tv U.S. Senate CSPAN July 28, 2015 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
at a science policy research unit at the university of sussex. dr. mazzucato received her degree in new york. she is the author of the entrepreneurial state debunking public versus private sector myths, which was included in the 2013 book of the year list issued by the financial times. so thanks each of you for being here and for being here and you could each provide some opening remarks and then we will get started with questions. ..
from the national institute of health. i think it would be informative for the hearing or by describing the academic career track will start for some and then onto an assistant professor after five to six years onto the associate professor with tenure and typically after another five years one may become a full professor. if you read a major research university in significant part of your time is professor's conduct in research which typically includes graduates events as independent researchers, possibly some trading of undergraduate becoming more important as we want to build pipelines of
students excited about research or graduate schools in the stanfield and collaborations inside and outside of the university to address problems that span several disciplines. even the combination is important because professor share research in the classroom to help students understand how the subject matter they are learning can be applied to do analysis or solve useful problem and motivate them to seek a research career. as many as fact year today conducting basic research to build the understanding of all sorts of matters and saw significant problems develop technologies transformative and all the while training scientists and engineers feared basic research should be of highest priority. must provide for advances that
will benefit children and grandchildren supported almost exclusively at the federal government. they sicken applied researches are valuable but their alternative sources for applied research without basic research there is no applied research and no innovation. federal cuts in the fund have been huge. excellent and innovative research has not been funded. the nih has talked about them today. it is as low as 9% whereas in 2001 is 29%. this reduction in the number of proposals funded have had this to get negative impact on the morale of investigators from and not just once applying for the grant but also their peers see these proposals not sunday. it also of course have a significant negative impact on trading of students in the degree to which fundamental research gets done. young scientists and engineers
make other choices and these are the very people we should encourage the most to be research because they are the next generation of drivers of innovation. for semi-computer scientists and engineers say goodbye and interesting.come a research job in industry. however many are headed in to monitor employment. also program officers cutting budget significantly trying to spread the wealth but that causes considerable disruption in the training of students and in particular one of the first things you'll cut is the travel budget that doesn't like to send students a conference to develop the job prospects any. cutting back and funding has a negative impact making agencies more conservative than what they support. as a result no incentives come encouragement and financial support of students towards creative ways of thinking
appeared in real-time from all government supported research are shrinking in the u.s. it is growing and most of europe and asia. we are seeing this a lot based on the research presented at conferences. the trend makes the question of where will the big breakthroughs and discoveries in the future come from? finally, i'm sure you're aware u.s. students going into s.t.e.m. field. cutbacks would only make the problem worse. i feel confident most research universities are already the case or graduate didn't population, particularly the phd level and s.t.e.m. areas mostly foreign students, not american. we need to look for ways to turn this down. investments in research and education of a huge return but only a very long times then.
these are investments would make that would make not necessarily for a cells in the short term before children and grandchildren and it's sometimes not easy to think that far ahead i would like to address resource the research translated at my company was the nih grants as part of the research program at the university of maryland. i did not conduct this initiative within commercialization. after this posting the invention of algorithms to the patent office and giving research review days i got a lot of feet back and encouragement to do a company and that began my entrepreneurship. in addition to the fact the university of maryland has a very act of entrepreneur -- entrepreneurship program it was
a utmost importance that innovative research and small business technology transfer program existed. on the speech the grant was the critical panel for the original research post into a commercially viable solution. enabled me to hire a first engineers and reach out to his prospective partners for valuation. moreover as a tiny startup is critical for establishing credibility. finally promise was a program and the angel investment that allowed us to further expand as we prepare for commercialization. the government must continue to provide incentives to spur ew technologies as the staffers in turn lead to an clinic, growth of the middle class and improvement of quality of life. fortunately the programs are doing well.
said as raise the amount from 500,000 to 750,000 this is significant and will help start considerably since the commercializing technology can take a lot of effort, resources and time. in my case the research code we start with, it is computationally very expensive and we had to optimize it to make it run many times faster than real-time. it took us a lot longer than we ever imagined the history never had that. i also want to point out the msf has developed the program in the primary goal is to foster entrepreneurship preparing engineers and sciences to extend focus on the laboratory and commercialization that has been
supported previously by nsf research on the program has been shown to make a significant difference in the successor to the companies. they fostered ecosystems around them where they have mentors from a venture capitalist and scientists and engineers with the ears of the people who have a lot of help on the next level in their company. some of these companies, the program existed for two or three years and some power to choose success for the licensed technology or if they haven't been brought up by google or facebook or someone else. >> can i ask you to wrap up? >> that was the last part, to just highlight that. the entrepreneurship side the federal government is doing well
remembering to have to start with basic research to get to that point. >> thank you. >> thank you. it's my pleasure to talk to you about my research into the sources of transformative medicine. the holy grail of drug research and development are transformative that innovative drugs that have a groundbreaking effect don't care. policymakers and patients worry about a reduction of products by a drug development process. to best encourage drugs it's important to direct policy serves the sources of products but there is controversy over the importance of contributors to developing therapeutics or pharmaceutical industry has contended research leads to no stamina since the arguing institutions like mah support the process of drug development. while it remains vital, want to focus comments on the valuable
underrecognized role that public investment to inform the discussion i led a dozen different medical specialties to determine what they found was most transformative drug approved by the fda in the last 25 years. experts came to a consensus of 26 drugs and drug classes and examine development history of each of these drugs. the full results of investigations are available in papers they publish but one of the major recurring themes is publicly funded academic or government scientist conceptualizing therapeutic approach based on research about disease mechanisms and going so far to demonstrate concepts. the red blood stimulator was first purified at the university of chicago laboratory in 1971 and also create potential therapeutic effect. the researchers cloned the gene
a decade later and produce large quantities bleeding to the approval to treat anemia and effective treatment for leukemia was also the very first successful cancer therapy. they set out to prove inhibitors could inhabit the malfunctioning ensign. the drug laboratory for david e. identified an active agent. the first writer to demonstrate inhibition of hiv which synthesize many decades ago at michigan, but in 1984 the rising tide of hiv, sam broder put your commissions for possible antiviral candidates. submitted among hundreds of other drugs documented activity against the virus was far higher than any other compound could trust to be done promptly and collaborations at duke universe
the three years later. one variation is scientific concepts first arose in university settings that are later followed up in an industry setting. an example can be found in ssri antidepressants. colleagues at the university of sweden investigated serotonin bola 1960s and synthesize the first ssri to ensure the serotonin runs around the same time they started designing and testing the first to be fda approved. transformative conditions were discovered by a variety of institutions of one similarity. the centrality of innovators in the development work. plaintiff by the broad development of drugs preferred simple collaborations and industry collaborators provide drug samples are technical and scientific support to move forward discovery but training
is to not support concept of the pharmaceutical industry is the most important source. though our survey included drugs in 2009, further support can be found in the story behind another recent transformative drug. the first direct antiviral treatment for hepatitis c. the story starts with decades of investment in understanding hiv discovery with labs and drug in one of the recipient was the director of biochemical pharmacology research scientist at the va and ask your industry perform to start a to develop drugs to treat hepatitis c virus eventually hitting us here. as for the usefulness and many key arose in settings. concepts are not pat noble. they are generally reserved for products. commercial development and the
property often occurs within the pharmaceutical company that leased to misperceptions about the importance different sources and contributions of products. one of the outcomes of the misperception's proposals to promote innovation focus on providing greater incentives for drug users by extending patents are regulatory approval as an example you can see the recent 21st century legislation passed by the house of representatives. in contrast, reductions have threatened sources does support most drug innovation. i firmly believe policies that support investment are powerful ways a more transformative drug in the future. assumption by the federal budget high cost aspect of reese or which may lead to new therapies that have raised concern asked
whether the privatization of project in drug development should also think about other recent public can gain from investments such as returning a small share of revenues to the public infrastructure work by the plowed back into research. instead triggered by a significant role in creating transformative drugs for the past 25 years, holds great promise for drug development. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for inviting me here. it's a real honor. i must say this is one of the only topics economists agree about. it is more or less commonly agreed that spending on r&d which is one of the inputs into the innovation process have an absolutely for the fact i'm on one economic growth. the real issue where we get back into debates between economist is how we talk about this what is the role of the public or when it interacts with business within this area private sector
and nurturing innovation economy and we have a real problem and i want to focus on the limited way economists have talked about this and they manipulate policymakers have enabled and increase the budget whether the nih, nsf or even massive. it's not a coincidence that i work at the science research in 1965 because it was one of the only places that have non-confronted the notion of economists have the role of the public sector is to fix market failures. we've heard a lot about basic research. it's been fundamental for finance innovation across a whole innovation chain and i was happy to yours weicker gingrich said the market is shaping. darpa, are both from sbr has
enabled in the u.s. has been market creation and market shaping through an active strategic mission oriented me. they don't even half the words to talk about market shaping and creating that we talk about public good and of course research is a public good. the spillover is so high that it's hard for private firms to appropriate returns can get under investment in basic research to the government has to step in. if you look at places like silicon valley or places of innovation across united states what you see is basic research applied research and as we were hearing before it as a kind of patient pain and the early-stage companies require because you know the very fact that german want their returns in three
maximum five years. the exit tends to happen for a buyout for an ipo and maybe some gadgets but it won't get you the biotech revolution coming in a tech revolution, internet revolution or today's clean tech revolution so many people hope for. i want to focus on the and how the inability to talk about this, has also really hurt policymaking in this area. i spent lots of agencies have not been there. they've been mission oriented. the most obvious is going to demand. if you read the website today they clearly have a mission to nurture out-of-the-box thinking and if you look at the nih website at mission oriented and how do we include missions. we don't.
