savings to consumers and to the taxpayers. It is time to pass reforms that will cut prescription drug costs for the American people. Now, some of my colleagues may require a more blunt call to action so I want to use the two-by-four illustration. Join us and score a win for the American people. Otherwise, do nothing and risk being on the losing side of the ballot box next November. At my annual 99 county meetings where I always hold a Q&A with whatever groups of constituents gather, I hear the same message from people all across the State of Iowa. They have family members and they have neighbors who struggle to pay for prescription management, to manage chronic health conditions, and to treat diseases. Thanks to breakthrough treatments and cures, Americans are living longer and healthier lives. Many are beating the odds of a diagnosis that would have been a death sentence a generation ago. However, if a loved one is diagnosed with MS or diabetes or cystic fibrosis, no miracle cure will help if Americans can't afford to pay for their medicine. It will not help seniors if sky-high prices drain taxpayer-financed health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Soaring drug prices are forcing too many Americans to skimp on other necessities or even ration their doses of prescriptions that they take. Now, I just mentioned, as an example, cystic fibrosis. Last month, the FDA approved a promising new treatment for this progressive genetic disorder. Cystic fibrosis impacts about 30,000 Americans. There is nothing parents will not do to advocate for their child living with this condition. That is how I met one family from Iowa a few years ago. That is when I launched the bipartisan Senate caucus on cystic fibrosis, to add our voices for awareness and advocacy. Now, I am told the price tag for the new drug is more than $300,000 per patient, per year. Without a doubt, this drug raises the roof of hope for tens of thousands of families, but it also raises a red flag about drug prices. If prices keep going through the roof year after year, how will Americans who depend on prescription medicines afford them? America's drug pricing regime is broken. It requires reform to sustain fiscal sustainability and also to steer incubation and innovation forward. It needs more transparency. It needs better incentives. It needs real competition to drive down prices. So all 100 of us have our work cut out for us. Big Pharma doesn't want the pipeline to the Federal Treasury tightened at all, and they will spend big money to scare people away from reasonable solutions that will deliver real savings and get the best deal for the taxpayers. I referred to our working in a bipartisan way. So, in July, Ranking Member Wyden and I secured broad, bipartisan support in our Finance Committee--19 denying vote. Our bill would save taxpayers more than $100 billion. That is not this Senate saying that. That is the Congressional Budget Office. The bill caps out-of-pocket costs for seniors. The bill saves their households more than $30 billion. We fine-tuned and improved our bill to gain more momentum and more support. Part of that support and one of the outstanding advocates for what we are trying to do doesn't happen to be a member of the Finance Committee, but it is my good friend from Maine, Senator Collins, right here on the floor. I will yield to her in short time. She is helping lead the fight to reduce drug prices. We have been working together on many issues. I am a former chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, and she is the current chair of the Special Committee on Aging. We are committed to help older Americans lead productive lives. We also share a top priority not to miss a vote. While I might have a stronger voting streak, Susan hasn't missed a single vote. I hope Maine appreciates a person who has been in the Senate since 1997 and hasn't missed a single vote. Senator Collins is one of those rare lawmakers who doesn't care who gets the credit, as long as we are doing the right thing. The name of this bill that I am talking about--and I imagine she will refer to--is the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. That will be the right thing to do, and it will do the right thing. So it is time for Congress to do the right thing. Just in case I said anything different about Senator Collins that is not accurate, she can feel free to correct me, but I now yield to Senator Collins, a strong voice for this piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, it is a pleasure to work with Senator Shaheen on this bill. I am very happy to work together. We have the same goals in mind. For the cynical people outside of Washington, DC, that say there is never any Republican or Democratic cooperation, there is kind of a rule around here that Senator Shaheen and I are examples of, but it applies to all 100 Senators. If you really want to get something done, you have to seek bipartisanship in this body. I can quantify that in this way. There are 53 Republicans. There are 47 Democrats. But if there were 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans, the same rule would apply. About 99 percent of the legislation that gets done around here has to have 60 votes to stop debate before you can even vote on the bill. So obviously, even if all 53 Republicans were voting together--and that doesn't happen very often--you still wouldn't get the 60 votes to pass a piece of legislation. So that is why almost every major piece of legislation that gets through here--and this example of Shaheen- Grassley is just another example--it is because you seek bipartisanship, and it is just nice that it has to be that way. So addressing this issue, I can say I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Shaheen and sit down, but there is kind of a rule around the Senate. Everything that has been said on this bill has been said, but I haven't said it yet, and I am going to say it. I recently introduced S. 2770, known as the Survivors' Bill of Rights in the States Act of 2019, with Senator Shaheen and Senator Tillis. This measure is a companion to what Congresswoman Speier developed and introduced in the other Chamber. It builds on legislation entitled the Survivors' Bill of Rights Act that we adopted in 2016. