Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, here is item No. 2. For decades, Americans have paid the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. On average, we pay nearly four times more than the people in Canada and other western nations for exactly the same drug. This price gouging by Big Pharma hurts Americans' health and their financial security. I have stories sent to me from time to time from the people I represent, especially senior citizens, who tell me these sky-high prescription drug prices force them to choose between medications and other basic necessities like food and shelter. Phillip has one of those stories. Phillip lives in a small town south of Chicago. He is 73 years old and is a diabetic. After having several heart and back surgeries, he can't work any longer. He takes several medications regularly. Now, you are going to recognize the name of one of them. It is called Trulicity--if you watch TV, you have heard that one--a noninsulin treatment that he uses to control his blood sugar and manage his diabetes, Trulicity. Do you know the 1-month prescription cost for Trulicity? It is $2,000. So what does Phillip do, who can't work and has a fixed income? He tries to cut the pills in half to make his prescription last longer. Sometimes he just skips the medication altogether. He is not alone. One in five Americans does not take the medications as prescribed because they are too expensive. In Phillip's case, even that isn't enough. At the end of the day, he had to refinance his home--what a time to do it, huh, with the interest rates?--because here in America, for too long, we have found it acceptable to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge what they wish. Not anymore. We pressed for decades--both Democrats and Republicans gave these speeches; this was not just a Democratic issue--to lower prescription drug prices, at least for seniors. Last month, we did it right here on the floor of the Senate. The Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress passed without a single Republican vote, is delivering real relief now for families who are struggling with high prices. A few minutes ago, the Republican leader was on the floor, telling us what a terrible bill that was, the Inflation Reduction Act. He didn't mention the fact that it is going to do some remarkable things. It makes historic investments to address the climate crisis. That is one thing. It includes investments in renewable, affordable energy sources. That is certainly needed. These investments in renewable energy can save families hundreds of dollars a year in energy costs. That is real relief. Just as an aside, last month, my wife and I decided to put solar panels on our home in Springfield, IL. We are not the first in our town, but we are certainly the first in our neighborhood. They predicted it will reduce our electric bill by 85 percent a month. Think about your own electric bill and what that would mean: money in hand. There are tax credits to put on solar panels. How did we achieve that and put tax credits in for heat pumps and electric water heaters? We put it in the Inflation Reduction Act, which Senator McConnell just came to the floor and said was a terrible bill. I think you are going to see more and more Americans making the choice our family made. I think they should. The Inflation Reduction Act is also going to lower healthcare costs-- one of the biggest items in every family's budget. First, it will begin to let Medicare negotiate fair prices for medications used by seniors. Is that a radical idea, that a Federal Agency, on behalf of the people it serves, negotiates for lower drug prices? It is an idea that has been at work in the Veterans Health Administration for years. The VA, our VA, in serving our veterans--the men and women who serve this country--pays, on average, half of what Medicare pays for exactly the same drugs now because the VA could negotiate and Medicare could not. The bill which Senator McConnell took exception to now gives Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices for seniors, and 83 percent of Americans think that is a pretty good idea. How do we get 83 percent of Americans to agree on anything? They agree on that, as that is a good idea, and 71 percent of the people are from the party of the Senator from Kentucky. Second, the Inflation Reduction Act will cap the price Medicare recipients pay for insulin--insulin: $35 a month for Medicare recipients. That is the limit--and it limits seniors' out-of-pocket expenses for all medications to $2,000 a year. Remember Phil? Phil was paying $2,000 a month for Trulicity. Under this bill, which we passed here a month ago without a single vote from the other side of the aisle, we are going to limit seniors' responsibility under Medicare for prescription drugs to $2,000 a year. By the way, I believe we should cap the cost of insulin at $35 a month for everybody, not just seniors. Guess what radical nation--what socialist nation--does that? Canada. Canada does it. Pharmaceutical companies still make a healthy profit. They just don't make a killing on a lifesaving drug. Third, the Inflation Reduction Act will curb the outrageous cost increases that Medicare beneficiaries pay for medications. It does that by tying prescription drug price increases to the cost of living. Pharmaceutical companies that raise their prices faster are going to pay a penalty if they do. The days of Big Pharma raising prices they charge seniors at 5 or 10 times the rate of inflation are over. Of course, the pharmaceutical giants and their lobbyists fought us every step of the way. They said: If you put limits on the prices we can charge, then we are going to have to cut our research. Guess what they didn't tell you and what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not admit: It isn't true. Studies have found that Big Pharma could lose $1 trillion in sales over the next decade, and it would still remain the most profitable industry in America. By the way, did you know these pharmaceutical companies spend more money on advertising and marketing than they do on research? Point 2, did you know that the research that they are using is based on