you can look at what the public sector should be doing. also, if you look at the three big problems we have today which is the cuts we are witnessing an research altogether, the latest figure that federal spending on r&d is a total peaking at 67% in the 60s is brought to 20 to 25% in may 2000. recently back up to 30%. however, this is a massive ball increasingly focused on basic research and most wonderful we are talking about basic research and the importance today we have to remember the big successes in the past came from nurturing these linkages, fundamental dynamic linkages between basic and applied research. if you look at the aggregate figures the air is making up for that. that is one of the questions
you're asking bigger gingrich. that is increasingly a bona fide research. private factories to spend something like 35% of total basic research spending in the private sector now falling 20% in the narrow scope and the cisco falls alongside with this functionality today in many countries but especially the u.s. which is the decreasing financial iteration of companies spending more and then click share buyback set of r&d. this is fundamental when we look at those active private sector engagement and mission oriented strategic public sector, you have to ask yourself why they were doing that. bell labs that we hear about came from a deal with government. at&t was a monopoly. governments that find you can pretend you're in status upon us to reinvest profits m. a day.
alexis and her to the provocation. we don't have the dealmaking between the public and private actors and partly because we've allowed the narrative to be so pervasive dealmaking the public sector has to do is facilitate the conditions for innovation in the really cool stuff that can have it within a business. the problem is that historically incorrect. with all its required a strategic public sector alongside business and i hope we get to talk about that. the funds we talk about a sick research we kind of missed the wider story. >> excellent. thank you earn much, dr. mazzucato. let me start with a question about for innovation comes from. we need first to understand where discoveries come from. one analysis found two thirds of the 21 drugs with the highest
therapeutic impact occurred between 1965 and 1992 stand direct to the publicly funded research. you sound in a recent study the truly transformative drugs are based on insights gained are publicly funded research comes something you some right in her testimony. this study found that said saget died the dragon is great that 91% of drug patents are run by the church and the industry says this is evident innovation comes straight from the drug companies. i want you to help us understand the need in these descriptions of where innovation comes from. >> i think they're a number of ex-nations as to why it is the health affairs study might've found that. first of all as i said in my
comment, a lot of the key insight such as do so locker is to treat diseases that inspire a whole field of therapeutics are not necessarily part to bowl but her rise from decades and decades and decades of government funded research and even government laboratories and those kinds of key insight that then catalyze the subsequent development of products are not patentable although products are. on the other hand, pharmaceutical companies do an excellent job of trying to build a ticket around their invention and was subsequently patent incremental changes and so will
build -- we did one study showing 200 patents around one particular drug. on the one hand the case that a lot of the key innovation that comes from public money or not patentable. on the other hand the case pharmaceutical companies pursue patents to access. we did a study looking at all of these patterns held in the health care turn from a small sliver of patterns held by academic institutions and government were much more important in terms of being guided and subsequent patents with natural impact on the field in terms of generalized value than those held by the pharmaceutical sector. >> the federal government invest a lot of money in this urge. drug companies used to research and develop new drugs and whether drugs or money, sometimes billions of dollars
taxpayers don't necessarily reap the reward. some drug companies argue the government recoups investment in basic research because drug companies pay corporate taxes on profit. believing taxpayers are adequately compensated for investment in the drug companies, dr. kesselheim? >> we could do more to advise the positive profits and outcomes that come from these products into the biomedical enterprise specifically. when you look of pharmaceutical manufacturers and how much money they devote to research and development only 20% of pharmaceutical manufacturer sales are devoted to research and development enough that they stand on the street and advertising far more than the
amount they spend on innovative research and development on the level of less than 5%. what we need to be doing is considering ways of taking the enormous profits that emerge from the pharmaceutical industry and plotted them back into the biomedical enterprise that in many cases provided the underlying discoveries that allowed the profits to be made. >> there is much conversation in the opposite direction with drug company profits. perhaps i could get you involved in this, dr. mazzucato. there is talk about cutting corporate taxes for companies that traced profit back to patents or other forms of intellectual property. i want to know what you think about the innovation tax cut. what a spur innovation or increase federal investments in
race search, dr. mazzucato? >> first of all it's just important to remember it is a monopoly for 20 years. as policymaker, the goal should not be to increase profits of companies. it should be to increase research. that is what policymakers do all around the world. the evidence these policies are not good at that because what they are targeting is the income generated rather than research and are designed poorly which is quite intelligent targeting research that leads to r&d to deliver higher traffic than income generated rad. we should also remember the bob dole act in the 1980s allowed
it to be patented. it is really interesting. they also say you better make sure the taxpayer doesn't pay twice. last year nih spent around are the 1 billion in research both asic and applied in the problem is what happens to the prices of these drugs. did they reflect that input? it is not only in at not only inadequate writing a lot about how we might get the measures but the pricing mechanism that love could be one way the taxpayer could be rewarded that the government has never felt the confidence to exercise precisely because of the narrative where you are meddling in the market when you created the market and so much evidence for the finance has shaped the health care industry. as soon as we talk about government having a say on the price for the price or the whole
upon the tradition and for the government meddling in the health care industry. >> what i'm hearing you say is we get more innovation if we piled more into basic research if we do more federal support for basic research not if we make these giveaways to big drug companies. >> there is no evidence that has been tried and tested in places like the u.k. no evidence that increases investment in innovation. it might increase the time people golf. i don't know. that might have been. what drives investment in innovation by the private sector are their perceptions of where the future technological and market opportunities are. by the way warren buffett is very good on this. what we talk about is what drives future opportunities for nasa we should be talking about an policymaker should be
thinking about financing those opportunities. >> one more question and then over to the congressmen and that is to ask about endemic medical innovation at which could boost the budget by 20% without adding deficits by asking drug companies to put a little more profit into nih. no surprise the army of lobbyists don't like this bill. dr. kesselheim could i ask you for medical innovation that might affect the pipeline of new products in the drug industry itself? >> well, the medical innovation act is a good idea because it provides a very substantial sum to the nih for his work in catalyzing transformative drug development in the fda for its work supporting regulatory science to make sure drugs are
evaluated and approved and that they work in a safe and come on the market. unfortunately the amount of money pharmaceutical companies have made over false advertising and other problems that they've had that led to a substantial amount of money that could be contributing back into the developing economy. >> thank you. it is clear from the testimony we have heard today that new drugs were built on a foundation for taxpayer supported investments in basic research. it does not make sense to me that congress wants more innovation and turns around and cut the budget for nih nsf for basic research. it is time for lawmakers to put money where their mouth is. the medical innovation act is one way we can get back on the right track. thank you all. congressman cummings.