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the last Congress, I worked closely with a young woman, Amanda Nguyen, on the development of that 2016 measure prior to its introduction. Amanda, a survivor of sexual assault, found and leads the nonprofit organization known as Rise, R-I-S-E. She also worked with Senator Shaheen on the same legislation, introducing the final version in this Chamber. We incorporated that 2016 package of rights into an amendment that I offered to another measure before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In May 2016, that legislation passed this Chamber 89 to 0. In October 2016, the House version, which was introduced later, was signed by the President. The bills that we introduced this month on the 2016 Survivors' Bill of Rights, it makes each State eligible to receive a Federal grant to implement a similar package of rights for victims of sex crimes at the State level. Such rights include, for example, the right to know the results of your forensic exam, the right to have evidence preserved for a certain period, and the right to notice before your forensic kit is destroyed. A State also may use its Justice Department grants to preserve sexual assault evidence kits, reduce the number of kits awaiting testing, and extend additional assistance to crime victims under our legislation. Finally, the measure we introduced authorizes 20 million annually for each of the fiscal years 2021 through 2024 to support the implementation of the new grant program established by this bill. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Survivors' Bill of Rights in the States Act of 2019. I thank Senator Shaheen for joining in this effort and leading this bill and, most importantly, to compliment her over a long period of time in the Senate--and probably even before she came to the Senate-- her commitment to working with me and with people generally on the issue of increased protection for victims of sexual assault. Again, I thank Congresswoman Speier and her staff for initiating this measure in the House and for working so hard to develop a bicameral, bipartisan measure, and I thank Senator Shaheen once again. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week I introduced S. 2838 with Senators Ernst, Blackburn, Sullivan, Murkowski, and Perdue. This legislation, which we have titled the SAFESPORT Act of 2019, includes funding accountability, antiretaliation protection, child abuse reporting, and other reform measures. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Commerce Committee members who lead the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Ted Stevens Act, along with Commerce Committee Chairman Wicker, for including so much of my SAFESPORT Act as an amendment to a larger package that they developed. That measure is S. 2330, the Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019, sponsored by Senators Moran and Blumenthal. Senators Moran and Blumenthal worked closely with me to secure the inclusion of multiple provisions of my SAFESPORT Act in their bill, which cleared the Commerce Committee this morning with unanimous bipartisan support. Every one of these provisions is designed to ensure that the U.S. Center for SafeSport, which is tasked by Congress with investigating abuse of athletes in amateur sports, continues on its current track of excellence. I extend my sincere appreciation to both subcommittee leaders for their hard work on S. 2330 and for collaborating with me to improve their bipartisan bill. First, the SAFESPORT Act would enhance child abuse reporting, by ensuring that the Center for SafeSport is subject to the same mandatory reporting requirements as other professionals who work with children, under the Federal Victims of Child Abuse Act. By law, this center is tasked with receiving and investigating complaints of sexual abuse in amateur sports, which is why its personnel should have to report suspected crimes against children to the authorities. Second, this bill ensures that the Center for SafeSport, a private organization that already receives millions annually in revenue from the Olympic community--and which would receive $20 million annually, at the direction of Congress, if the Moran-Bhimenthal bill is enacted--is subject to an annual audit by an independent auditor. Such an audit is highly recommended by charity watchdog groups for the highest functioning nonprofit organizations. It is also a standard requirement for almost any nonprofit charitable organization receiving Federal grant awards of more than $750,000 annually. My legislation also calls for the Center for SafeSport to implement any corrective actions recommended by the auditor each year or explain why it disagrees with the recommendations. Third, this legislation subjects the Center for SafeSport to certain transparency requirements, ensuring, for example, that this organization reports