research that was started at the National Institutes of Health at the expense of American taxpayers? I am all for the National Institutes of Health. They use what the NIH develops to make new drugs. It is a good thing to do, and they are very profitable as they do it, so I don't want to hear that they can charge less and that they are not going to be able to survive. I don't believe it. It is not only seniors who will save on healthcare costs. More than 14 million Americans who receive their health coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace will save hundreds--even thousands--of dollars on their monthly insurance premiums because of the Inflation Reduction Act. Under the American Rescue Plan, we lowered monthly premiums for middle-income families and for those with ACA health plans. The Inflation Reduction Act will continue this for another 3 years, and I hope I am here to renew it. No one should go without medical care ever but especially not while we are fighting a worldwide pandemic. Not only did our Republican colleagues vote against what I just described to you, lowering monthly premiums for families nationwide, but they went further and tried in every way they could think to gut the Affordable Care Act. Two weeks ago, a Federal judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health plans offer free preventive health services, like vaccinations, was unconstitutional. In 2020, because of the ACA, 152 million Americans received these preventive health services, with no out-of-pocket cost, often resulting in the early detection of cancer, heart disease, and other serious conditions. Now a group of Texas residents and businesses argues that that just violates their basic religious liberty--religious liberty. They picked a judge who has been friendly to them in the past. This same judge in northern Texas ruled that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional. That was overturned by the Supreme Court. Thank goodness. It has been 12 years since the ACA became law. It is long past time for both parties to support this effort which provides health insurance for millions of Americans at an affordable cost. We need to bring down the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs for all American families. The last item of good news comes from a blog that I read rather religiously by a lady in Maine, Heather Cox Richardson. Almost every day, she publishes a column for those who want to read it. I don't know if there is a subscription cost. She asks from time to time if you want to contribute to her effort. I do. Well, today's is one that, I think, is worth reading and remembering. She says: A headline in The New York Times today read: ``Factory Jobs Are Booming Like It's the 1970s.'' The story explained that more money in the hands of consumers thanks to Federal stimulus spending, along with a new skepticism of stretched supply lines, has created a rebound in American manufacturing. Since the 1970s . . . outsourcing and automation have meant that every recession has seen factory jobs disappear [in America] and never return. Well, there is good news. We now know that we have not only regained all of the manufacturing jobs lost during the pandemic, we have added 67,000 more. Those numbers would be higher if the labor market weren't so tight, a condition leading employers to offer higher wages and better benefits. The other point she makes is one that the National Economic Council Director, Brian Deese, told reporters: ``One of the most striking things that we are seeing'' is that American companies ``are committing to build and expand'' right here at home because of supply chain concerns. ``Meanwhile''--get this--``the real net worth of the bottom 50% of U.S. households has climbed 60% [in the last year and a half] . . . now reaching $67,524.'' Inflation is a problem. Don't get me wrong; it is a challenge. Gasoline prices seem to be creeping down, at least in the Midwest. I can't speak for all over the country. Food prices are still too high. I have been to the supermarket over the weekend. I know what is going on. But we are seeing some evidence of progress on the economic front, and I certainly hope that it continues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this column by Heather Cox Richardson be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to do something unusual on the floor of the Senate. I would like to report some good news. It isn't often we have these reports. Today, I have three items in my news that I would like to share with the people who are following this. I would like to start my remarks by sharing an incredible story from the other side of the world. In May 2020, as the world was reeling from the spread of the deadly new strain of the coronavirus, the Red Cross society in the African nation of Kenya received 500 bicycles from a Chicago-based, nongovernmental organization known as World Bicycle Relief. Community healthworkers used these bicycles to make house visits across southern Kenya, providing health services to remote communities that would otherwise not be reached because of restrictions on movement due to COVID-19. In Malawi, young girls used these bicycles to get safely to and from school, and when COVID-19 closed the schools down, girls like 17-year- old Elizabeth were able to shift focus to help their parents, who are farmers, weather the economic effects of the pandemic. She used her bicycle to take their produce to market. Stories like these are common around the world, showing the value of a simple, relatively inexpensive, green, and easy-to-repair means of mobility--a bicycle--to help meet important development objectives. Since its founding in 2005, the World Bicycle Relief of Chicago has done great work in helping displaced survivors after a natural disaster in Sri Lanka, allowing farmers to move crops in Zambia, and getting girls to school in Malawi. I have even seen myself how a bicycle ambulance in rural Tanzania can change lives; and not long ago, my staff saw the group's efforts in Kenya, where more than 25,000 sustainable, rugged bicycles have been provided. Since 2019, I have worked through appropriations to push USAID to invest in