Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thought that the Republicans wanted to cut taxes, but when it comes to American families' health insurance, they want to raise taxes. Now, why? Well, there is one simple explanation: Barack Obama. You see, it was Barack Obama who came up with the ACA--the Affordable Care Act--where millions of Americans have access to health insurance--affordable health insurance--35 million, 1 out of 10 Americans. But in the efforts of the Republicans to end the Affordable Care Act, they are basically trying everything. There was a time when there was this historic, tension-filled moment on the floor when three Republican Senators saved the Affordable Care Act. Senators Murkowski, Collins, and John McCain--and I will still remember that image as long as I am alive--walked on the floor and saved the Affordable Care Act. But ever since then, the Republicans have been trying to do away with it every way they can think of. There are millions of Americans who have better health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. They cannot be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. They don't have annual or lifetime limits on coverage. They have free preventive healthcare, and young adults can stay on their parents' plans until they have reached the age of 26--all positive things, wildly popular. Still the Republicans resist the idea that this is going to be the law of the land, if they have anything to say about it. There is no disputing that ACA is one of the greatest public policy accomplishments of a lifetime. But as I mentioned, this lifesaving policy is once again under threat from the Republicans. Why? Last year, Congress passed and President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan, which, among other things, made ACA health plans more widely available and more affordable for millions of Americans. That package increased the size of ACA's tax credit, which eliminated or reduced out-of-pocket premiums for millions of people. It also expanded eligibility, so that more lower- and middle-income Americans are now eligible for tax credits. As a result of these improvements, a record 14-and-a-half million people signed up for the ACA plans during the 2022 open enrollment period. And I understand nearly one-third of these enrollees found a plan that costs $10 per month or less. Millions of enrollees selected a plan that didn't cost anything. In the midst of this once-in-a-century pandemic, the American Rescue Plan provided families across the Nation with peace of mind that they have continued access to health insurance. Here is the problem: If Congress doesn't do something--and soon-- these enhancements lowering the cost of premiums for American families will end. That causes millions of people to lose their health insurance or to have to pay more. If you are in a time of inflation, where the cost of living is going up, wouldn't you want to be on the train that says ``lower health insurance premiums''? The Democrats are. The Republicans are not. Millions of people will either lose their insurance or pay more if we don't do something. Not one single Republican Senator will join in our efforts, but those families in every State are going to be benefited by this. Let's not forget how hard Republican Senators have fought to come down on the side of insurance companies and take away health insurance for Americans. It has been their top priority for decades. So it falls on Democrats, once again, to fix this problem. And fix it we must. It is my understanding that all 50 Democratic Senators are on board with providing a multiyear extension of these ACA tax credits. I know that House Democrats are with us. Let us get it done soon by August when insurers start notifying customers of their 2023 premiums. People nationwide have a lot on their plates these days, from rising costs to fears of gun violence to increasing COVID cases to new restrictions on women's rights. Let us not add to the burden of tax-paying families by hiking their health insurance premiums next year. The Democrats want to fix it. We invite the Republicans, who give many speeches on the cost of living for families, to join us. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 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 Vermont (Mr. Leahy) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, like 17 million other Americans, I watched the January 6 committee in its latest session last Thursday night. For 2 hours, I was there watching closely as they presented witnesses and evidence of the obvious. It reminded me that our committee--the Senate Judiciary Committee--last October released a report that showed in alarming detail how former President Donald Trump tried to bully the Justice Department into overturning an election which he lost. Our report showed just how aggressively the defeated President tried to hold on to power, how some with the Justice Department were actually conspiring to help him, and how hard the Department's leadership had to work to prevent Trump's illegal scheme from succeeding. We knew when we produced our report that it was just one chapter in an intricate plot to subvert America's democracy. In eight public hearings over the last 6 weeks, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol has laid out in clear and chilling detail more chapters in the plot to overturn the 2020 Presidential election. The facts are damning. What makes them even more shocking and credible is that they