>> dr. espy-wilson, the lab to market involves many steps to many technologies and discoveries, the most promising ones have not succeeded in making. it separate? some of them don't make it? and for that reason the latin market is often called the valley of death. you are in the process of taking a software technology that you develop through your research out of the lab and into the commercial market. you have received several small business innovation research grants from the national science foundation. how important have those grandstand to enabling omnispeech to cross the so-called elliot death.
>> well, i hope with kostunica we are well on our way. critical. i would not have started the company in the first place if those didn't exist. been a professor i know how to write proposals. it is something we do all the time. having that they are made it a lot easier. i look at the university of maryland has been very supportive to professors, students farming companies and has developed a lot of programs that one crucial program for me was a program called the venture accelerator that i joined for you have people with business lebanon schwerner several times they are to advise you to write a business plan and financial model and think like a business person because it's different than thinking like a professor.
>> the effectiveness and efficiency of what you're doing. they are trying to reinvent the wheel and they don't know how to do it. the next thing you know they fall in ditches and never get back up and the next thing you know they're on the sidelines. >> that is false developed. that came after they started. one of the main things they have are people being entrepreneurs do is to detect the marketing talk to your potential customers and strategic market and understand what does it mean. oftentimes we develop technology because it's really great only to find no one wants the technology. you want to make sure you don't waste the time and they've been able to reduce the possibility
of that happening significantly. >> getting the technology to market. >> depends how much money you have. if you're able to generate revenue early come you may not take it venture capital funding. if you get enough revenue coming in early. if it's going to take a considerable amount of time to get the traction for you generate millions of dollars that can support all of your employees and growth you need venture capital. >> he said something i don't want to go unnoticed. you talked about how when these young people cannot get grants to go and do research you said they often become underemployed. senator warren and i have been looking at this whole middle class prosperity situation.
we have one hearing where we talk about people being saddled with debt. students coming -underscore saddled with debt. so then we have a situation here where if they don't have opportunities, they don't have a job to even pay that debt. i haven't even gotten to the feeling of hopelessness and wasted possibilities that they could be giving this great gifts to the world. that is something i don't want to pass by because we've got a lot of young people who want to go out and do great things but unless we open these doors and senator warren talked a lot about how all of this allows us to create jobs. that is very significant. do you see that?
young people find by the wayside? >> yes definitely. even the young scientist who are trained and able to apply for proposals for nih. i think there's research that shows that young investigators are hurt the most because they don't have a track record that you are more established scientists have. unfortunately when you are in a review panel you know the more established sciences and what they are capable of. they tend to get favorite a lot of times over young investors because they don't have a proven track record. >> also cutting up the pipeline. >> they do try to make that nsf or nih to give special attention to young investigators. if so a lot of them end up without support.
>> dr. mazzucato, in your book the public versus private sector met to discuss how the u.s. has one of the most interventionist governments when it comes to innovation. if the government no longer plays a role is there any other force in the united states capable of making what president kennedy called the national commitment of scientific and technical manpower material and facilities to marshal the nation's capabilities. >> the point is not to mean that the private sector. the important dynamic public private interactions have been fundamental to creating the kinds of innovations that have been fundamental to the u.s. economic growth.
the problem is today we have real crisis on both sides. we don't have the mission oriented for a few what we have less confidence for many agencies to talk about their missions. they have to show that economic value they themselves become short-term like the private sector but also when we think about these, for example what they were able to do in the past were to act like a public fund which by the way is common around the world said israel has the ozma. this is not about communism. the problem is by not allowing them to talk about themselves in a particular way we haven't allowed them also to do it in a normal venture capitalists will do which is to welcome failure. when you try to innovate you will fail and fail again. michael jordan has one of the
best quotes on that. what the private venture capitalists have visibility to reap the reward you are talking about before to cover the downside investment. all the failures. again the lack of ability to admit we are kind of like public venture capital fund has not allowed nih and darpa to think more concretely about how to create a revolving fund. you can see this with the recent guaranteed loans given to countries like tesla and salinger. everyone knows the cylinder story. it was a great toy for anyone who wanted to bash government. they should just do the background leveling the playing field when everything behind the iphone was actually picked. internet coming dps, touchscreen for all picked by different government intrusions so if we
admit that look at 20 conquerors for each test will good 20 cylinder as an wishes start thinking much more concretely not just how the agency should be confident about mission but precisely to do investments again and again and not just have one shot deals to have to get much more realistic about whether the tax system by own is bringing back enough money to do these experiments again and again. >> me ask you this question about china. the global r&d funding forecast was continuing to make double-digit increases in its annual r&d budget. if the rate of growth continues through the end of the decade, the total spending by 2022. is china trying to emulate the
r&d model utilized in the u.s. and is it trying to entice researchers and technologies to leave the united states and come to china? >> china has an incredible ability to adapt to them and and learn the right lessons around the world. they definitely learned the lesson about the mission oriented investment spending 1.7 trillion on the five new set areas which are broadly defined based on an air industrial policy commits very much mission oriented policy if you look at the five areas all in the green direction. they are also increasing massively r&d expenditures. i think what is also interesting is those countries around the world see that as an opportunity as opposed to a threat. denmark a small countries the number one provider of high-tech services to china's green
economy and denmark is pushing its way in terms of investment and innovation on the manufacturing side but because they themselves have done this in an oriented way have been able to engage with china in this interesting way they see as china's investments an opportunity. for the absolute transformational for the u.s. in terms of a threat of increasing the r&d investments more than we are and ask themselves how they can benefit from the massive increase in spending because they are also potentially supplying the demand side hole not just the supply-side push which in some ways with often talking about supply-side push on innovation. that's an important point i should say something quickly that all the technological revolutions in the u.s. required a demand-side policy. mass production would not have had the affected in transferring part of any across the economy
without mission oriented demand-side policies like suburbanization. one way china today is thinking about that is her cicely using green as a new direction also for the i.t. revolution. not just i.t. and high-tech areas but also how you're going to help the diffusion and deployment of the new innovations across all economy and green becomes an interesting direction through which to think about how in this country we can allow i.t. to get fully deployed as many people including robert solow famous for saying computers everywhere except in productivity statistics. >> senator morin. >> thank you. data make it clear that we need more investment in basic research. right now it said congress is focused on lowering the sba
standards for approval so companies can get their products on the market faster. industry are just patients are getting new drugs fast enough and it's too hard for them to get drugs approved. this is a very dangerous game. i want to ask a question. dr. kesselheim, can you tell us about the authority to speed innovative drugs to market them if the fda is using that authority? >> share, number of pathways the fda has two provide patients with access to important new drugs treating serious or life-threatening condition. there are five different pathways that have the effect of our intent and last year to tears of drugs approved by the fda for the review of pathways.
not only does the fda had this in place but it's using them quite liberally and if you look at statistics a lot of new drugs are being approved on the basis of studies treating yours but half of drugs being approved. most new drugs approved on that is in six months or less despite the fact are intended to be chronic diseases in use for a lifetime. the actual statistics and data to support the industry's assertion that there is a long and arduous process for testing or approving new drugs once it is known that drugs work. in fact, it is quite the opposite. >> that is very helpful. low-grade fda standards may make drug companies more profitable but it's not going to make the more innovative.