bicycles, which help meet the needs in healthcare, education, women and girls' empowerment, and more. Part of this funding has included an in-depth assessment to see what is most useful and how to make the programs locally sustainable. They not only send bikes; they send parts and then train the repairmen. USAID has used these lessons and opportunities with increasing success thanks to the work of many groups, including that of the World Bicycle Relief of Chicago. Today, I am introducing legislation in partnering with the Kenya bicycle world and U.S. House of Representatives' Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. Our bill is going to codify these important efforts and formalize the creation of a mobility program within USAID's Office of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment. COVID-19 has taught us that a global health crisis can easily turn into an economic crisis, a food crisis, a mobility crisis, and more. Sometimes the simplest things, like a bicycle, can help make incredible progress. That is item No. 1. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to do something unusual on the floor of the Senate. I would like to report some good news. It isn't often we have these reports. Today, I have three items in my news that I would like to share with the people who are following this. I would like to start my remarks by sharing an incredible story from the other side of the world. In May 2020, as the world was reeling from the spread of the deadly new strain of the coronavirus, the Red Cross society in the African nation of Kenya received 500 bicycles from a Chicago-based, nongovernmental organization known as World Bicycle Relief. Community healthworkers used these bicycles to make house visits across southern Kenya, providing health services to remote communities that would otherwise not be reached because of restrictions on movement due to COVID-19. In Malawi, young girls used these bicycles to get safely to and from school, and when COVID-19 closed the schools down, girls like 17-year- old Elizabeth were able to shift focus to help their parents, who are farmers, weather the economic effects of the pandemic. She used her bicycle to take their produce to market. Stories like these are common around the world, showing the value of a simple, relatively inexpensive, green, and easy-to-repair means of mobility--a bicycle--to help meet important development objectives. Since its founding in 2005, the World Bicycle Relief of Chicago has done great work in helping displaced survivors after a natural disaster in Sri Lanka, allowing farmers to move crops in Zambia, and getting girls to school in Malawi. I have even seen myself how a bicycle ambulance in rural Tanzania can change lives; and not long ago, my staff saw the group's efforts in Kenya, where more than 25,000 sustainable, rugged bicycles have been provided. Since 2019, I have worked through appropriations to push USAID to invest in bicycles, which help meet the needs in healthcare, education, women and girls' empowerment, and more. Part of this funding has included an in-depth assessment to see what is most useful and how to make the programs locally sustainable. They not only send bikes; they send parts and then train the repairmen. USAID has used these lessons and opportunities with increasing success thanks to the work of many groups, including that of the World Bicycle Relief of Chicago. Today, I am introducing legislation in partnering with the Kenya bicycle world and U.S. House of Representatives' Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. Our bill is going to codify these important efforts and formalize the creation of a mobility program within USAID's Office of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment. COVID-19 has taught us that a global health crisis can easily turn into an economic crisis, a food crisis, a mobility crisis, and more. Sometimes the simplest things, like a bicycle, can help make incredible progress. That is item No. 1. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. Does the name ``Barre Seid'' ring a bell? Barre Seid, of Chicago, a businessman--a successful businessman. He was born in 1932, and he owned a company called Tripp Lite that made electronic products. He was very successful in the course of his life, but he decided to donate the value of this company to something known as the Marble Freedom Trust. Does that ring a bell? Barre Seid, Marble Freedom Trust? The reason I bring this up on the floor of the United States Senate is, Mr. Seid, with this gift of $1.6 billion to Marble Freedom Trust is setting out to change America. Wait a minute. A 90-year-old individual, who has been charitable in many ways, gives money away and it changes America? Yes. I stand by my comment, because the Marble Freedom Trust is now becoming the largest dark money--secret money--contributor to American political campaigns in the history of the United States. And if you think I am overreacting, the go-to leader of the Marble Freedom Trust is a man named Leonard Leo. I am sure none of these names register with most Americans--Barre Seid of Chicago, Marble Freedom Trust, Leonard Leo. What does this have to do with what my family is worried about? Well, let me get to the bottom line because the leader from the Republican side just alluded to it. This $1.6 billion is going to be invested in political campaigns on the right for conservative Republican candidates, period. Leonard Leo has a pedigree and well-known background of involvement in politics in Washington, and he has been very successful. I am a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, currently chairman; but over the years I have watched, over the Trump years, every judicial nominee approved by the Republicans had to pass one litmus test: They had to be cleared by the Federalist Society. Now, that is another name which the average American family won't recognize, but let me tell you what the Federalist Society is. The Federalist Society is a clearinghouse for lawyers who want to be judges. You have got to join it. You have got to pay your dues. You have got to show up. Most importantly, you have to pass the checklist of required positions