have been revealed, under oath, not by former President Trump's political foes but by people who once believed in him--people who worked with him for years, close aides, advisers, even his own family members. I am sure you remember January 6, 2021. Those of us who were in this Chamber will never forget it. We were here in the Senate to count the electoral ballots forwarded from the States to the Senate and the House to confirm the results of the 2020 Presidential election. We heard the furious mob outside. They attacked Capitol Police officers with hockey sticks, iron bars, toxic bear spray, flagpoles--whatever weapons they could find. The Trump mob was on the march. They smashed windows and doors, broke into this Capitol Building. Capitol Police officers ordered the Senators to evacuate the Chamber immediately. I remember it well. They first told us: Well, wait here. This will be a safe room. Ten minutes later, they said: Leave through these back doors as quickly as you can; the mob has taken over the Capitol. We rushed to a secure location. For hours, as the Capitol Police and DC Metropolitan Police battled the mob in brutal hand-to-hand combat, we asked the same questions: Where is the protection? Where is the National Guard? Where is the President? Donald Trump set this carnage in motion by riling up his supporters with the Big Lie and ordering them to march on the Capitol. We thought to ourselves, Why won't he tell them to stop? This has gone too far. The public hearings of the January 6 Committee have answered the question in frightening detail. Where was the President? We now know from last Thursday's hearing, Donald Trump knew within 15 minutes of finishing his remarks that the mob was on its way to attack this building and the people inside. What did he do? What did Donald Trump do for 3 hours 7 minutes? He sat in his private dining room next to the Oval Office watching the violence on TV. He refused to contact his national security leaders to defend the Capitol of the United States of America. He refused pleas from congressional leaders of both parties, from his own staff and family, from his allies in the media at FOX News to call off the mob. He refused to walk less than 60 seconds to the White House briefing room to make a simple statement asking for the violence to stop. He was silent, and he watched FOX News every second of that 3 hours 7 minutes. We learned that members of Vice President Pence's Secret Service detail actually thought that they might die as they confronted this mob. As some of those agents made what they feared might be their last calls to their families to tell them that they loved them, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet telling the mob Vice President Pence had betrayed them. Instead of calming the riot, Donald Trump poured gasoline on the fire. Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican member of the January 6 Committee, summed it up well. He said: Trump didn't fail to act . . . he chose not to act. Only when it was clear that his coup had failed did Donald Trump reluctantly record a video telling his supporters to leave the Capitol and go home. And he carefully chose his words--we can tell from the outtakes--not to concede the Big Lie. There was not a word of condemnation about the violence, not a word of concern for the police officers who battled that mob to protect our safety and our democracy. More than 140 police officers--Capitol Police, DC Metropolitan Police-- suffered serious injuries on January 6. Where is this President who loved law and order? Silently watching on FOX. Over the next few days and weeks, sadly, several officers who defended the Capitol died. Not a word from former President Trump. In the committee's earlier hearings, we learned how the President had ignored his own aides and advisers and relentlessly pressed false claims of voter fraud, listening to his ``gifted'' legal counsel, Rudy Giuliani, even when he was told repeatedly that these claims were wrong. We learned how he pressured Vice President Pence to go along with the plan to overturn his loss even after he was told by the experts around him: President Trump, it would be illegal. We learned how President Trump pressed elected leaders in key States to change the vote totals in their States. When that failed, he pressed allies to send false slates of electors that would make him the winner. He learned how to summon a mob to Washington and turned them loose on this building, even after being told the mob was carrying weapons. And even after all the harm his Big Lie has done to our democracy, he is still relentlessly peddling it. Outtakes aired by the House committee last week showed on the day of insurrection, he still refused to say the election is over. This little man just can't bring himself to accept reality. Wisconsin's Assembly Speaker, who happens to be a Republican, said Donald Trump called him to urge him to overturn the State's vote in the 2020 election. When did he call him? Two weeks ago. He is still on a rampage. The Senate will soon consider a bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act to make it plain that a Presidential election cannot be overturned by wrongful partisan interference by a Vice President or any State or congressional officials. I support this effort. Senators Klobuchar, King, and I offered our own ideas several months ago on this anticipated Electoral Count Act reform. I hope that this bipartisan effort can get 60 votes in the Senate. I hope