let me ask you another question. should some of the proposals advertise and promote uses for drugs that aren't approved by the fda so-called off label uses that have initial clinical evidence that they might work like maybe a case study or retrospective analyses for small child. dr. kesselheim, can you explain how innovation is a few would be affected if proposals were passed into law? >> these proposals are dangerous for patients and public health. they would allow companies to get drugs approved on the basis of an extremely narrow and limited indication and promote wisely what they may not be given an eight because there hasn't been testing done in them. patients want transformative innovation and treatments that work and are safe. the noxious one innovation for
the sake of innovation. if you don't provide companies with requirements to do those tests by virtue of having the fda approved conditions companies historically at the same threat history do them. you won't get that kind of testing we need to guide physicians and patients. we don't know how to use them and meanwhile because drugs are invariably expensive it would dump tons and tons of resources into these treatments on what we could be doing is testing them first to make sure they work in using them appropriately. >> the fda is that the gold standard around the world because it is protected safety of americans and ensure that
drugs approved are in fact effective. dismantle bsd is lower standards than when produce cures and wouldn't keep us any safer. if we are serious about new cures, congress should better fund the fda said the fda can do its work. we need to make a real commitment of real dollars. thank you are a match. >> dr. kesselheim, according to medicare and medicaid data between july 2013 in june 2014 1200 generic drugs more than doubled in price. are you aware of this? >> yes. >> one generic drug can reverse the effects of opioid or overdose in a few minutes. it has become vitally important for first responders and law enforcement workers. according to cdc related overdoses quadruple the last
decade and yet the company that makes then in the nasal formula most commonly used by first responders increases more than 50% over the past year. in baltimore where i live the cost more than doubled in less than one year. dr. kesselheim are you aware of these price hikes? yes. >> the only explanation for price increases seems to be that they see the increase in demand and see if the lack of competition in this increasing prices to make additional profits. this year i introduced medicaid generic drug price varies back. this would require generic drug manufacturers to pay rebirth to programs for drug crisis increase faster than inflation. under the law brand-name drugs
already paid these rebates. by bill is simply extend the same requirement to generic drugs that they are treated equally. the nonpartisan budget estimates the change would save taxpayers $1 billion over 10 years. do you think this proposal makes any sense? >> first of all, absolutely. it's great we talk about generic arab summit meeting about innovation. sure we need a period of market exclusivity in which a brain income they can make records invested revenue, but what drives innovation is when bad end and there are generic drugs on the market in a vibrant generic drug market to compete with the brand-name companies and that forces them to pursue the next great thing. in this case it seems there's a major market failure in the case have been able to provide these generic drugs for reasonable
prices. we need substantial attention to this particular case as well as other cases you've looked into a battle generic drugs increasing in price and they think your bill is a good step in the right direction. there's a lot of other things done to make sure there is a vibrant generic marketplace to promote innovation in brand-name and generic drugs. >> a lot of people don't realize dr. kesselheim, that there are according to the american hospital association over 90% of all hospitals are suffering from drug shortages. a lot of this is folks are hoarding drugs and jacking up the price and selling over a note or weekend in creating situations where hospitals cannot get first-rate drugs.
are you aware of that? >> i am. a lot of these drugs are rolled drugs. this is a problem of lack of attention society has spent on making sure there's a vibrant generic truck market and policies that help ensure these kinds of shortages are addressed in a timely fashion. the fda has taken some steps internally but they could use more attention and resources like the kind you are trying to bring to it. >> we will continue to shine a spot light on this. going back to this project senator warren and i were involved in we are trying to figure out how to do middle-class another's keep more of their paycheck? they are paying more and more in producing more and they are still not getting paid more.
they see their paycheck they get shrinking and they're trying to figure out how to make ends meet that is what they do better than the a's and how all of this comes together and have every aspect is hitting this over and over again. many of them try and figure out what we can do. this is an effort in that regard. >> i want to thank you all for being here today. dr. carol espy-wilson, good luck on the project. and thank you for your research and talking about it.
dr. mazzucato, thank you for reminding us that we need language to discuss expanded edition about research means and how it changes our economy and our country. the key message is that innovation is both on federally funded research. we were delighted to have him talk about in the 90s he was successful in doubling the nih budget. i was glad to hear him say he got his only mistake was tripled the budget for the nsf. three cheers for speaker gingrich on that. since then, we have headed in the wrong direction. we have cut and cut and cut support for basic research. as a matter of the ultimate success of americans. we need to support research and good jobs in america. we need to support the research because we need to make sure america doesn't go bankrupt trying to do it medical problems
in the future. i want to thank everyone for being here today. thank you all. >> it is interesting when president obama was in kenya i sat up until 5:00 in the morning and watched his speech. he said we did not inherit what we have from the environment and opportunities from our ancestors did they borrow them from our children. we borrow them. the question is what are we going to provide for our children? when you look at research, making sure people have the best medical care making sure we take care of innovation and open the door for jobs good jobs and the united state that have
impact over the world. it is all connected to what we are trying to do here today. you all have contributed greatly to our discussion. we are going to take what he said and use it in every way we can. we will be calling on you again trying to take your eyes because we want the best minds and we have been in front of the assembly also of course think speaker gingrich for his contributions. thank you as we march forward trying to make a difference. my mom used to say in my time in a myspace will make a difference with god's grace. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]
expire this coming friday. we should see several procedural vote on the measure today. final passage for possible for the end of the week. the house is pacify the entire extension with house majority leader kevin mccarthy will not bring it up for a vote on the house floor. lie to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. most gracious god, we rejoice in the visible manifestation of your love. you save us from ourselves opening to us paths of deliverance from narcissistic detours.
when we go astray, you seek and save us. you came to our world to free us from sin's shackles, providing us with the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. great and marvelous is your love. lord, permit our senators this day to reflect your love. use them to bring your light and truth to our nation and world. may they do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with you. inspire them to dwell so fully in the mystery of your heavenly
love that they will love others as you have first loved them. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow today -- today to allow for the weekly conference meetings. further, that the time during the recess count postcloture on the mcconnell amendment number 2266 as modified. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, madam president, the senate continues to move closer and closer to passage of a bipartisan multiyear highway bill. the legislation we advanced again last night is fiscally responsible. it won't raise taxes by a penny and it will give state and local governments the kind of stability they need to plan longer-term projects for american roads and bridges. the bill couldn't have advanced as far as it has already without a lot of very hard work from a lot of dedicated members and i
want to thank each of them. by doing the right thing for the american people, it has meant taking some bruises but the american people sent us here to do some challenging things. they deserve our best efforts on their behalf. so i'm proud to see the senate continue along this difficult but promising road. success was never assured at the beginning of this process. it wasn't assured even yesterday. and we're not done yet but the important thing is the senate is now on the verge of passing a multiyear highway bill. the senate is now positioned to pass another important piece of legislation for the american people. and with cooperation the senate may still be able to consider more germane ideas to improve the bill even further. but the bottom line is this, if republicans and democrats resolve to keep working hard for the american people, we'll get this done.
mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: in the western part of the united states, it's now 8:05 in the morning and i'm sure as one of these young girls is rushing off to go to school let's assume she is' an african-american girl. she's telling her mother, her dad or teacher what she wants to be when she grows up. maybe she wants to be a veterinarian a teacher a nurse, maybe even president of the united states, or maybe run some company. the little girl is going to be shocked if her parents said, you
can do it, any of those jobs, but remember that you'll have to work twice as hard, at least twice as hard to earn the same amount of money that your male colleagues do, or your brother does or billy the neighbor. how would that little girl respond? she would probably exclaim "that's not fair" and she'd be right. it isn't fair. it's an injustice. earlier this spring, april 14 to be exact we had equal pay day marking how far into this year the average woman has to work to earn what a man with the exact same job earned last year. this pay disparity between men and women doing the same work is known as the wage gap. on average an american woman makes 77 cents for every $1 her male colleague makes for doing the exact same work. as bad as that is, the wage gap is even much worse if you're a woman of color.