on issues before you can become a judge on the Republican side. That happened over and over and over again in the hearings we had for nominees for lifetime appointments to the Federal court during the Trump administration. I would ask these lawyers sitting before us, when you could question them: Tell me about the Federalist Society. Oh, we just got together for lunch once in a while. It is not that big a deal. But what a coincidence that every nominee had to be approved by the Federalist Society, and it didn't end there. When former President Trump put out his list of potential Supreme Court nominees, which included the three whom he ended up choosing, all of them were provided by the Federalist Society--the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo. Sadly, they got the job done. Senator McConnell was complicit in that. When there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court with the untimely death of Antonin Scalia, it was Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans who blocked President Obama in his last year in office from filling that vacancy. In fact, they refused--they said to their Members: Don't even meet with the man. Here is Merrick Garland, a respected jurist on the DC Circuit, nominated to the highest Court in the land, can't even get an appointment with a Republican Senator to plead his case that he would be a good nominee. And the reason? Senator McConnell was bound and determined to make sure that a Federalist Society nominee eventually made it to the Court, and he got his way. So now we have Leonard Leo in a new role. God only knows how much they are paying him. But this man is now set up on a new political agenda. It is the largest dark money, secret money effort in the history of the United States. How did we learn about Barre Seid giving $1.6 billion to this Marble Freedom Trust? Someone leaked it to the newspapers. Otherwise, it would have gone unnoticed because this is, in fact, the world of dark and secret money. Senator McConnell made a passing reference to the fact that we are about to vote on something called the DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act-- and I want to salute Senator Whitehouse, who is not on the floor at the moment. The DISCLOSE Act is really pretty basic. We are going to vote today on this provision which would be added to our campaign law-- protecting American democracy from foreign interference and requiring super PACs and special interest groups to disclose anyone contributing $10,000 or more to their cause. That is it. We don't prohibit the actual contribution; we just require disclosure. Where is it coming from? The reason we ask for this is that you go State by State with the heated campaigns of the day, and you will find all sorts of ads online and on television, and you have to race to the TV set to get close enough to read the small print at the end of the ad that explains who pays for it. If you knew who really paid for it, it would explain a lot of things to you. I have been, for example, at war with the major credit card companies, Visa and MasterCard. They have a duopoly. And I believe they overcharge consumers across America, and they are a contributor to inflation. In fact, they admit that much. So, as a result, I passed an amendment 8 or 10 years ago which they have branded the ``Durbin amendment'' which limits debit card swipe fees, interchange fees--I get into the world of finance here--and they hate it. Visa and MasterCard hated my amendment like the Devil hates holy water. Why? Because it costs them $8 billion a year. It reduces the add-on charges that retailers--restaurants and shops--have to charge when people use a Visa and MasterCard. So, every once in a while, they work up the courage to come at me again and try to undo this amendment, and they buy television ads. Do the television ads say that they are paid for by Visa and MasterCard? No. They say they are paid for by the Committee for a Better America or something. What we are trying to do with the DISCLOSE Act is give to the voters of this country more information and, in so doing, protect the whole process from corruption by foreign money being spent or by individuals like Mr. Seid, who puts $1.6 billion into the treasury of the Republican side. Now, if they came to the floor to debate this--and I don't think they will--they are likely to say: Well, you do the same thing. You use dark money and such. It is true that the campaign system is set up for organizations not to disclose, but we are authoring the solution to the problem for both political parties. We are standing by a reform and a change--Senator Whitehouse has led the way--that would literally say to America: You have the right to know. Who is paying for this candidate's ads? Who is putting all those ads on TV? What special interest group is behind this cause? Now, Senator McConnell says we should be dealing with serious issues. There is no more serious issue than the integrity of our campaign process. And I know, as a person who has been a candidate over many years, that it has changed dramatically. I can remember not that long ago when the first super PAC effort on the Democratic Senate side raised something in the range of $4 million to $10 million. Well, I can tell you that has been increasing by multiples every year, and on the other side, it is the same story. Do we need to sit down both political parties and put an end to this madness? Do we need to tell Mr. Seid and his family: Take your $1.6 billion and spend it for something that is really wholesome and of value to your community and your Nation, rather than to get into the hunt to be the biggest spender. Mr. Seid became the biggest spender of campaign funds in the history of the United States with his $1.6 billion contribution to Leonard Leo, the Marble Trust, and the Republican cause. That is a fact. I think we ought to change it. This system we have in America is one we need to protect and not exploit. When the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United decided that money was speech and that corporations had a right to speak, it really corrupted the system in ways unimaginable. We are living with the results today. Citizens United was a terrible decision. Search the Constitution all day and night for the word ``corporations,'' and you won't even find it. This is no constitutional protection. And the idea that if you are rich, you can speak more loudly and more often in America is a corruption of the basic rights we all should protect and enjoy. So I am going to vote in favor of the DISCLOSE Act. I don't think it is as insignificant as the Senator from Kentucky does. I think it gets to the heart of the issue about the future of our democracy. Continuing Resolution