that 10 Republicans will join us in modernizing this law so it works for today. It was written in haste in the middle of political controversy in the 19th century. Some of the sections of that law are almost unintelligible. Let's clarify it. Let's give the American people an assurance that we learned a lesson on January 6, 2021, and in the election that preceded it. And in that lesson, we learned that the American people want their votes to count accurately, honestly, and fairly. Ultimately, however, the only way we can protect our elections and our democracy is by respecting the rule of law and the will of the American people and telling them the truth. By laying out the truth clearly for the American people and for history, the January 6 Committee is performing an invaluable public service. They deserve our respect. One closing comment. There wasn't supposed to be a committee in the House. Madam President, you remember and I do, too, the proposal was for a bipartisan Commission to be created to investigate this travesty on January 6 as they investigated 9/11--take politics out of it, take elected officials out of it, bring together people who are respected from across the political spectrum, and get to the bottom of it. That proposal for a bipartisan Commission was stopped by Republican leadership in the House and the Senate. After all of the statements they made expressing outrage over January 6, when it came time to appoint the Commission--bipartisan Commission--they refused. There is only one conclusion you can draw: They don't want to face the truth. They don't want the truth to be on the record from a bipartisan Commission. Luckily, in the House of Representatives, the January 6 Committee has achieved that, and there is more to come. I might add, people say: Why didn't the Senate Judiciary Committee take this on? That is a very valid question. The difference is this. In order to issue a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee in such a committee hearing, we need to have agreement from at least one Republican member of the committee. We had no assurance that that agreement would be offered. So I supported the January 6 Committee in the House, and I am glad that they moved forward as they have. Abortion Madam President, it was a month ago the Dobbs decision was handed down. One of the most controversial issues in American politics is the issue of abortion and reproductive health. We know that Justice Alito's opinion, a 6-to-3 decision, overturned Roe v. Wade. Since then, we have been trying to sort out the impact of that decision on America. There are many things that have happened which have been shocking--the fact that they have called into question some of the things that we had accepted for 50 years as constitutionally guaranteed rights. Yes, there was a 10-year-old girl who was viciously raped and turned up pregnant in the State of Ohio. And, yes, under the law in the State of Ohio because she was 6 weeks 3 days pregnant, she couldn't qualify for a procedure to terminate her pregnancy in the State of Ohio. She had to go to Indiana, the neighboring State. There were those who disputed that it ever happened and denied that such a thing could occur. As it turned out, they were wrong. It did happen. I was saddened to read that one of the leaders in the right to life movement said she should carry that baby to term--a 10-year-old girl. Madam President, I am sure you have seen a lot of 10-year-old young people. I have seen them, too, even in my household, one of my grandchildren. At that age, you are still questioning whether they can cross a busy street without help. And to think someone would say she should carry that baby to term ignores her own health and ignores the reality of that situation. That is the kind of rhetoric we are hearing from people who are proposing a national ban on abortions. I was reading this morning an article in the New York Times. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this New York Times article printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. I want to read this because it tells you the complications that have been created by what seemed like a very simple decision overturning a previous Supreme Court case. This writer, Gina Kolata, wrote an article entitled ``After Roe, Urgent Questions About Cancer Care.'' It was in Sunday's New York Times, July 24, 2022. I was struck by this article because it suggests the complexity of this issue and the real-world impact of this decision: In April of last year, Rachel Brown's oncologist called with bad news--at age 36, she had an aggressive form of breast cancer. The very next day, she found out she was pregnant after nearly a year of trying with her fiance to have a baby. She had always said she would never have an abortion. But the choices she faced were wrenching. If she had the chemotherapy that she needed to prevent the spread of her cancer, she could harm the baby. If she didn't have it, the cancer could spread and kill her. She had two children, ages 2 and 11, who would lose their mother. For Ms. Brown and others in the unlucky sorority of women who receive a cancer diagnosis when they are pregnant, the Supreme Court decision in [Dobbs], ending the constitutional right to an abortion, can seem like a slap in the face. If the life of a fetus is paramount, a pregnancy can mean a woman cannot get effective treatment for her cancer. One in a thousand women who gets pregnant each year is diagnosed with cancer, meaning thousands of