MR. PRESIDENT, I STAND TODAY TO CALL FOR BIPARTISAN ACTION ON SEVERAL THINGS THAT ARE REALLY CRITICAL. ONE OF THEM HAS REALLY BECOME ROUTINE SINCE IT STARTED AS SOMETHING, A BILL THAT DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS DID TOGETHER, AND THAT WAS THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM, SOMETHING THAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM VERMONT HAS REFERENCED. IN MY STATE, WE HAVE BEEN A GOOD GOVERNMENT STATE. WE HAVE HAD A BUDGET SURPLUS FOR YEARS, AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE RELIED ON THE FACT THAT CONGRESS WOULD COME THROUGH AND DO WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO AND REAUTHORIZE THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM, BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. AND SO, AS A RESULT, WE HAVE A SLIGHT BUDGET DEFICIT, SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T HAD FOR YEARS, BUT IT JUST TO ME REALLY HIT HOME THE FACT WHEN I CALLED OUR BUDGET DIRECTOR IN THE STATE, AND I SAID, HOW DID THIS HAPPEN WHEN WE HAD THESE SURPLUSES. AND HE SAID, WELL, WE ACTUALLY THOUGHT YOU GUYS WOULD REAUTHORIZE THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM, BUT YOU DIDN'T. INSTEAD, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS A TAX BILL THAT ADDS OVER $1 TRILLION TO THE DEBT. EVEN WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY ECONOMIC GAIN FROM THAT BILL, A NONPARTISAN GROUP SAID THAT IT WOULD, IN FACT, ADD $100 TRILLION TO THE DEBT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING INSTEAD OF REAUTHORIZING THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. SO FUNDING FOR CHIP EXPIRED MORE THAN TWO MONTHS AGO EVEN THOUGH, AS I SAID, IT'S ONE OF OUR SUCCESS STORIES OUT OF THIS CONGRESS. BOTH PARTIES HAVE COME TOGETHER FOR YEARS TO SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES HEALTH CARE TO MILLIONS OF CHILDREN ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IN MINNESOTA, THESE FUNDS SUPPORT COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN 125,000 KIDS, BUT JUST LAST WEEK MY STATE ESTIMATED THAT FAILING TO REAUTHORIZE CHIP WOULD COST US $178 MILLION. THAT'S WHY THE DEFICIT WAS AT $188 MILLION. SO THE CHIP FUNDING THAT OUR STATE HAS COME TO RELY ON THROUGH DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS HAS SUDDENLY GONE AWAY. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A DEFICIT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE TO ADD OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS TO THE DEBT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL THE PEOPLE IN MY STATE EXCEPT THAT THAT APPEARS TO BE A PRIORITY. THE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY THAN REAUTHORIZING THIS BILL TO HELP KIDS GET THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE. GUESS WHAT? THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT REASONING.

STATES LIKE MINE ARE RUNNING OUT OF WAYS TO MAKE FEDERAL FUNDING LAST A LITTLE BIT LONGER. EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT WE DON'T ACT PUTS COVERAGE AT RISK FOR MILLIONS OF KIDS. SOME STATES HAVE ALREADY BEEN FORCED TO TELL PARENTS TO START MAKING OTHER PLANS FOR THEIR KIDS' HEALTH CARE. NO PARENT SHOULD EVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER THEIR CHILD WILL HAVE HEALTH CARE. WE MUST KEEP THIS STRONG PROGRAM GOING. I'VE ALSO HEARD FROM FAMILIES WITH KIDS WHO GET TREATMENT AT THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS AND CLINICS OF MINNESOTA WHO COUNT ON THIS PROGRAM FOR THE MEDICAL CARE THAT THEY NEED. SO THAT'S WHY WE MUST PASS THE BIPARTISAN BILL THAT SENATOR HATCH AND WYDEN HAVE PUT TOGETHER TO EXTEND CHIP FOR FIVE YEARS SO WE CAN STOP THIS NONSENSE AND TELL PEOPLE BACK AT HOME THAT ACTUALLY SOMETHING IS WORKING HERE. IN 2015, THE LAST TIME WE RENEWED THE PROGRAM, IT PASSED THE SENATE WITH 92 VOTES. WE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT SAME BIPARTISAN SPIRIT AGAIN. WE SHOULD NOT HOLD THESE KIDS HOSTAGE WITH THIS BICKERING, AND WE CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T BE HOLDING ALL OF THE STATES HOSTAGE EITHER. THIS MAKES NO SENSE. WE MUST ACT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, OR STATES LIKE MINE WILL NOT JUST HAVE THE DEFICIT AS A RESULT OF THIS, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE -- BE FORCED TO MAKE DIFFICULT CHOICES ABOUT INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR SOME OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE CONSTITUENTS. CHIP IS ONE PART OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THAT NEARLY EVERYONE AGREES WORKS. WE SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO PROTECT IT.