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this Senate is facing an important deadline. Eight days from today, September 30, is the end of the fiscal year. That leaves us just a handful of legislative days to pass a continuing resolution that will keep the government operating while Congress negotiates a Federal budget for the next fiscal year. It is critical that we come to agreement as quickly as possible on a responsible Federal budget for next year. While we continue our negotiations, it is also critical that we not lose momentum on two life-and-death battles in which we are now seeing hard-won progress. I am speaking about our efforts to finally end the COVID pandemic--as well as our Nation's efforts to help Ukraine repel Russia's immoral and illegal war on that small democracy. Finally, we can help our fellow Americans who are suffering in the wake of a catastrophic Hurricane Fiona in Puerto Rico, recent devastating floods in Kentucky, and other natural disasters. Because, when disasters overwhelm the ability of communities and even States to respond, we don't abandon our fellow citizens to suffer alone. We reach out our hand to help. I want to take a few minutes to speak about each of these priorities that must be included in the continuing resolution. In recent weeks, the world has seen a stunning contrast in courage, leadership, and decency play out on the world stage. In Ukraine, we have witnessed the Ukrainian military retake thousands of square miles of territory in the Kharkiv region in a lightning counteroffensive against the Soviet occupiers. We have seen weeping men and women able to return to their communities. Others have come out of their homes and basements for the first times in months, overwhelmed with emotion at what they hope is the end of their nightmare. Still other Ukrainians are beginning the heartbreaking work of exhuming bodies from discovered mass graves and documenting Russian war crimes and atrocities. This is Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week in the newly liberated city of Izyum. President Zelenskyy is singing the Ukrainian national anthem during a Ukrainian flag-raising ceremony with members of the country's armed forces who drove out the Russian occupiers. He resolutely proclaimed, that while Russia may still occupy parts of Ukraine, for now ``[i]t is definitely impossible to occupy our people, the Ukrainian people.'' And what was happening in Moscow as Ukrainian communities were being liberated--and neglected and demoralized Russian troops were fleeing in haste? Vladimir Putin, who has never visited the Russian soldiers he so cynically uses for his disastrous war in Ukraine, was opening a giant Ferris wheel at an amusement park, trying to give a facade of normalcy. Putin is terrified that the Russian people will learn the truth about his failed and grotesque war--a war fueled by lies, war crimes, and Putin's warped nostalgia for a Soviet dystopia. Why else would he censor the news and jail anyone who criticizes the war? Why else would he imprison brave Russian patriots such as Alexei Navalny and Vladimir Kara-Murza who respect the Russian people by speaking the truth and offering real debate? Just 1 day after Putin opened the Ferris wheel in Moscow, the ride broke down, leaving some people dangling high off the ground. It was a pathetic and apt metaphor for Putin's disastrous war against Ukraine. Putin vowed that Russia would take Ukraine in days, maybe in hours. That was nearly 7 months ago. Today, Russia is losing its war against Ukraine. From the earliest days of this war, when Ukrainian forces repelled Russian forces trying to seize Kiev and set up a puppet government, U.S. and allied support has been critical to Ukraine's military success. The successful counteroffensive we are seeing today is due, first and foremost, to the heroism of President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people. But it's also a reflection of President Biden's foresight and leadership in rallying our allies and providing timely and formidable assistance to Ukraine. Yet we cannot assume that Ukraine's victory is inevitable. A wounded beast is dangerous. Russia still occupies large swathes of Ukraine and is threatening to unleash even more powerful weapons in a desperate attempt to avoid complete defeat. In fact, over the last 24 hours alone, Putin has made a number of desperate and increasingly unhinged announcements: calling for a partial mobilization of more Russian reservists despite mounting losses; making further veiled threats of using nuclear weapons; and pursuing sham referendums across eastern Ukraine, beginning as early as this Friday, echoing his past illegitimate actions in Crimea. Let me be clear that the U.S. never recognized the annexation of Crimea. Today, Senator Rubio and I will introduce legislation making clear the U.S. will never recognize Russia's annexation of any other part of Ukraine. All this is a reminder of why we must pass additional aid to Ukraine as part of the continuing resolution without delay. This war is not simply a war between Russia and Ukraine. It is a battle between democracy and autocracy. It is cheaper for us, and it is unquestionably in our national security interest, to win this war while it is still contained within Ukraine. Madam President, ending the COVID pandemic once and for all is another battle that we are winning and can't afford to give up on now. When President Biden took office, he set an ambitious goal: to vaccinate 70 percent of American adults. We have done that--and more. Today, almost 80 percent of all Americans--more than 260 million people--are well on