women are facing a serious and possibly fatal disease while they are expecting a baby. Before the Supreme Court decision, a pregnant woman with cancer was already ``entering a world with tremendous unknowns,'' said Dr. Clifford Hudis, the chief executive officer at the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Now, not only the women but also the doctors and hospitals that treat them, are caught up in the added complications of abortion bans. ``If a doctor can't give a drug without fear of damaging a fetus, is that going to compromise outcomes?'' Dr. Hudis asked. ``It's a whole new world.'' Cancer drugs are dangerous for fetuses in the first trimester. Although older chemotherapy drugs are safe in the second and third trimesters, the safety of the newer and more effective drugs is unknown and doctors are reluctant to give them to [a] pregnant [woman]. This woman decided to terminate her pregnancy, take the cancer therapy, and save her life. She closes with the following statements: But having gone through that grueling treatment, she also wondered how she could ever have handled having a newborn baby and her two other children to care for. ``My bones ached, I couldn't walk more than a few steps without being out of breath. It was hard to get nutrients because of nausea and vomiting,'' she said. The Supreme Court decision hit her hard. ``I felt like the reason I did what I did didn't matter,'' she said. ``My life didn't matter, and my children's lives didn't matter. ``It didn't matter if I lost my life because I was being forced to be pregnant,'' she said. That is the reality today. I hear my colleagues come to the floor with absolute certain moral clarity on this issue. I have learned during the course of my life and my public life that there is not that element of certainty when it comes down to real life. And to jeopardize the health and safety, even the life of the mother in this circumstance, to leave doctors wondering if they have criminal liability for professional medical care is something this Nation should never see. But we face it now, and it is up to us to show leadership and come together, I hope, and bring back the constitutional protections that have been the case for 50 years in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we have a great number of holidays each year in America. But is there a more perfect holiday than the Fourth of July? We celebrate the birth of our Nation. We gather with our families for picnics, a trip to the beach, backyard barbecues, take in a baseball game, and go to a parade. It is just the ultimate American celebration. We relax, pull out our American flags, gather our kids, and thank God that we are born in this great Nation and can call it home. But this last Fourth of July became a different scene in one part of my home State of Illinois. It was the first time in years that the people of Highland Park were able to gather together publicly. So there was a special celebration as they gathered at 10 in the morning for the Fourth of July parade. Oh, in addition to the usual suspects at these parades, political candidates, there were a lot of groups just there in pure celebration: high school bands, gatherings of veterans, all sorts of groups in a wonderful, wonderful suburban town in the Chicagoland area of Highland Park. Yesterday, we held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee about the day of the July Fourth parade in Highland Park. I wish we didn't have to hold that hearing. I would rather it would have been some other subject, some other place. But it was the 10th hearing during this Congress--the 10th time--that we had held a hearing in the Judiciary Committee on gun violence--gun violence, the No. 1 cause of death of children in America. Let me repeat that: gun violence, the No. 1 cause of death among children in America. Yesterday, we focused on Highland Park and the Fourth of July parade, and we focused on the obvious mass shooting incident that took place. And we focused on military-style assault weapons. The Fourth of July shooting in Highland Park, IL, was the 309th mass shooting in America this year. What is a mass shooting? When four people are either injured or killed--309 times it had happened before July the Fourth. By the time of yesterday's hearing, 16 days after the Fourth of July, that number of 309 had grown by 47 mass shootings since the Fourth of July in America--16 days, 47 more mass shootings. Where else on Earth is this taking place? Nowhere. Right here in the United States of America is the only place on Earth where mass shootings are happening on such a frequent basis. In many of the deadliest shootings, the attacker used an assault weapon, a combat weapon--a gun specifically designed to kill the maximum number of people in just a few seconds; the same weapon we saw in Uvalde, TX, where the kids in their classrooms were killed; the same weapon we saw in the supermarket in Buffalo, NY, when early morning shoppers on a Saturday were killed; and, sadly, the same weapon that was used in Highland Park. During the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, a deranged gunman perched himself on a rooftop, using a Smith & Wesson assault rifle, killing seven people and wounding dozens more. He shot 83 rounds in less than a minute. Let me say that again: 83 rounds in less than a minute. This is Aiden McCarthy. Aiden is 2 years old. His mom and dad, Kevin and Irina McCarthy, took him to the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park. I