today is black women's equal pay day. today, a day that symbolizes how far into 2015 african-american women must work to earn what their counterparts earned in 2014. this means she worked all of last year and now up to this day to basically earn the same that her male counterpart did. so let's think about that for just a second. a woman must work a full year plus an additional six months and 28 days just to make what her male coworkers made in one year. 208 days more than a man must work for the exact same salary. the average african-american woman working full time year round will make 64 cents for every dollar their white male counterparts make. it's uncon c -- unconscionable. for millions of african-american
women struggling to make ends meet the wage gap makes the dream out of reach. to give women a fair shot and equal shot at prosperity, congress must take action. we have to ensure that all women, african-americans and otherwise, are empowered to ensure that they receive equal pay for equal work. but that's not all. we should raise the minimum wage i could do a quiz in this room, and i think everyone would miss by quite a long mark, how many black women are earning minimum wage what percentage of black women are earning minimum wage in this country. of the 100% of people drawing minimum wage, what percent is a black woman? almost 25%. almost 25% of everyone drawing minimum wage is a black woman. to be exact it's a little over
23%. an increase in the federal minimum wage would mean more money for their families. it would be maybe to buy groceries or an extra pair of shoes for their children or a pair of shoes for their children maybe help with their education in some way and importantly, more time to spend at home. no woman should make less money than a man doing the same exact work. african-american women deserve better. so do my daughters and my granddaughters. that's why we remain committed to ensuring american women receive equal pay for equal work. i encourage all republicans especially the leader, to take up senator murray's paycheck fairness act which would help close the wage disparity for african-american women. that may be a tall order to expect from today's senate republicans. after all five times in five years republicans have blocked equal pay for women. how? by filibustering. five times in five years
republicans have told their very own sisters daughters and wives they're not interested in fixing this income disparity. it's unfair. i can't understand it. who here can explain the concept pay inequality to their daughter or granddaughter without really shut shuttering? how do you tell a little girl with big dreams that in america today her life's work will not be compensated like a man's? that's just not right. it's not fair. today as we recognize black women's equal pay day i hope my republican colleagues will finally understand that it's unfair to continue the way we are, that we should finally come to our senses. i hope the republican leader will make the necessary moves to allow us to address this injustice that hurts millions of american families. 23% of people drawing minimum wage are african-american women.
all women deserve equal pay for equal work. would the chair be good enough to tell the senate what we're what the business of the day is. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 22 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 19, h.r. 22, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. durbin: madam president the business before the senate is the construction of highways and bridges and the operation of mass transit and buses across america. how important is that to our economy? i know in my home state it's critically important. but i think it's important across the nation. you see our infrastructure, our
roads and bridges are critical for business to operate profitably and for people to have good-paying jobs. we all know the tragedies that occur when bridges collapse or are closed and we know that thousands across this country need repair. when it comes to mass transit come on down to the loop in chicago in the morning and stand with me and watch the folks streaming out of the train stations and off the c.t.a. and off the buses headed to work every day. it's essential to the economy of chicago and illinois, the state i represent. the fact is on friday the authorization to build these highways and bridges and maintain mass transit and buses expires. it is the 33rd short-term extension of the highway trust fund. the 33rd. there was a time when we would
pass with regularity and predictability a five- or six-year highway bill on a bipartisan basis and were anxious to do it. it was a time when members of the house and senate knew the needs back home and knew that the federal government played a critical role in filling those needs. and so they voted for the highway trust fund reauthorization. in my state of illinois, 80% of the highway instruction -- construction is paid for by the federal government. when the federal government stops paying, folks stop working. you've seen it, haven't you? the potholes, the highways that aren't finished. you wonder why in the heck did they put all those blockades up and slow down the traffic and nobody's working. the problem has to do with the way we are currently funding our highway program. we're doing it in bits and
pieces. my colleague and friend from california, senator boxer draws a pretty interesting analogy. she said if you were setting out to buy a home and went to the bank and the bank said why of course we'll offer you a mortgage here's a 60-day mortgage to buy your home, you'd say wait a minute. i'm not going to make an investment like buying a home if i can only get a loan for 60 days. that's what's happened to the highway trust fund. the expiration of this authorization, this temporary authorization on friday is the end of a 60-day mortgage which we've offered to america to build highways. well several members of the senate decided to do something unique. not totally unique, but unusual i'd say. try to find a bipartisan compromise that can move this country forward.
try to break through some of the rhetoric and debate on the highway trust fund and find something that works. and i want to especially salute senator barbara boxer of california and joining with senator mitch mcconnell the republican leader. and senator inhofe of oklahoma, who is her chairman -- who is chairman of her environment and public works committee. madam president, this is undeed an odd couple, barbara boxer and mitch mcconnell but they have come up with a plan, a compromise to solve a problem. when i go home to illinois, madam president what i hear over and over from the people i represent is, senator when are you folks in washington going to stop squabbling? whr you going to stop fighting? can you basically sit down and solve a problem that we face? that's what senator boxer and
senator mcconnell have done, and i've-downed in the effort of the and here's what they are proposing. instead of a a 60-day extension of the trust fund, it would be six years. i wish it were longer. but at this point i'll journal that. it's been more than ten years since we've had a highway bill that long. so it's three years. there is a modest growth each year in spending. i wish it were more. and it ultimately is going to give the resources back to the states and localities so they can start building the infrastructure america needs to be successful and to compete. and we've worked long and hard on it, and it's controversial. it has divided caucuses. there are 44 -- 46 democrats in the senate. 21 of us last night voted to go forward on this bill.
so even within our ranks, there is a difference of opinion. 22? i'm glad the senator here to keep me on my toes. 22 last night. so i wish all of them were on board, but some of them have their own legitimate concerns for not being there. the point i am gating to is when it -- i'm getting to is when it came to the necessary vote, we had 60. we had 62. i have to check with senator boxer to make sure i'm correct here. we stepped up and made the difference to help move this process forward. so here we are. we are close to the finish line. we're not quite there. because of the procedures of the senate you just can't do it as quickly as you'd like. you have to follow the rules. and the rules tell us that we're likely to get this wrapped up, perhaps tomorrow -- i hope as soon as tomorrow. and then you say thank goodness. with the friday deadline, we're going to get something done this week before you go home on the august recess. and i would say from the senate
point of view, that's exactly right. and it means that i can say not only to the mayors back home, the governor, the contractors the workers okay, here are the resources to move forward for three years. but i can also say that we've done what we were sent here to do to solve a problem and to do it on a bipartisan basis. there's a problem. the problem we have is, the senate action alone is not enough. we need the house of representatives to do the same thing. and so there was an announcement yesterday from a congressman from california that the house is not going to take up this measure. they want to go home. they want to start their august recess earlier than any august recess has been started in ten years, and they want to leave. the republican majority has decided they don't want to take up this bill. they just want to leave.
and that is truly unfortunate. this is our chance to solve a problem for america on a bipartisan basis. this is our chance to invest in our country and put people to work building roads and bridges and expanding mass transit buying the buses we need to serve our communities. this is our chance. and yet when we hear from the republican side in the house of representatives is, sorry we're going home; we'll see you in september. a senator: mr. will the senator yield for a question? mr. durbin: i would be happy to yelled to my yield to my colleague from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: the senator has just said that the house is planning to bug out this week before the friday deadline when the highway fund collapses for the august recess. may i ask the senator from
illinois through the chair the following question: is it even august? isn't it july 28th today? mr. durbin: i would like to take judicial notice that according to the calendar of business, it is still july. tuesday, july 28, 2015. mr. whitehouse: and in the past have we not worked into the early week orb weeks week or weeks of august before taking the so-called august recess? mr. durbin: for the past ten years, the august recess has started in august. the house of representatives wishes to start it in july. mr. whitehouse: and friday is when the fund runs out of money and comes -- the funding for our highways comes to an end and it appears to be the house's intention to have gotten out of dodge by then in order to, i guess, dodge any consequence for not having met us on bipartisan terms with the bipartisan senate six-year bill?