IN ADDITION TO CHIP, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT US TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE FIXES TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. THEY DON'T WANT US TO REPEAL IT. WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE NUMBERS. WHAT THEY WANT US TO DO IS TO MAKE SOME SENSIBLE CHANGES. YOU CAN NEVER PASS A BILL OF THAT KIND OF BREADTH AND REACH WITHOUT MAKING SOME CHANGES TO IT. I SAID ON THE DAY THAT IT PASSED THAT IT WAS THE BEGINNING AND NOT AN END. I'M A COSPONSOR OF THIS BILL THAT SENATOR ALEXANDER AND SENATOR MURRAY HAVE PUT TOGETHER BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD AND EXACTLY THE TYPE OF SENSIBLE BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION THAT WE SHOULD PASS. THE BILL HAS 11 REPUBLICAN COSPONSORS AND 11 DEMOCRATIC COSPONSORS, AND PATIENTS, GROUPS, DOCTORS' GROUPS AND CONSUMER GROUPS HAVE PRAISED IT, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION, THE ARTHRITIS FOUNDATION. THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE A'S. THERE ARE MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE DOZENS AND HUNDREDS OF NATIONAL HEALTH GROUPS THAT SUPPORT THIS BILL. THEY HAVE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS AND THEY HAVE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS. THEY JUST WANT TO GET SOMETHING DONE.

SENATORS ALEXANDER AND MURRAY HELD A SERIES OF HEARINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ON COMMONSENSE SOLUTIONS TO BRING DOWN INSURANCE COSTS WITH SENATORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. I FOUGHT FOR A PROVISION IN THIS BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD HELP STATES LIKE MINE APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE WAIVERS -- THAT'S WAIVERS PUT TOGETHER, BY THE WAY, IN OUR STATE BY A REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE AND A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR, A PLAN THAT WOULD BRING DOWN PREMIUM COSTS, A PLAN THAT MADE SENSE ACROSS THE BOARD THAT WAS BROADLY SUPPORTED IN OUR STATE, THAT OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING THAT KIND OF FLEXIBILITY. SO THE WAIVER THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE OTHER STATES DO. THE PROVISION WE INCLUDED IN THE MURRAY-ALEXANDER BILL WOULD ENCOURAGE OTHER STATES TO DO EXACTLY WHAT WE DID, AND THAT IS APPLY FOR WAIVERS FOR FLEXIBILITY TO BRING DOWN RATES WITHOUT BEING PENALIZED.

THIS BILL WOULD ALSO EXPEDITE THE REVIEW OF WAIVER APPLICATIONS FOR PROPOSALS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR OTHER STATES. THIS LEGISLATION ALSO SHORTENS THE OVERALL TIME PERIOD THAT STATES HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THEIR WAIVERS. THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, I THOUGHT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION WAS TOUTING THE FACT THAT THEY LIKED TO GET THINGS DONE, THAT THEY WANTED TO MOVE THINGS FASTER, THAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE RED TAPE OF A BUREAUCRACY. WELL, HERE YOU HAVE A BILL THAT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT STATES SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE DECISIONS. WHY CAN'T WE GET IT PASSED? AND NOT ONLY DOES THE BILL IMPROVE THE PROCESS FOR WAIVERS -- THIS IS MY FAVORITE PART BECAUSE MAYBE WHEN YOU HEAR ME TALK ABOUT IT, YOU MIGHT THINK WOW, THIS MUST BE EXPENSIVE. NO. THE NONPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SAYS IT WOULD ACTUALLY CUT THE DEFICIT, THIS BILL, THE ALEXANDER-MURRAY BILL, BY $3.8 BILLION OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS BECAUSE IT SIMPLY GIVES STATES THE FLEXIBILITY TO COPE WITH THE ISSUES THEY'RE HAVING IN THEIR OWN STATES, TO ADJUST TO THEIR OWN PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO AFFORD HEALTH CARE WHILE SAVING MONEY FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THIS MAKES NO SENSE TO DELAY BY EVEN ONE DAY -- DELAY BY EVEN ONE DAY THE PASSAGE OF THIS LEGISLATION, NOR DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO CUT ALL THOSE KIDS OFF OF HEALTH INSURANCE. RENEWING CHIP, THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM, AND PASSING MURRAY-ALEXANDER WOULD BE IMPORTANT STEPS FORWARD, BUT WE STILL MUST DO MORE.