first heard about him just an hour or 2 after this terrible incident. I called my friend Nancy Rotering, who is the mayor of Highland Park, and asked her: Tell me, what can I do? She said: I don't know. Things are happening so fast. We actually found a 2-year-old toddler who was wandering on the street by himself. We don't know who he belongs to. His picture is being circulated in the community. The conclusion was fairly obvious. Whoever brought him to that parade was not able to look for him and care for him. And the story eventually unfolded. Kevin and Irina McCarthy brought Aiden to the parade--his first parade. And then when the shooting started, they shielded him with their bodies. In a matter of minutes, Aiden lost both of his parents. Fortunately, a grandparent was located, and Aiden is in safe hands today. But because of this assault weapon being fired on the crowd, he lost his mom and dad. That is the reality when a parent has to shield a child like this from a mass shooting. Nancy Rotering, as I mentioned earlier, is mayor of Highland Park. She testified yesterday about the parade. She told us that when the shooting started, she thought the sound of bullets was actually a drum cadence from the local marching band. That is how fast the bullets were being fired. When she realized there was an active shooter, she began evacuating the crowd. She said the adults she confronted stared back at her. They didn't understand what she was saying. But the children, the teenagers, they understood. This was a shooter; this wasn't a drill. Did you hear that? The children and the teens at the Highland Park parade instinctively knew what was happening because they had been trained in their schools to deal with mass shootings. That is how common these mass shootings have become. I grew up in a different era, Cold War era, where it was duck and cover under your desk for fear of a nuclear attack--an attack by the Soviet Union. These kids--our kids, our grandkids--are being schooled not just in the ABCs, but they are being schooled in survival, so that if a shooter shows up in a classroom, they know what to do to try to survive. Mayor Rotering told the Judiciary Committee: Our children are expected to return to school in [about] a month. . . . They are frightened to go back. . . . They are frightened to play outside. Many never want to go to . . . parade[s] again. For the rest of their lives, they will look over their shoulders, ready for another active shooter, thanks to the drills our society has normalized [in our classrooms]. She continued: Playing outside is normal. Back to school is normal. Fear of a shooter is not normal; but now in Highland Park [Illinois] and so many other American communities, it is [the new normal]. It can't be said enough that mass shootings with assault weapons are a unique American phenomenon. They are devastating--so devastating. I want to show you another picture with Aiden McCarthy. This is Cooper Roberts, 8 years old. Cooper and his twin brother Luke went to the parade with their mom and dad. And in the course of the shooting, he was shot, taken to the hospital immediately. He has gone through at least seven or eight surgeries now, touch and go for many days as to whether he would live. And, sadly, in addition to the damage that was done to his body, his spinal cord was severed by this same bullet. You see, when you fire an assault weapon at a human body, it hits that body at three times the ordinary velocity of any other firearm. It is so powerful that it was originally designed by the U.S. Army to achieve a single goal described to us in the committee yesterday. That goal was to be able to shoot one of these AR-15s and pierce a metal helmet worn by a soldier 500 yards away--five football fields--the AR- 15. It is not another firearm. It is a killing weapon. And, unfortunately, Cooper Roberts was in the line of fire. We pray that he recovers. His mom and dad have kept us posted, all of us posted, as to his progress. But if you think about the devastation that an AR-15 combat weapon assault rifle can do to a human body, imagine what it did to this poor little boy's body. That is the reality of the issue we are discussing. Many gun manufacturers, like Smith & Wesson, Mossberg, Bushmaster, and Daniel Defense have launched ad campaigns marketing their assault weapons like they are fashion accessories. Let me show you a few of them. This is from Mossberg: Engineered to the specs of freedom and independence, stand and salute the tactical rifle. We are America's oldest family-owned firearms manufacturer, building dependable, hard-working rifles and shotguns since 1919. American built, American strong. Arm yourself with a Mossberg. That is the type of weapon that shot Cooper Roberts, that killed the parents of Aiden McCarthy. How is it being marketed? A symbol of independence and freedom. Some of these other ads--want proof of your manhood? ``Consider your Man Card reissued,'' says Bushmaster with their AR-15. I want to make sure, as we said at the hearing yesterday, that these weapons are properly characterized. I will tell you how I characterize them. The manufacturers of these weapons should be ashamed of what is happening across America. To suggest that this typifies the values of this country is just plain wrong and offensive. It is time for us to name and shame these companies. It is time to hold them accountable for the devastation they made possible. How many AR-15s are there in America? We don't really