their way to being fully vaccinated. Experts tell us those vaccinations have helped prevent more than 60 million infections in the United States, 17 million hospitalizations, and more than 2 million deaths. That is a modern medical miracle. But we are not out of danger completely. The virus is still circulating, still mutating, and still sickening and killing people. America is still seeing 57,000 new COVID infections daily, with more than 30,000 people hospitalized and more than 400 people dying each day. In March, President Biden asked for additional funding and resources to continue the fight against COVID. For months, our Republican colleagues have blocked that request. Their obstruction has had serious costs. With another COVID surge likely on its way this fall, the administration is running out of funds to purchase and distribute COVID vaccines. And it has been forced to pause part of its free testing program. President Biden is right; we have made huge progress against COVID. But history shows us what happens when we declare a pandemic to be over prematurely. The flu pandemic of 1918, which killed at least 50 million people worldwide, had at least 4 waves over about 2 years. In some cities, the fourth wave killed even more people than the second wave. Why was the fourth wave so much deadlier? Because, by then, people had grown tired of precautions and given up on them. We can't repeat that deadly mistake. We need to pass the administration's request for additional funds for public and global health so that we can end the COVID pandemic once and for all, and we must also dedicate more funds to helping stop the spread of monkeypox. I also strongly support the administration's request for additional funding for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, as well as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to control the spread of the pandemic amid potential new variants. Finally, as I said, Madam President, we must include in the continuing resolution disaster relief funds to help our fellow Americans who are suffering in the wake of natural disasters in Puerto Rico, Kentucky, California, and many other States. The entire island of Puerto Rico--more than 1 million people--lost power this weekend as it was battered by Hurricane Fiona, almost exactly 5 years after the devastation of Hurricane Maria. Roughly 70 percent of residents and businesses lost access to clean water, with massive flooding still ongoing. I stand ready to do all I can to provide Federal support to the island and other communities recovering from disasters this year. They need our help now. I hope my Republican colleagues will join Democrats in providing it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to condemn the violence and threats of violence against the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I take these threats seriously. This July 1, I chaired the Judiciary Committee hearing on law enforcement officer safety and the threats our law enforcement officers are facing. I have repeatedly made clear that violence against law enforcement is never--never--acceptable no matter what ideology motivates it, but here is the reality. In the past month, following the FBI's execution of a search warrant at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, the FBI has faced a flood of threats against its employees and its facilities, and these threats have been egged on by the former President and his allies. The men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation literally put their lives on the line every day to keep all of us safe. They put themselves in harm's way to stop armed criminals, drug traffickers, terrorist organizations, and others who threaten our communities. They serve on the frontlines of the opioid epidemic and investigate and hold accountable those who traffic illegal opioids and who illegally prescribe pharmaceutical opioids. They investigate crimes against children and human trafficking--some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. They work day in and day out to combat international and domestic terrorism, and they carry out judicially issued search warrants every day. That is part of their job and an important role that they play in our justice system. Unfortunately, ever since the August 8 Mar-a-Lago search, their dedication has been repaid with a flood of baseless attacks and violent threats. Attacking the FBI for his own political advantage is nothing new for the former President, but the attacks haven't stopped with him. His allies and followers have spewed anti-FBI vitriol online and across the airwaves. In recent weeks, there have been calls from Republican Members of Congress to ``destroy'' and ``defund'' the FBI. There have been calls from Republican congressional candidates to ``gut'' the FBI ``like a fish'' and ``shoot FBI, IRS, ATF, and all other feds on sight.'' So it is no surprise that such outrageous and irresponsible rhetoric coincides with a stunning increase in violent threats against the FBI. Last month, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security issued a joint intelligence bulletin detailing an increase in violent threats and acts of violence against Federal law enforcement officials following the August 8 Mar-a-Lago search. These include threats to place a ``dirty bomb'' outside of the FBI headquarters and online calls for civil war and armed rebellion. On August 11, a man wearing body armor--armed with an AR-15 assault rifle and a nail gun--attempted to breach the FBI's Cincinnati field office. On August 16, another man was indicted for threatening to murder everyone at the FBI, from Director Wray to the custodial staff. On August 25, a man jumped the fence at FBI's Chicago field office but, thankfully, was detained and taken to a local hospital for evaluation before he could hurt anyone. In response to the joint intelligence bulletin and these incidents, I asked the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to have a private briefing with Members of the Senate's Judiciary and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees last week. That briefing only added to my concern. I cannot share the specifics from this closed-door