to Congress annually with a detailed account of its activities, any changes in its financial standing, and a corrective action plan to implement auditor recommendations, if any. We are entitled to know how many complaints the organization investigates and resolves using the millions of dollars it receives from the U.S. Olympic community each year. Such information would be made available to the public, under the SAFESPORT Act. The Commerce Committee included all of these accountability, transparency, and child abuse reporting provisions, as well as the antiretaliation language of my SAFESPORT Act in the package it approved today. That antiretaliation language, on which I collaborated with Senator Peters, protects whistleblowers who come forward and report abuses in amateur sports. I thank Senator Peters for his collaboration on that language. I am delighted we made this progress and look forward to working with the committee to ensure it is enacted. The only language that the committee did not accept, due to jurisdictional concerns raised by Senators Blumenthal and Moran, was the grant accountability language in the SAFESPORT Act. One section of my bill, which bars nonprofits receiving Justice Department grants from stashing funds in offshore accounts for tax avoidance purposes, among other requirements, has cleared the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support on multiple occasions. Chairman Graham approved its inclusion in the Commerce package, and Ranking Member Feinstein has cosponsored similar language on multiple occasions. So I am disappointed that these reforms were omitted from S. 2330 today. Senators Blackburn and Sullivan, who joined with me in seeking the inclusion of that grant accountability language in that Commerce Committee package today, have called for adding it to S. 2330 before its floor consideration. I look forward to working with the leaders of the Commerce Committee to achieve that goal. The only other key provision of my SAFESPORT Act that was not included in S. 2330 would enable the Attorney General to seek the removal of officers and directors of the Center for SafeSport, in the event these individuals engage in serious misconduct or material violations of the Ted Stevens Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring S. 2838, the SAFESPORT Act, which is so important to ensure that the organization tasked by Congress with protecting amateur athletes retains its current, high standard of excellence. I, again, thank Senator Peters as well as my cosponsors, particularly Senators Blackburn and Sullivan, for helping me negotiate for the inclusion of so many provisions of the SAFESPORT Act in the bipartisan measure that cleared the Commerce Committee. I also want to thank my committee staff, including Kolan Davis, Evelyn Fortier, Rachael Soloway, and Dario Camacho for their hard work on this measure. Finally, I thank the organizations, such as Fairness, Dignity & Respect for Crime Victims & Survivors Project, which endorsed this legislation, as well as the Athletes Advisory Council, which worked with us on the antiretaliation provisions.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask permission to speak as in morning business for 3 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to recognize the accomplishments of an organization that has done great service to communities and veterans across the United States. This month marks 100 years since the American Legion received its charter from Congress and formally adopted its constitution. When it was established in Paris in March of 1919, the American Legion stated its aims, in part, ``to perpetuate the principles of justice, freedom, and democracy for which we have fought.'' The accomplishments of the American Legion since that time are numerous and profound. They include successfully lobbying for the creation of what was then called the Veterans Bureau, which would later become the VA, the Department of Veterans Affairs. The American Legion also conducted pioneering research into PTSD and drafted the original GI bill that helped to educate so many World War II veterans after that war and gave a big boost to the expanding U.S. economy post-World War II. American Legion members complete 3.7 million hours of community service each year. I happen to be a member of the Sons of the American Legion. As part of that organization, I am blessed to have had the American Legion make a meaningful impact in my life. When I was a young high school student in Iowa, I was proud to participate in Boys State, where I learned the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship. The American Legion still does that every year in Iowa and I suppose in every State. Iowans are fortunate to have the enduring presence of the American Legion in our communities. This August, two Iowans were recognized nationally for their dedication to the American Legion. Bruce Feuerbach of Keystone was elected national vice commander of the American Legion, and Nicole Clapp of Gladbrook was elected national president of the American Legion Auxiliary. Many more accomplishments are sure to come from the American Legion's Iowa department. I congratulate the American Legion on its 100th year of service and thank all members for their dedication to Iowa and to our Nation. I want to point out that there was a Major General MacNider, Mason City, IA, who was the fourth national commander of the American Legion and probably one of those who was dedicated to establishing this organization early on. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Today I am here to discuss the critical need to protect American businesses and consumers from the dangers of counterfeits, particularly counterfeit goods sold online. Counterfeits do incredible damage to our country's economic competitiveness. They harm intellectual property right holders and the reputation of online marketplaces, undermine the integrity of our supply chains, and even threaten the health and safety of consumers. So it is Congress's responsibility to use its oversight and legislative authority to identify ways to prevent these illicit goods from entering our borders. Over the past year, I have worked with the Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden to investigate how counterfeiters use e-commerce to sell their phony goods to consumers. Last week, we concluded our investigation and issued a report detailing our findings. Based on the information presented to Senator Wyden and this Senator by right holders, trade associations, e-commerce platforms, and common carriers, we made five findings in this report, and we identified two legislative recommendations for Congress in this report. I believe these recommendations will enhance existing efforts within the Federal Government to prevent the sale of counterfeits online. I will talk briefly about our findings today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues--both Republican and Democrat--to identify additional areas for congressional action. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I recognize the value of intellectual property rights and their impacts on society and the economy. Intellectual property rights allow businesses to generate new ideas and develop creative solutions to everyday problems that can make our lives healthier, safer, and more productive. I also understand businesses and innovators rely on those rights to help drive and recoup their investments. In my own State of Iowa, intellectual property represents more than $14.4 billion in annual exports for the State, more than 94,000 jobs, and supports more than 2,000 small businesses with less than 500 employees. However, counterfeits are increasingly threatening these achievements and the hard work of the people that innovate. It has been estimated that international trade for counterfeit goods in 2016 accounted for $509 billion of world trade. Counterfeits are found in both physical and online marketplaces, and almost every industry is affected. Scam artists target electronics, automotive parts, and even children's toys, to rip-off consumers and to make a profit. Counterfeits can also harm consumers. Many consumers do not know that counterfeits can be dangerous and that some have been found to contain lead, excessive small parts, and even unsafe chemicals. In 2018, the Government Accountability Office--or GAO, as we know it around Washington--examined how e-commerce marketplaces are further enabling the sale of counterfeits. GAO found that counterfeiters use online marketplaces to sell fakes to consumers because they can hide their identity by using false or incomplete names. Counterfeiters also post legitimate photos or fake reviews for their products, which makes it harder for consumers to determine whether they are buying a legitimate or fake good. The Grassley-Wyden investigation showed that the breadth and variety of goods sold online makes it nearly impossible to prevent the sale of all counterfeits. Right holders also told us that their enforcement efforts are hindered in part because the U.S. Customs and Border Protection shares very limited--and often heavily redacted--importation information with these right holders. But right holders need importation information to identify counterfeit sellers and report suspected counterfeit listings. Counterfeits also pose a threat to e-commerce and to common carriers. Counterfeits smear the reputation of e-commerce and threaten the integrity of the common carrier supply chain network. As such, these parties are critical partners in the fight against the sale of counterfeit goods. However, Customs and Border Protection does not have the authority to share importation information with these parties when it identifies a counterfeit at our border. During our investigation, these parties told us that this information would give them the ability to better protect our country's intellectual property and allow them to remove more counterfeit listings and block counterfeit sellers. We must look at this problem holistically and with the understanding that right holders, e-commerce platforms, and common carriers are critical partners in the fight against the sale of counterfeit goods and those counterfeit goods being sold online. By sharing more importation information, these parties can better protect the intellectual property rights of our innovators, as well as the health and safety of e-commerce consumers. Our investigation is but a first step. I will continue to use my oversight authority to look for innovative solutions to protect intellectual property right holders and consumers from the negative effects of counterfeits. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this year on Veterans Day, I will join all Americans in honoring those who have served in our Armed Forces. As a nation, we owe those who have served a debt of gratitude for the sacrifices they have made to protect our country, our way of life, and the principles of liberty and natural rights. Too often, we forget to thank the families who are left behind while they are in service. They deserve our consideration as well. The least we can do in return is work to ensure that all veterans have the healthcare and benefits they have earned. We owe it to veterans to ensure that they are never forsaken, nor forgotten. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Oh boy, I have had to scratch my head upon hearing some criticism of the Finance Committee's Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act from supposedly fiscally conservative, pro-taxpayer organizations, to mention a couple, like FreedomWorks and Americans for Tax Reform. The Grassley-Wyden bipartisan bill ought to have a lot of support. It would save taxpayers more than $100 billion. You would think fiscally conservative organizations would want to back that. Of course, some of these fiscally conservative organizations receive substantial funding from Big Pharma. I can't think of a better opportunity to enact bipartisan entitlement reform that would significantly lower the debt and help rein in entitlement spending bill. This bill happens to be judged by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group working for the Congress as a whole, saying that it would save a little over $100 billion. Reining in entitlement spending is a goal that I campaigned on, and nearly every one of my Republican colleagues have campaigned on that same platform. Now is the chance to carry out those campaign promises, in other words, to stand on the platform you ran on. In an era of gridlock and partisanship, do supporters of less government spending and balanced budgets really think their goal could be achieved without bipartisanship? Nothing gets done in the U.S. Senate that isn't somewhat bipartisan. The good news is that my legislation is bipartisan, and support for the bill is growing every day. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin. He and I are working on something that successfully passed the Senate last year and was not agreed to by the House of Representatives. So we are back to bring some transparency to pricing of drugs, and that is what I want to speak about now. I am here to share a secret with the American people. It is about prescription drug pricing. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, it is no secret that one of my biggest priorities is to rein in the soaring costs of prescription medicine. It is no secret that Americans are having a hard time paying for medicine. It is no secret that Big Pharma doesn't want us to change the status quo. In fact, Big Pharma is spending big money to stop Congress and the Trump administration from legislating a cure of these high prices. That is the secret. They want to keep drug pricing a secret from the American people. So what does that mean? It means that Big Pharma wants to keep secrecy baked in when it benefits Big Pharma. Right now, the very murky drug pricing supply chain is a mystery to consumers. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to what consumers will owe at the pharmacy counter when they pick up their prescriptions. American taxpayers, American seniors, and this U.S. Senator are fed up with the lack of consumer information when it comes to pharmaceuticals. That is why I am working to inject some Midwestern common sense into prescription drug pricing. As you can see, I am working with my friend Senator Durbin. We have teamed up before on issues that naysayers said couldn't get done. You might recall that President Trump signed our FIRST STEP Act into law last year. The landmark reforms are protecting public safety, saving taxpayer dollars, and bringing fairness to the criminal justice system. Today, we are teaming up once again to fix an injustice with prescription drug advertising. Big Pharma spends billions of dollars a year advertising to the U.S. consumers. The FDA regulates what these direct-to-consumer ads must tell consumers. For example, advertisers must include in their ads potential side effects. You hear it all the time on TV--things about nausea, diarrhea, depression, weight gain, or even death if you might buy one of their drugs. But let me tell you what seems to scare Big Pharma to death--price transparency. They do not want to tell consumers how much a drug costs when they saturate the airwaves with advertising that shows happy families enjoying the grandkids, celebrating birthdays, and going on vacations. Senator Durbin and I believe that Americans have a right to know about the price of drugs, like they need to know the side effects of drugs or the value of drugs. Consumers should then know what the advertised drug costs. It happens that the Trump administration agrees with Senator Durbin and this Senator on that point, but, of course, Big Pharma sued to stop the Department of Health and Human Services' regulations from taking effect. It is up to Congress, then, to change the law. That is what Senator Durbin and I are here to talk about today. Almost exactly 1 year ago, I said here on the floor of the Senate that it is time for Big Pharma to talk turkey on this subject. Yet here we are again, 1 year later, and Big Pharma has ridden the taxpayers' gravy train for another 12 months, and part of that gravy train is keeping the price of drugs off of the television screens when they advertise all of the value of the drugs and the dangers and the side effects of those drugs. As Americans get ready to count their blessings around the Thanksgiving table a couple weeks from now, I hope they can count on all 100 Members of the Senate to approve the Durbin-Grassley bill. There is no good reason to oppose it unless you would rather keep secrets for Big Pharma. I yield the floor.