know. The best estimate is 20 million--20 million. I want to dispel a common talking point we hear from the other side of the aisle. We heard it yesterday. They claim our communities don't need new gun safety laws; all they need are good guys with guns. I wish it were that simple. It is not. In one survey of 433 active shooter attacks, how many were stopped by a good guy with a gun? Twenty-two out of four hundred and thirty- three--about 5 percent. Half of those 22 were security guards and trained law enforcement who were there present on the scene and off duty. The sad reality is, when the police come on the scene and someone is holding a gun, they don't know if it is a perpetrator, a danger, or somebody on their side. In many instances, they shoot the wrong person, making a split-second decision in seeing a person holding a gun. So this notion that we are going to come to the rescue of one another and stop mass shootings is not a reality. Five percent of active shooter attacks were stopped by a good guy with a gun--5 percent. Imagine buying a car and being told there is only a 5-percent chance that the airbag will go off if you need it in a crash? You wouldn't take that car out of the dealership, and for good reason. We heard testimony yesterday from RAND Corporation firearms expert Dr. Kyleanne Hunter. She told us that assault weapons make mass shootings significantly more lethal. The evidence is clear. It is time for us to have a national conversation about America and mass shooting. Let me say that the manufacturers shouldn't get off the hook. They aren't just selling you a product. Let me show you one other thing that is particularly outrageous. Sadly, this is in my home State of Illinois. It is a JR-15. It is designed to look like the AR-15, the combat weapon assault rifle. It is lighter, so it can be carried by a kid. Here are the symbols of this JR-15. They are skulls, skulls of children. Each one of them has a pacifier in his mouth. It isn't just on this poster, on this ad; it is emblazoned on the gun itself. This is a kid's assault weapon. Think about that for a second. In America, we have reached a point where that is even thought of in light of the killing that has taken place. The hearing yesterday showed an outpouring of people from Highland Park in numbers I never expected. I believe there were 100 people there who, on their own dime, came out to Washington to make sure all of us in Congress knew what happened in Highland Park, how that village and their lives were changed on the Fourth of July. What are we going to do about it--shrug our shoulders and wait for tomorrow's mass shooting? Sadly, we can expect one to come. I listen to the defenses, but, frankly, I can't understand people trying to defend the right to own an assault rifle in America. One Senator argued: Well, it is just an inanimate object, you know. Don't blame the object for the results. I wonder if he feels the same way about a grenade launcher. Should people have the right to own grenade launchers? I hope we can all agree that is an incredible thought. Why doesn't this weapon fall into a similar category, a combat, Army assault weapon that is being used by individuals to kill so many innocent people in this country--kill them at a concert in Las Vegas, at schools in Connecticut, at schools in Texas, at Fourth of July parades in my home State. Last month, we did come together--and I want to salute Senator Murphy, who is on the floor--to pass a bill that was the most important gun safety law we considered in three decades. I voted for it. It didn't address this issue at all except in the background checks for those under 21. And I am glad it did, but it didn't address the issue of whether these guns should even be in America at this point, legal in America. That, I think, is the critical threshold issue. Incidentally, this shooter, who seemed to have a pretty ill-fated life from the start, managed to buy high-capacity magazines so that he could clip in quickly 30 rounds here, 30 rounds there, and fire off 83 times. Why in the world does anyone need a high-capacity clip magazine? I don't understand it. It doesn't have any practical value for sport or hunting. We need to address the widespread, serious problem of civilian access to military assault weapons, even for shooters as young as 18. I thank the people from Highland Park for coming yesterday and all the brave law enforcement and first responders whom I saw gather that evening when I arrived at Highland Park. We owe them a lot. They are doing an amazing job, and we should pay tribute to them and what they did. But even they, being present and armed, could not stop this from happening. They were up against a mighty weapon--a weapon we trust for the military, we trust for the police; a weapon which has no place in the hands of people like the shooter in Highland Park on the Fourth of July. Are we going to continue this American tradition of mass shootings? Sadly, we will unless this body, this Senate, decides that it is worth the fight, worth the political debate. After Highland Park, count me in. I want to be on the record saying it is time to put an end to these assault rifles, these weapons of war which have sadly taken so many innocent lives like poor Aiden McCarthy's parents and five others who died in Highland Park. I hope for our children's sake that we don't run away from this problem. The people in Highland Park had to run away from the Fourth of July parade, and now they are counting on us to stand up and face it squarely. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, now, back to my statement. I came to the floor and heard a speech by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Now, it wasn't the first. I have heard many, and I listen closely so that I can divine the strategy of Senate Republicans. And for weeks we have heard speeches about the plight of American families dealing with inflation. It is a real problem. If you go to buy anything these days, you are shocked by the price, starting at the gas pump, if you have aspirations to buy a car or truck, ordinary food items--much more expensive. Most families are not seeing any increase in income so it is a real hardship for them to keep up. Well, the Senator from Kentucky has given that speech so many times, I could almost repeat it verbatim. And I don't quarrel with his premise. Inflation is painful for working families. But then--but then--he went into an area of pricing and took an exactly opposite point of view. What he said was he thought, if there was an effort to control the price of prescription drugs, it was ``socialist price control,'' it was really asking for something for nothing, and he didn't support it. And I stopped to think for a second. Wait a minute. All the polling, when you ask American families what they worry about, tells you that this is a big headache for families. They go to a doctor. Somebody is sick. The doctor prescribes a drug. They take the prescription to the drug store. They get it filled. And then comes the moment of truth, the moment at the cash register when the family is told: Incidentally, that will cost you $100, $200, $300 over your insurance coverage. And you know what some families say? I wish I could afford that; I can't. And they don't pick up the drug or they pick it up and, instead of taking it, they kind of wait and say: I will see if I get any better by myself. They do the wrong thing because of the cost of prescription drugs. So when the Republican Senators come to the floor every day talking about family expenses, it comes as a shock to know that they are planning to oppose the Democratic effort to establish prescription drug pricing. They complain about high prices for everything else, but they don't seem to want to do anything when it comes to prescription drugs. Americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, an average of nearly four times as much paid by an American family for exactly the same drugs that are being sold in Canada and Europe. Where are those drugs made? All made in the same place, all made by the same company, four times the cost for America. To add insult to injury, many of these prescription drugs only exist because of the successful investment by American taxpayers in the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health is an amazing research organization. They do the research, the basic research. The drug companies capitalize on it, make the drugs, and sell them at a profit. So taxpayers pay on the front end for the drugs. American taxpayers and tax-paying families pay on the back end for the actual cost of the pharmaceuticals. Out-of-control prescription costs aren't just hurting people financially; they hurt the health of Americans. One in five Americans don't take the medications as prescribed because they can't afford them. They cut their pills in half or they skip doses because they can't do it; they can't pay it. ``Your money or your life''--you expect to hear that from a stickup artist, not from a pharmaceutical company. That is the choice Americans face. So we want to do something about it. Democrats don't want to hear speeches about the costs to families. We want to do something. We want to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for seniors first and then for families in general. If you really care about inflation, most families would say, start with prescription drugs. That is what we are doing. And the Republicans are going to oppose this. Ironically, Senator McConnell gives a speech calling it socialism to deal with the cost of prescription drugs, and, within an hour, the senior Senator from Iowa gives a speech on the floor of the Senate-- Republican Senator--how he wants to cut prescription drug prices for seniors. One of them didn't get the message at the caucus. I think the Senator from Iowa is right, incidentally. So Democrats are proposing to allow Medicare to negotiate fair prices for drugs. We have been doing that for a long time when it comes to the Veterans' Administration. The Veterans' Administration buys a lot of prescription drugs for our veterans--and I am glad they do--and they negotiate with these companies to get a fair price. We think Medicare ought to do the same thing. It reduces the cost of prescription drugs. It makes them more affordable for seniors. Now, a lot of people say: Well, if you do that, then the prescription drug companies, the pharmaceutical companies, just aren't going to be able to make it. Well, here is the reality. Studies have found that Big Pharma could lose $1 trillion in sales over the next decade and still remain the most profitable industry in America--lose $1 trillion in sales and still be the most profitable industry. Higher profit margins in pharma than in the telecom industry, than in the defense industry, in the banking industry, and the Republicans are saying they are afraid that they are going to get hurt if consumers can buy drugs at lower prices. But good news for those who fear that if you cut