mr. durbin: parntsly they need a rest, a understand -- apparently they need a rest and they want to go home for that purpose. but i wish they would stay and finish this business before. a senator: will the senator yield for a question? mr. durbin: yes. mr. inhofe: i would observe just walking in that we're all talk about the actiontalking about the actions that have not been taken formally but several members of the house have talked about, we're going to bail out of here. my feeling is this -- and i'm asking a question through the chair, if you would agree with my observation. one of the reasons that statements have been midover there is that they -- have been made over there is that they never believed that we're going to get passed a six-year highway reauthorization bill over here. now, once that realization is there -- and i'm going to make an appeal for whoever is trying to string this thing out to shorten the time so we can have the vote that is pending right mao to take place and get -- right now to take place and get
on with the final vote so we would actually is that ready while the house is still in session. they could very well take it up at that time. now, whether the individuals have placed themselves in the corner where that's not going to happen, i don't know. but isn't it worth a try that's my question. mr. durbin: through the chair let me respond to my colleague from oklahoma and first thank him for his bipartisan leadership through the environment and public works committee. you and senator boxer have aolly set a standard here of -- have really set a standard here of bipartisanship when this comes in this issue and you have produce add shiks of year authorization bill -- produced a six-year authorization bill and while i may not agree with it thank you for your efforts on a bipartisan basis. as far os your as your efforts to speed up the process to catch our house colleagues before they leave, i would support t but any
senator can divert and stop that effort. i will support you in bringing this forward as quickly as possible. mr. inhofe: i aproosht that. the--mr. inhofe: i appreciate that. there is time to do this. i'm going to personally make every effort and i think senator boxer shares my anxiety to get this thing in a position so that we can -- and all we have to do is move this thing up so we're not going to be at -- expiring at 4:00 in the morning for a vote when that could just as easily be tonight and that would give us time to allow the house to look at it and perhaps come up with a better judgment than they've expressed so far. mr. durbin: i would just say through the chair to the senator from oklahoma, we have to appeal to the better angels of our colleagues' nature in a cooperative effort, which would be somewhat mir lack us miraculous effort, but i'm happy to support you.
this is a chance to do something the american people expect us to do. why were we sent here? why did we get elected? i'm rowd to represent proud to represent illinois, but i was sent hear to solve problems make life better. there's nothing more bipartisan and more important than the infrastructure of this country of the and if you wonder about that go visit china and look what's going on there. their building cranes in every direction. highways and train routes being built in every direction because they are preparing their chinese economy for the 21st century. is america? i don't think so. what we're doing is pass being short-term extensions of the highway trust fund. we cannot patch our way to prosperity. we cannot on a short-term basis have a long-term plan to build america's economy. because of the hard work on both sides of the aisle compromises being made, we're at a point where we can have a three-year
highway bill. and it is time for us to do it, no excuses. i support what the senator from oklahoma said. let's accelerate this, if we can, in the senate, and then pray that our colleagues in the house decide to hang around long enough to take up this bill, which i believe would be a worthy alternative to another short-term extension. mr. inhofe: would the senator yield for one last question? i know you are getting ready to vaivacate the floor. mr. durbin: i would be happy to. who have butmr. inhofe: but would the senator join me in trying send -- in send out to try to get unanimous consent on going forward? if they don't like the bill, that's one thing but to bring it forward so this can be done, i am inclined to hope that we can encourage any of those who are just killing time right now to join us in doing this. so it is my intention to go ahead and make that request.
the and i would ask if the senator from illinois would join me in that effort? mr. durbin: i'd just ask my colleague through the chair let's sit down and put this u.c. together and then you take it, as we do by custom, to your cloakroom, i'll take it to mine, and let's see if we can get this moving forward. i want to protect the rights of members, but i think many of them would like to join us in accelerating this process so there is activity on the floor which is productive. i would be happy to work with you. mr. inhofe: thank you. mr. durbin: i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: let me thank the senator from oklahoma and the senator from illinois for their efforts here. i think this continued progress towards a bipartisan six-year deal to make sure that our highways and bridges are funded and repaired is a very important piece of the work. i want to join the senator from illinois in is a saluting the efforts
of chairman boxer who worked so hard through the environment and public works committee to get to a place where we now have a senate bipartisan compromise for a six-year bill with three years fully funded and the prospect for all of our state departments of transportation to be able to take on big projects knowing what funding is out there. we are taking this conversation up, madam president while our own american society of civil engineers gives our american roads the grade of a "d." i don't know you but but if my kids came home with a "d," i would not be pleased please about that. so when our own engineers tell us that our highways are a "d," and when our highway system has limped along now we have a chance to put a serious slug of money on the table so that our departments of transportation can do the work our roads so desperately need, why not go forward with that?
across this country americans pay more than $500 a year in car repairs from our ticial terrible roads. getting their wheels realigned or their tires repaired because they're getting banged by potholes and bad roads and hurting their vehicles. so there is a real pocketbook consequence here for americans if we fail to act. so we've got a bipartisan compromise here. we should push it forward. what the house is doing a not helpful. i hope, as the distinguished senator insenator from oklahoma said, my chairman on the environment and public works committee that they come up with a better judgment than they have expressed so far. i think that under these circumstances, bugging out and starting your august recess before this problem is solved -- indeed before it is even august -- is a pretty serious misjudgment. so let's hope we can keep after
this. we do have strong support for getting this done, whether it is the american association of general contractors whether it is the national association of manufacturers, whether it is the u.s. chamber of commerce, there are a lot of organizations that customarily support the republican side that want to get this done. so i hope that they will be having conversations with speaker boehner and with majority leader mccarthy to ask them to have a better judgment about what to do in this circumstance than bug out for an august recess before it is even august and leave americans high and dry without a bipartisan six-year bill that's being fash fashioned here in the senate right now. so with that, i will yield the floor, again with appreciation to my ranking member barbara boxer, who worked so, so hard to bring us to this point and our chairman senator inhofe. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i rise to speak
in favor of the drive act. i was a supporter of this bill from the first vote that we had in the last week. there were some changes made immediately that i thought were important, and i think that this long-term bill is a incredibly important to our country's few of. time and time again we have had these short-term extensions, and now that's what the house of representatives is talking about again. we have an opportunity here. americans, as we know, you can't fix a road in two months. in a state like minnesota where we have two seasons -- one road construction season and one winter -- you can't the citizens cannot plan ahead and our state cannot plan ahead when we continue to have these short-term extensions. they also want to do bigger things and better things for transportation in our state and this funding and this bill will allow them to do that instead of this micky mouse short-term
extension time after time after time. so like my colleagues, like our ranking member, senator boxer like what we've heard from our chair, senator inhofe, what we've heard from senator durbin, senator whitehouse today, i think it's incredibly important that we move forward with this bill. i came to this issue in a very, very tragic way and that is when a bridge fell down in the middle of a summer day. in fact, the anniversary is coming up in just a few days of this bridge collapse. it was a beautiful summer day. rush hour, tons of traffic going over one of the most heavily traveled bridges in our state. and this wasn't just a bridge. it was an eight-lane highway. it was something you wouldn't even notice was a bridge because there were always so many cars on it. it was the i-35w bridge. and one day and i was in washington, i remember trying to call some people in minnesota and the cell phone service wouldn't work. and i thought what's wrong?