NOW, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET ALL MY PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILLS PASSED BY THE END OF THE YEAR BUT WE SHOULD. WE WON'T BUT WE SHOULD. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M GIVING UP BECAUSE I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN'T GIVING UP BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO SEE RIGHT CLEAREYED WHAT'S GOING ON BECAUSE THEY'RE STARTING TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE COSTS OF THEIR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. THE COSTS ARE SKYROCKETING. I HEARD FROM PEOPLE ACROSS MINNESOTA WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO AFFORD THE MEDICINE THEY NEED. THIS IS ABOUT THE WOMAN IN DELUTH WHO TOLD ME THAT SHE CHOSE NOT TO FILL HER LAST PRESCRIPTION BECAUSE THAT ONE DRUG WOULD COST A FULL 25% OF HER INCOME. THIS IS ABOUT THE WOMAN IN ST. PAUL WHO EVEN WITH MEDICARE CAN'T AFFORD A $663 A MONTH COST FOR MEDICINE THAT SHE NEEDS. AND THIS IS ABOUT A WOMAN FROM CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA, WHO TOLD ME, I'M PRACTICALLY GOING WITHOUT FOOD TO PAY FOR MY PRESCRIPTIONS. IT'S HEARTBREAKING THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN AMERICA. REDUCING THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT HE CARES ABOUT THIS. SO WHY CAN'T WE GET THIS DONE? I HAVE ONE BILL WHO HAS 33 -- THAT HAS 33 COSPONSORS, THAT LIFTS THE BAN THAT MAKES IT ILLEGAL FOR MEDICARE TO NEGOTIATE PRICES FOR PART D PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR 41 MILLION AMERICAN SENIORS. YES, RIGHT NOW IT IS IN LAW THAT YOU CAN'T NEGOTIATE. 41 MILLION SENIORS. LAST TIME I CHECKED, I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE A LOT OF BARGAINING POWER. BUT RIGHT NOW WE CAN'T DO THAT.

ANOTHER BILL, SENATOR McCAIN AND I HAVE TO ALLOW AMERICANS TO BRING IN SAFE, LESS EXPENSIVE DRUGS FROM CANADA. A THIRD BILL THAT REPUBLICAN SENATOR GRASSLEY AND I HAVE TO STOP SOMETHING CALLED PAY FOR DELAY WHERE BIG PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ACTUALLY PAY OFF THEIR GENERIC COMPETITORS TO KEEP LESS EXPENSIVE PRODUCTS OFF THE MARKET. HOW CAN THAT KIND OF PRACTICE BE ANY GOOD FOR AMERICAN CONSUMERS? WELL, GUESS WHAT? IT'S NOT. WE NEED TO PUT AN END TO THIS OUTRAGEOUS PRACTICE AND THIS BILL WOULD SAVE TAXPAYERS $2.9 BILLION. $2.9 BILLION. SENATOR LEE AND I HAVE A BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW TEMPORARY IMPORTATION OF SAFE DRUGS THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE MARKET IN ANOTHER COUNTRY FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS WHERE THERE ISN'T HEALTHY COMPETITION FOR THAT DRUG IN THIS COUNTRY. AND BELIEVE ME, THERE'S PLENTY OF AREAS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE HEALTHY COMPETITION, WHERE AMERICANS AREN'T GETTING THE KIND OF DEALS THAT THEY SHOULD GET. I HAVE A BIPARTISAN BILL WITH SENATORS GRASSLEY, LEAHY, FEINSTEIN AND LEE AND SEVERAL OTHERS CALLED THE CREATES ACT TO PUT A STOP TO OTHER PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES' TACTICS, LIKE REFUSING TO PROVIDE SAMPLES THAT DELAY MORE AFFORDABLE GENERIC DRUGS FROM GETTING TO CONSUMERS. ACCORDING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, THIS LEGISLATION WOULD SAVE APPROXIMATELY $3.6 BILLION. SO PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT SAVING MONEY IN THIS CHAMBER. HOW ARE THEY DOING IT? ON THE BACKS OF KIDS. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SAVING MONEY, HOW THEY'RE DOING IT? ON THE BACKS OF AMERICANS THAT LIKE TO AFFORD PREMIUMS. HERE I HAVE LAID OUT A NUMBER OF BILLS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN SCORED TO SAVE MONEY. PASSING THE ALEXANDER-MURRAY BIPARTISAN BILL WOULD SAVE US MONEY. WE HAVE THE ACTUAL ACCOUNTING TO SHOW IT. ALLOWING FOR LESS EXPENSIVE DRUGS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD SAVE MONEY FOR CONSUMERS. IT'S PRETTY EASY TO UNDERSTAND. IT'S CALLED CAPITALISM. IT CREATES COMPETITION. AND IF OUR OWN AMERICAN DRUG COMPANIES OF WHICH WE ARE PROUD THAT THEY'VE DEVELOPED LIFE-SAVING CURES, THEY ARE IMPORTANT EMPLOYERS IN OUR COUNTRY, BUT IF THEY REFUSE TO BRING DOWN THOSE PRICES AND HAVE A MONOPOLY ON THE MARKET, WE SHOULD BE BRINGING IN COMPETITION.