the amount of money going to pharma, it will cut research. That is not what we have learned. We know Bayer. It has been around a long time. It started off as a German company. It made aspirin. Now they have made some sizable acquisitions in the business. They make a drug called Xarelto. Now, you would have to watch that television ad 10 or 12 times to be able to spell ``Xarelto,'' but they are trying to convince American consumers they can't live without it. Bayer spent $18 billion on sales and marketing last year compared to $8 billion on research for drugs. Johnson & Johnson: $22 billion on sales and marketing, $12 billion on research. GlaxoSmithKline: $15 billion on sales and marketing, $7 billion on research. Get the pattern? There is more money being spent on advertising than on research for new drugs. Americans get bombarded with nine drug ads on TV every day telling them to ask their doctor for the newest wonder drug. There are only two nations on Earth where you can legally advertise prescription drugs on television. One, of course, is the United States. The other, for some reason, is New Zealand. Filling the airwaves with ads is what Big Pharma does to try to convince customers they can't live without their drugs. So the claim that allowing Medicare to negotiate a reasonable price for seniors will freeze out Big Pharma' s innovation just doesn't wash. Senator McConnell says there is no ``free lunch'' when it comes to prescription drug pricing. Let's keep in mind that the 14 largest drug corporations spent more on stock buybacks--lining the pockets of their CEOs--than on research and development over the past 5 years. So here is what it comes down to. Look at these, just as an illustration. I will do this quickly because Members are showing up to vote. Insulin, discovered by Canadian researchers at the beginning of the 20th century--they surrendered the patent for the drug for a dollar so that it would never be overcharged to consumers because it is a life-or-death drug for those suffering from diabetes. Take a look, from the year 2004 to the year 2022, at what has happened to the drug insulin cost--insulin cost--on a regular basis, the manufacturing price by year. You can see it tracks all the companies that make insulin. It is as high as $300 a dose, and a person suffering from diabetes may need three doses a month--$900 for insulin. Well, let's take a comparative cost and take a look at what insulin costs in other countries. The United States, while it is paying $98 for a dose of insulin--look--Japan is paying $14; Canada, $12; Germany, $11; France, $9; UK, $7; Australia, $6, $7. And the good news is these are the same companies, the American companies, charging a fraction of the cost to the other countries for insulin. This is one of the drugs which we are working on now, Senator Shaheen and others, to bring down the cost. I am going to close by saying this. If you care about the costs that families face, if you care about inflation, and you care about life-or- death medications, and you want to make them affordable, don't take the position of Senator McConnell that this is socialism to demand negotiation in pricing. Don't take his position that it is just a free lunch to say that people will never have to pay more than $2,000 a year out of pocket for drugs. This is a life-or-death decision. Even 70 percent of Republicans agree with that. I wish the Senate Republicans would agree with it and join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the confirmation vote on the Williams nomination, the Senate vote on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 920, the nomination of Bernadette M. Meehan, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Chile.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I was on the floor 2 days ago when the Republican Senate leader came to the floor and said something which I still don't quite understand, and I would like to refer to it in a statement.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the cloture motion with respect to the Merle nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today, the Senate will continue its vital work of confirming highly qualified judicial nominees to the Federal bench. We will vote on an outstanding district court nominee: Gregory Williams to the District of Delaware. Mr. Williams is currently a partner at the firm Fox Rothschild LLP, where he has an extensive trial practice that focuses on intellectual property and other matters. Mr. Williams joined the firm immediately after law school, rising through the ranks to become the first African- American equity partner in the firm's history. In addition to his work in private practice, Mr. Williams has dedicated countless hours to serving the Delaware legal and judicial communities. He has worked as a Special Master in complex civil cases for the District of Delaware; as president of the Delaware State Bar Association; and as chair of the State's judicial nominating commission. A graduate of Millersville University of Pennsylvania and Villanova University School of Law, Mr. Williams received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association and has the strong support of Delaware's Senators, Mr. Carper and Mr. Coons. With his depth of experience and impeccable credentials, Mr. Williams will serve Delaware with distinction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this outstanding nominees. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is necessarily absent.