briefing, but I will say this: It should go without saying that the men and women of the FBI risk their lives every day on our behalf, but the increase in threats to their personal safety since the August 8 Mar-a-Lago search warrant is shocking. Beyond the direct threats and violence, there are also rising concerns about the public spread of personal information about the FBI's employees and families--a practice known as doxing. I fear the situation may get worse. Last Thursday, former President Trump kept up his threatening rhetoric against these law enforcement officers. He said that if he were indicted for his actions, ``I think you'd have problems in this country the likes of which, perhaps, we've never seen before. I don't think the people of the United States would stand for it.'' That is exactly the kind of language President Trump used after he lost the 2020 election to incite the January 6 attack here at the Capitol. As I have said many times, political violence and threats of violence in the furtherance of any cause--any cause--is unacceptable. It is time for the Senate to stand up and support the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who have been threatened and attacked for simply doing their jobs and working to protect America. Let's condemn these baseless attacks on the men and women of the FBI and the despicable political game they represent. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 775, submitted earlier today.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this resolution which just passed without objection from any Member of the Senate will be a reminder to the men and women who serve in law enforcement, particularly in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that we stand behind them and that those who would exploit political events at the expense of the safety of these men and women are beyond the pale of constitutional conduct. We want to stand behind those who are standing for us--to protect us and our families. I thank the Senate for agreeing to this resolution. It is timely; it is important; and it is clear.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4899, introduced earlier today.

Mr. DURBIN. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. DURBIN. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions introduced earlier today: S. Res. 777; S. Res 778; S. Res. 779; S. Res 780; S. Res. 781; S. Res. 782; and S. Res. 783.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened to the Republican minority leader, Senator McConnell, speak on the floor this morning. I have to tell you, on the issue of immigration, there are several things which he said which are not accurate and that I would like to clarify for the Record. First, this morning, Senator McConnell said: Orderly, legal immigration is part of what makes America strong. Anarchy and open borders make us weak. I don't know of any rational person who would disagree with that comment. But I think, for the record, we should make clear that, 8 years ago, when we considered comprehensive immigration reform--a bipartisan bill--on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the Senator from Kentucky voted against it. There were 14 Republican Senators who voted for this measure. It passed the Senate. It was the product of a bipartisan Commission--a self-appointed committee, really--the so-called Gang of 8. I want to recount the names of those who were on that committee who produced a comprehensive immigration reform bill. I was on the committee with Chuck Schumer, Senator Bob Menendez, and the Senator from the Presiding Officer's home State of Colorado, Senator Michael Bennet. On the Republican side, it was led by Senator John McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Marco Rubio, and then-Senator from Arizona Jeff Flake. We worked for months. We put in all of the effort that was expected of us to address an issue which had not been addressed by Congress for 25 years, which was to try to upgrade our immigration system--to do what Senator McConnell says needs to be done: orderly, legal immigration. That was what the bill sought to achieve. There were 14 Republicans who joined us in voting for it. Senator McConnell did not, and we have not had another measure since then. The bill we passed in the Senate was sent over to the Republican- controlled House of Representatives. They refused to even consider it in committee or on the floor or to bring it to a vote. We missed an opportunity, and it was an opportunity on many different levels. It would have finally addressed the issue of legal immigration in America, which is a critically important measure. Throughout our history, without exception, year in and year out, legal immigrants have come to this country. There have been some terrible laws passed by Congress in relation to those having been allowed in this country. The reality is we have acknowledged from the beginning of America as we know it that immigrants have been a part of our present and are a part of our future, and now we face the same reality again without the benefit of having an update in the laws, which the Republican leader voted against. I recall specifically the work of Senator Bennet from Colorado. He did a remarkable thing, something that people didn't think was really possible. He managed to bring together all of the interest groups on the issue of legal immigration for those working in agriculture. He managed to find an agreement among all of these groups as to the humane and sensible treatment of these individuals. If that would have passed, it would have changed the circumstances we have today--circumstances wherein we do not have nearly enough legal immigrants to work in the agricultural sector of America. It is estimated that one out of two--50 percent--of all of the ag workers today are undocumented. We still eat the food that they pick and harvest, and we still take advantage of their hard work in the meat processing plants. Yet the reality is that we know, in our heart of hearts, that they are not being treated in a sensible, reasonable, humane way. Senator Bennet, time and again, has shown leadership on this issue as he did with the Gang of 8. Once