what's wrong with the cell phone service. what i found out about five minutes later was that people were calling panicked about their loved ones because tens of thousands of people were traveling near that bridge that day. and in fact, when that bridge collapsed, tragically 13 people died dozens of cars were submerged. heroes that came to the front that day didn't run away from that bridge. they ran toward it. no one will forget the off-duty fright going in and out -- fire fighter going in and out on a rope trying to find people in that murky water. the fact that 13 people died as tragic as it is is something of a miracle given how many people were injured. over 100 people were injured in this collapse. a school bus -- a school bus -- sat precariously on the edge of the bridge. a tasty truck driver veered out so the school bus wouldn't go over the edge, ended up
tragically dying himself when that bus caught on fire. the school bus was labeled the miracle workers because the driver had the presence of mind to take these little kids on the bus going out for a summer outing and get them out the back and get them to safety. that happened, all of that happened on august 1. as i said that day a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle of america not an eight-lane highway not a bridge that is literally eight blocks from my house, that i drive every day with my family, with my daughter. that's the bridge that fell down. so what did we do in minnesota? in 13 months we've rebuilt that bridge. on a bipartisan basis just like you see here with this bill with the drive act we worked together across the aisle. we got the federal funding. we rebuilt that bridge. but that's not where the story ends. because of what happened, because of the design defect that caused that bridge to fall in addition to two other issues,
nhtsa found there wasn't adequate inspections and they also found that there were problems with construction guides because there was construction work going on but the bottom cause was a design defect if we had adequate highway funding and we had adequate inspections and we were able to go back in and look at bridges like we did after the fact in minnesota and found that others had the same defect and found that they had to be replaced and that our state put more money into infrastructure which has greatly helped us, which i should add to my colleagues in this chamber was one of the major reasons why literally cnbc rated minnesota the best state to do -- states to do business in the country. one of the main factors they looked at was quality of life and infrastructure. because after this collapse we invested. that's what this bill is about. it's about making a safer america, as senator whitehouse just outlined with the "d's" our
country is getting for infrastructure. it is about reducing congestion but it is also about our economy as shown in minnesota since this bridge collapsed. it is about our economy. when we we are building our economy based on exports you have to have a way fo get goods for export. the way you do that is with up graded rail, upgraded highways and upgraded bridges. i am very excited about this bill. i love the fact that this leads us to a 21st century transportation system. i love the fact that we're able to get my distracted driving provisions in there, with the help of senator thune and senator nelson, that i worked on with senator hoeven, a major safety risk in this country that we're finally going to be able to find a way to get the money out to the states that have been sitting up and piling up and going nowhere so states can start educating people about
distracted driving and to work on the bill, on graduated driving, on licenses as well as drunk driving. there are a lot of good things in this bill but mostly this bill is about the long term. it's about looking at a long-term economy it's about looking at long-term safety issues, instead of putting a band-aid on every two months, every threel months, every six months. this is an opportunity that can't be missed. i asked my colleagues and we already have strong support including for the ex-im bank, i asked my colleagues across in the house to support this bill, do the right thing and come up with a long-term solution. thank you madam president and i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: don't yield yet. mr. inhofe: would you yield for a question? ms. klobuchar: of course. mr. inhofe: how many people were killed? 18? ms. klobuchar: 13 people were killed that day. mr. inhofe: are you aware that in my state of oklahoma, this is when we are in the process of
the last long-term bill in 2005 that a mother and three children were driving below a bridge in oklahoma city, concrete dropped off, it killed the mother. now we corrected that in the 2005 bill. but the question i'd ask you is why do we wait until people die before this happens? we right now -- and i've got a list and after a little while today i'm going to repeat it for the third time about the bridges in this country that we can avoid that happening. and if we don't do something -- and you're not going to do it, you can't do any of the large projects on short-term extensions. so i guess my l only question is why do we wait until death is at our door? ms. klobuchar: i appreciate that question from the senator from oklahoma and thank you for your work on this bill and chairmanship on this committee and your willingness to work across the aisle on this bill. i will say that is the major problem here. when we just do the short-term extensions maybe one little new project gets funded here and there. but you don't do that long-term
maintenance which is never as glamorous as building new projects. this is about the long-term maintenance and work that needs to be done on our existing roads and bridges as well as some exciting new opportunities. but when we don't have that kind of clear funding source for our states to see that has a three-year window, as the presiding officer knows from her leadership in the state of nebraska you just can't do things in a state when you don't know what your funding is going to be three months later. you're not able to invest in the kind of maintenance and long-term work that needs to be done. and that is why i thank the chairman and the ranking member, senator boxer for her incredible work on this bill as well as yours because this is about a long-term planning not just for safety but also for our economy. mrs. boxer: will the senator yield for another question? ms. klobuchar: yes. mrs. boxer: i want to thank my friend because you have been such a leader. and i was listening to every word you said, as i did when senator inhofe talks about the
mother that was killed because a bridge collapsed. this touches our hearts as family members -- yes as senators -- but as family members, we know those families will never be the same. the family, the children of that mother the families of those who are grieving the loss of their relatives. and so i want to say to my friend who is just so early on a supporter, is she aware that seven states already have either canceled projects or completely shut down their highway and transit spending? is she aware of that? ms. klobuchar: yes, i am. mrs. boxer: and i wanted to say that i have a chart here that shows the states that have either canceled or delayed highway projects. these projects are valued at over $1.6 billion.
and think about the jobs and the businesses that are suffering. they are in arkansas, delaware, georgia, montana tennessee utah and wyoming. and i have a further question. i know my friend has heard me say this. is my friend aware that the associated general contractors of america came out with a new study, and they just were in "the new york times" stating that because of our -- i will use this word -- dithering, because we haven't come up with that long-term bill that we are now attempting to do, 25 states have lost construction jobs just in the last month? is my friend aware of this study? ms. klobuchar: yes, i have heard that, of the study and i think it mimics what we have seen in other studies. when you don't plan ahead people are going to start cutting the work off. mrs. boxer: right.
i would say before i yield that the states that lost construction jobs last month according to the general contractors, are alaska, arizona, california, florida georgia, illinois, maryland, mississippi, missouri, montana nebraska, new hampshire, new jersey, new mexico, north carolina ohio, oregon, pennsylvania, rhode island, tennessee, utah, vermont washington, west virginia, and wisconsin. i wanted to read those off -- and i will talk about that later. but i just want to thank my friend because the point when she talked about what happened on this bridge, my friend didn't have to read one word of any statement. this was a heartbreaking memory she will always have. and it's -- we all go through this in our time here when
there's earthquakes floods, fires, bridge collapses. and i would just say to my friend this last question: don't you think this is important enough that the house stay an extra week, if need be, or even a few days to take up our bill, pass it or if they don't like it to amend it, send it back and let's get this done for the american? ms. klobuchar: senator boxer and also senator inhofe, i think that is why we're here today to talk about the fact that we have come together across party lines with people with completely different political ideologies to agree that we need a long-term fix to our transportation problem. and as you mentioned the people, i think sometimes people think of transportation as just bricks and mortar and something very esoteric. but it's not. it's about the people that use the system. and as senator inhofe talked about the people that died when that bridge collapsed in his state, there is a memorial for those 13 people that died in our
state. and i would suggest if you ever come to the twin cities, people go look at it because you know what it shows you like senator inhofe knows from what happened in oklahoma? it shows you that everyone uses the roads and bridges. these people came from vastly different background. they were young people. there was a man who died, who he and his wife had just decided they wanted to have a baby. and of all things, after he died she then decided to adopt children by herself. and then she decided to adopt them from haiti. and then the tragedy happened in haiti, and we actually helped her to get those children home. these were people who worked all kinds of different jobs. some were coming home from work. some were students. some were people, moms busy in a car. those were the people that died. they were america. and america uses our bridges and our roads and our trains. and we have to remember that this is about the people that work construction. this is about the people that use the roads and bridges.
and this is really about our economy moving forward. and so sometimes we get so into facts and figures here and what one house does and what the other house does that we forget why we are spending money on our bridges and our roads and what this means for our future economy. so i just want to thank the leaders of this bill for what they have done, their willingness for taking a lot of heat for working across the aisle, to make sure that the things that were used to pay for this bill were things that made sense for our country and continued to allow us to move forward, and then also to make changes to the bill when members have raised problems. and that is why this is gaining so much momentum. and i'm sure our friends over in the house are looking at this bill. they've examined the pay-fors. they have had weeks to do that. and they have also looked at the safety provisions and other things in the bill. so at some point they're going to have the ability to decide if they're for this bill or against it or as senator boxer mentioned, if they want to make
some changes. but the key is here we have a good base bill that has brought people together from across the country, from different ideologies that they can use and look at because if they just want to do another one of these short-term fixes, it is never going to get us to where we need to go, so we don't have another one of of these bridges collapse on august 1 in the middle of a summer day. that happened in this country in this century and it will happen again if we keep this up. thank you and i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: just because i know my friend from oklahoma wants to speak, is it okay if i go about ten minutes and then yield? before the senator leaves the floor, i want to thank her again. and what i want to say to her is something that she has said to me over and over; ans that is the-- andthat is the importance of finding common ground when we can. we all know we can't give up our principles but we have to search for common ground. and what we did here -- and
everyone knows that senator inhofe and i kind of joke about it we couldn't be different in terms of our ideology. we really koofnlt but couldn't. but on this one on this piece the need have a strong infrastructure, we are as one -- as progressives, as conservatives. and frankly everyone, i think in this senate should come together -- and in the house -- around the principle that you can't have a strong economy if you can't move goods. that's why my friend, senator inhofe put together a great new freight title in our bill this time, part of the formula. it's hugely important. we can't move goods we can't move people. we're going to fall behind. and clearly when bridges collapse, it is a devastation. i have shown this particular bridge collapse along with the one senator klobuchar was so eloquent on. this is a bridge in my great
state. we have 40 million people. we take in about 40% to 50% of all the imports into our station, and they go into trucks and trains and planes, and they use our roads and they go across the country to deliver goods to everyone. well the bridge that collapsed in california a few days ago -- maybe a week or two ago now -- was deemed to be obsolete because it was built for very light traffic. it is the bridge between california and arizona. there was very little traffic at the time it was built and now we have a huge amount of traffic, and this bridge collapsed. thank thethank the lord no one died. so i can stand up here and say that. this to me, is the poster child of the work, madam president, we are doing together.