THERE'S TWO WAYS YOU COULD DO IT. ONE IS GENERIC AND THAT IS MAKING IT EASIER TO PRODUCE GENERIC DRUGS AND ALSO STOPPING BIG PHARMA COMPANIES PAYING OFF THEIR COMPETITION FROM KEEPING THEIR COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS OFF THE MARKET AND THE OTHER IS SIMPLY ALLOWING DRUGS FROM LESS EXPENSIVE PLACES BUT SAFE PLACES LIKE CANADA. AND THAT IS A BILL THAT I HAVE PUT FORWARD WITH SENATOR McCAIN BUT ALSO SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS AND I HAVE WORKED ON THIS AS WELL AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS. THESE ARE COMMONSENSE IDEAS, YET WE CANNOT EVEN MOVE TO A VOTE. WHY? BECAUSE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES DON'T WANT US TO HAVE THAT VOTE. SO I AM ASKING MY COLLEAGUES, NUMBER ONE, LET'S END THE YEAR WITH SOME COMMON SENSE AND PASS TWO COMMONSENSE BILLS TO HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE. THAT IS THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE BILL AND THAT IS THE ALEXANDER-MURRAY COMPROMISE TO MAKE SOME FIXES TO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. THEN WHEN PEOPLE ARE HOME FOR A WEEK OVER THE HOLIDAYS, MAYBE THEY SHOULD START TALKING TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS LIKE I HAVE. MAYBE THEY SHOULD STALK TO THEIR FRIENDS AND THEIR -- TALK TO THEIR FRIENDS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES. MAYBE THEY'LL COME BACK WITH A NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION AND THAT IS THEY WILL NO LONGER BE COMPLETELY BEHOLDEN TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SOME RELIEF AND TAKE THESE COMPANIES ON AND CREATE SOME COMPETITION FOR AMERICA.

BUT I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM. IN A CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM, YOU DO NOT HAVE MONOPOLIES FOR CERTAIN DRUGS. YOU DO NOT HAVE A DRUG LIKE INSULIN THAT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR DECADES AND DECADES AND DECADES GO UP TRIPLE SO THAT ONE ELDERLY CONSTITUENT IN MY STATE ACTUALLY SAVES THE DROPS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SYRINGES SO -- IN THE INJECTORS SO THEY CAN USE THEM THE NEXT DAY. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING WHILE THEY'RE TAKING HOME BIG BONUSES AT THE END OF THE YEAR AT THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. SO I IMPLORE MY COLLEAGUES, LET'S GET THESE COMMONSENSE THINGS DONE SO YOU CAN GO HOME AND NOT THINK WHEN YOU'RE SITTING THERE AT YOUR HOLIDAY DINNER THAT YOU HAVE BASICALLY LEFT MILLIONS OF KIDS WITHOUT HEALTH CARE AND THEN ON NEW YEAR'S, THE NEXT WEEK, MAKE A RESOLUTION TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS, NOT FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I YIELD THE FLOOR