again, we find ourselves, because the bill failed in the previous Congress, without a guiding law on standards of immigration. There were other things said by Senator McConnell this morning which I want to make reference to as well, particularly as to the busing of those currently in the United States, as new, legally recognized immigrants, to various cities around the United States. Governors from the States of Texas, Arizona, and Florida have been busing those who have been crossing the border and who are legally recognized to stay here until further hearing to communities like New York, Washington, Chicago, and even to Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. The thing that we have got to keep in mind is that these Governors do not call local officials first. They don't even contact the Governors of these States where they are sending these people. So they arrive, helter-skelter, in unpredictable numbers and conditions, and the local officials are expected to take care of them. Listen to what Senator McConnell had to say in describing what I have just told you. He said: Out of desperation, a few Governors along our southern border are now giving some Democrat-run States and cities just a tiny, tiny taste of what border communities have been enduring literally for years. What he is trying to say to us is this is an act of political spite. It is a political stunt by these Governors. And what are they using to make their point? Innocent people--here legally in the United States-- who are being shipped off, many times, with deception and promises that will never be kept in terms of opportunities for them in these various places. Senator McConnell went on to say: All those cities combined have had months to accept between them approximately 1 day's share of our Nation's illegal immigration. Immigrants--about four dozen--were given secure transportation, according to Senator McConnell, ``to the wealthy, liberal destination of Martha's Vineyard, filled with millionaires' mansions''--so-called sanctuary destinations. Do you see the point that is being made here? These people are being bused without any warning as to where they are going to end up--where their final destinations may be--simply to make the political point that the Democrats have to be reminded of the Republicans' position on immigration. We are doing this at the expense of many innocent people, and we are doing this in a dangerous fashion. I will tell you that I visited the Salvation Army center in Chicago, IL, about 10 days ago, and I met with these families and individuals. Little children are involved in this calculation. Why is it that whenever the Republicans want to make a point on immigration, it always ends up being the children who are the pawns, whether they are kids in cages or forcefully removing children from their parents or in this case, busing them off with their parents to communities they have never heard of? Why does it always involve families with small children? You would think there would be more sensitivity on the Republican side to that reality. Then Senator McConnell made a statement which I want to correct. He said the Biden administration has been flying and busing illegal immigrants around the country on a regular basis. This is not true. We checked again this morning with the Biden administration. They are not exercising that right. What we have going on are the transfers of those who are not in legal status back and forth between various facilities and the transfers of unaccompanied children, with escorts, to places like Chicago and other cities where, for decades, they have been cared for until their legal status is resolved. But this statement that the Biden administration is guilty of busing people back and forth is not true at all. I think the record should be clarified, and I hope the Senator from Kentucky will do so when he receives the first opportunity. The Biden administration has said: We have the authority to do it, but we have not exercised it and will not unless we confer with Congress and also notify local officials as to whether anyone will be moved. Now, there are circumstances and have been in the past that I know of personally on the border of Texas and Mexico where people had come and been released. They found they had credible fear. They asserted it. They have legal status, and they want to go to a specific location where they have friends and family. In those cases, there is help given to them to reach those destinations. But it is not the current situation where the Governors of Florida, Texas, and Arizona are deceiving these people onto these buses and sending them to places they have never heard of and not letting those who are in their destinations even know what it coming. What is the right thing to do? The right thing to do is what we did 8 years ago: a bipartisan approach to fixing the immigration system. Instead of exploiting it for political purposes, let's fix it. We have done that. We passed legislation on a bipartisan basis even in this evenly divided Senate. The CHIPS bill--this important semiconductor chip production bill--was a bipartisan bill. The infrastructure bill--the biggest highway program in the history of the United States since Dwight Eisenhower--was a bipartisan bill. The gun safety bill--a controversial issue, just as controversial as immigration--we passed that on a bipartisan basis. We can do it, but we have to stop exploiting these people who are here with children. We have to do it by stopping exploiting this issue and work together on a bipartisan basis, with give on both sides. That is how we can reach a bipartisan solution. I am ready to do that. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, we would start as soon as we have Republicans of good will willing to sit down with Democrats and work together. But continuing to exploit these people and the children and these families is just plain wrong. It is not consistent with American values. It doesn't reflect well on our Nation. I hope that the people who are inspired to do this--the Governors in Florida, Texas, and Arizona--will think twice about these kids and their families before they try it again. I yield the floor.