this is the poster child. there is a list of bridges -- there are more than 60,000 bridges that are deficient. 60,000 bridges in america. this is america. they're deficient. some worse than others, but they're deficient. i've listed just a few here, just a few. alabama, arizona arkansas, california colorado, connecticut, district of columbia florida georgia hawaii illinois, indiana iowa, kentucky louisiana maine maryland massachusetts michigan minnesota mississippi, missouri, nevada, new hampshire, new jersey, new mexico, new york, north carolina ohio, oklahoma, oregon pennsylvania, rhode island, south carolina, texas utah washington, wisconsin.
this is just a handful -- a couple of handfuls of the 60,000-plus bridges that are deficient. senator inhofe, in your state we've listed, for example the i-40 bridge over crooked oak creek. when i was a county supervisor a really really long time ago we found out as supervisors -- we were a very bipartisan group -- that our civic center was at risk of collapsing in an earthquake and in those years you didn't know that much about how to reinforce it. it was just coming to light and it was a frank lloyd wright -- it is a frank lloyd wright building a gorgeous building, an historic building. and we were told if we didn't fix it -- if we didn't fix it, there was a possibility we could be held personally liable if something happened. now, clearly no one here is going to be personally held
liable if a bridge collapses, but morally we need to understand that now that we know that we have 60,000-plus bridges in bad condition and we have r50%50%of our roads not up to par, we have an obligation to fix it. and it is very clear that we must do so. now, i am proud that almost half of the democratic caucus has come together with a larger percent of the republican caucus to put together a transportation bill. i am proud of that. and it is hadn't the road to passage, madam president. last night at a crucial moment late in the evening we got 62 votes. that was not an easy thing to do because, as you know, madam president, there were more things you wanted in that bill,
there were more things i wanted. you -- i wanted things out of the bill, other things added. each one of us, of course, we're people who are passionate about these issues. we would have written the bill differently. i would say anyone in america having the chance would write it differently. but the art of compromise is something we shouldn't be afraid of. you're not compromising your principles you're seeing where you can find the sweet spot. and i believe that we did this. and i am urging the house not to leave on their summer break and to stay and to work on this bill. we've done a lot of the heavy lifting. we've done a lot of the heavy compromising. they can do more. they can take out things they don't like, add things they want. we can sit down in a conference. we can get this done.
my opinion? they should take it an pass it. when a bill has 62 votes here, that's pretty darn good. if they want to tweak it, they can do it. but i think neendz to they need to stay, madam president. i served proudly with my friend, senator inhofe, in the house. it's been ten years since the house has had this long of a break. they haven't left before august for the august recess. and i think they should stay. they should stay. you know, the average american, when they are about to go on their summer break, the boss says clean up your desk, please finish your work, please don't just pile everything on one side of the table, please. take care of it. the house ought to finish its work. take up our bill, amend it, send it back, we'll get it done. most of the work is done. most americans have to tie up loose ends before they take a
long break. i might add i think it's a five-week break. a five-week break. do your work. maybe you can only go on a four-week break. that would still be twice the time most americans get. do your work. you know, when i say that bridges are in poor condition this isn't hyper high bow hyperbole. our infrastructure is rated, i believe it is a "d" overall. a "d." if our child came home and said, mom, i have a "d," you wonk be -- you wouldn't be happy. well taxpayers aren't happy that our infrastructure is rated a "d." so i does ask the house please stay and do your job. roll up your sleeves we'll work with you. we can resolve these things. you've had time to look at our
bill. and i'll close with just two more points, madam president. i want to give the highlights of our transportation bill that we worked so hard on across party lines. senator inhofe, myself, the banking committee chairman and ranking, the commerce committee chairman and rank,ing, the finance committee that paid for this bill. and some people are voting against it because they don't like the way it's paid for. they say it's better to find some long-term answer in international tax reform. personally i think that's a great idea. but you have time to pay for the last three years in that fashion. we've paid for three years. this bill is six years. pay for the last three years. as for me, i am a lonely voice here. there are about five of us who say, a penny a month for ten months on the gas tax.
don't have the votes. so what do i? go in my corner and cry? no we've got to put a bill together. so this is a $50 billion-a-year bill for six years. three years are paid for. every state gets more formula funding for both highways and transit. there are two new programs -- a formula freight program my friend senator inhofe, working with republicans and democrats put together. a new grant program for major projects called the amp program. senator whitehouse worked across the aisle for that program. all of our states are eligible. it includes the mccaskill bill and i.t. it's the mccaskill-schumer bill that says that rental car companies -- cannot -- lease out cars that are under recall.
and -- and -- and i think this is important because we see a lot of the problems with the takata air bags because of senator nelson's work -- we have tripled nhtsa fines and we've used that money in the bill to help put positive train control on the commuter rails. this is important. people are dying because we don't have positive train control. is the bill the perfect bill on safety? in my view, it is not. in somebody else's view, it is. it is a compromise, but i think overall it is solid. every state -- every state will see an increase in their highway dollars, in their transit dollars. so in closing, i want to thank senators on both sides of the aisle, including, madam president, you because we did work together, and we did a good job, and it was hard to do. i know my friend had one
provision she wanted. she had to scale it back. it is hard to do that. i had a program that i wanted. it got scaled back. we all had to give-and-take. but that's what the people expect of us, whether they're democrats, republicans independents. it doesn't matter, they want us to get something done. i'm proud of the senate. we're not done yet. we still need some more votes on this so everyone stay tuned. but if the house will stay an extra few days, take up our bill, we can get this done for the american people. we can save businesses, we can save jobs, we can keep this recovery going and we can feel proud that we fixed our bridges that we fixed our highways, and that we did the work that we're supposed to do. with that, i would yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.
mr. inhofe: well, i'm going to have to disagree with my partner over here on one thing and that is the insistence that is house stay. there is a way -- they are a not -- in my opinion they're not going to stay. that's done. but this can still be done with their targeted adjournment date for them. and at that the way that can happen is for us -- right now we're waiting out the vote. if nobody yields back, it's on my -- it's on the inhofe substitute. that's what we're doing right now. that vote would take place at 5:00 in the morning. now, if you move that up -- and right now we're asking unanimous consent to do that. if we're able to do that, that could happen this afternoon of the and--this afternoon. and that means that the next step would be to move to the bill and that could be done while they're still here. and what i don't want to happen is to have them, -- you know, we
were successful, we get done with our bill and then send it over to the house and they're gone. and so i think we can still do it while the who us is house is still here. and i have to say -- and i'm not sure that the ranking member of my committee senator boxer agrees with this. but i think they never believed we'd ever be able to get the bill done. that being the case, they staked out early and said for any number of reasons they're going to be gone. well, we can do it. all we have to do is notify this -- all we have to do is move this up. we can have the bill up there in good enough time -- witness day-- --wednesday, that's tomorrow. that they can still act on the bill. mrs. boxer: would the senator yield for a question? i would love to get this thing
done in five minutes. but have -- has my friend received confirmation from speaker boehner that he would take up the bill tomorrow? my understanding is the reason they've moved up their -- and this is not -- this is what i've heard. i can't swear to t i don't to it. but what i've heard is they're moving their adjournment up from thursday to wednesday so they can escape having to take up our bill. does my friend believe if they get this bill done tomorrow that they would stay 24 hours and deal with our bill? mr. inhofe: reclaiming my time, i don't know what they would do. i would just say that if we don't finish it until they're already gone, then we know what happens. but i still think that can be done. there is a sense of urgency. we've worked long and hard. people are saying that they haven't had time to get into this thing. we passe