Richard Durbin

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. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from South Dakota, my friend, and I think he fairly set out the Republican agenda: Take the Trump tax cuts--the cuts that appeared during the Trump administration for the wealthiest people in America--and make them permanent. That is his idea of an economic boost that America needs; it is not mine. My idea is to try to address the challenges which working families in America face today, the challenges which many people in America of limited means face today. I think the Tax Code should be written with those people in mind, not with the wealthiest people in mind, which the Republicans did when they pushed through the Trump tax cuts, with the opposition of Democrats. So what are we proposing that was characterized yesterday by the Republican minority leader as socialistic? Well, what we are proposing is trying to bring some fairness when it comes to prescription drug pricing.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. It is not every day we get to say this, but this week, we have a chance to make history in the ``Land of Lincoln.'' Soon, the Senate will vote to confirm Nancy Maldonado as U.S. district court judge for the Northern District of Illinois. If confirmed, this eminently qualified nominee will be the first Hispanic woman to serve as an article III judge in Illinois. It marks yet another proud accomplishment in our efforts to build a judiciary that really reflects America. Born in Skokie, Ms. Maldonado has practiced law for more than two decades. She earned her A.B. cum laude from Harvard and her J.D. from Columbia Law School. After graduating, she clerked for 2 years with Judge Ruben Castillo, who served on the court to which she has now been nominated. In the years since her clerkship, Ms. Maldonado has dedicated herself to defending the rights of working people as a plaintiff-side employment law litigator. Throughout her career, she has continually answered the call to serve our State. In the early 2010s, she worked as special assistant state's attorney to Cook County to investigate fraud. In 2018, our State's attorney general appointed her to serve as consent decree monitor in two employment discrimination cases. Again last year, she was appointed to serve as a special assistant attorney general to investigate consumer fraud. She was also confirmed by the Illinois State Senate to join the State Police Merit Board, a role in which she has worked to ensure that members of law enforcement who protect and serve our communities are treated fairly. With such impressive credentials, it is no wonder that Senator Tammy Duckworth and I enthusiastically support Ms. Maldonado and that the American Bar Association rated her ``well qualified.'' Given her extensive experience and long record of service, she will be an asset to the Northern District of Illinois. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in voting for her confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week, the Senate continues its work confirming experienced, diverse nominees to the Federal judiciary. Today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Nina Wang, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Judge Wang currently serves as a magistrate judge in the District of Colorado. Prior to joining the bench, she worked in private practice, primarily representing plaintiffs and defendants in a broad range of complex intellectual property matters. Judge Wang also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, a role in which she litigated civil cases on employment, environmental, and civil rights matters. A graduate of Washington University in St. Louis and Harvard Law School, she clerked for Judge Peter J. Messitte on the District of Maryland a few years after earning her J.D. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Judge Wang ``well qualified'', and she enjoys the strong support of her home State Senators, Mr. Bennet and Mr. Hickenlooper. I will support Judge Wang, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week, the Senate continues its work confirming experienced and fair-minded nominees to the Federal judiciary. Today, we will vote to confirm Judge Julianna Michelle Childs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. With over 15 years of experience as a judge, Judge Childs is exceptionally qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit. As a district court judge for the District of South Carolina since 2010, Judge Childs has presided over almost 5,000 civil and criminal matters, including 50 jury trials and 11 bench trials. During this time, she has been reversed or vacated on appeal in fewer than 1 percent of her cases, an impressive record for any District Court Judge. Before joining the Federal bench, Judge Childs served for 4 years as a circuit court judge for the South Carolina Judicial Department, where she presided over thousands of State court matters. Judge Childs also served as a commissioner on the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, adjudicating administrative decisions and reviewing administrative appeals. Prior to her judicial service, Judge Childs served South Carolina as the deputy director of the division of labor for the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. In this position, she administered State and Federal programs. Given that the D.C. Circuit hears more cases involving administrative law than any other circuit court, this practical experience with administrative law will be an asset to the court. Before her time in public service, Judge Childs worked in private practice as a civil litigator, and she ultimately became the first Black woman in South Carolina to become a partner in a large law firm-- only 8 years after joining her firm. Judge Childs is also the first member of her family to go to college, and she graduated with her B.S. cum laude from the University of South Florida Honors College. She then received her J.D. and M.A. at the University of South Carolina. While serving as a district court judge, Judge Childs also earned her LL.M. at Duke University School of Law. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Judge Childs as ``well qualified'' to serve on the D.C. Circuit. Her outstanding qualifications make it no surprise that she has received strong, bipartisan support from her home State's delegation, most notably from Congressman and Majority Whip Clyburn and my colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham. With her extensive judicial service at the State and Federal level, her experience administering State and Federal programs, and her historic career in private practice, Judge Childs will be ready to serve the D.C. Circuit with distinction on day one.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wonder if Americans think the cost of prescription drugs are too high. I wonder if Americans realize that the cost of prescription drugs are so high in this country that they are driving the cost of health insurance premiums up. Don't take my word for it. BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois told me that directly. Why are premiums going up? Prescription drug prices are going up. I wonder if the American people realize there are only two nations on Earth that allow drug companies to advertise drugs on television. You know one of them: United States of America. The other: New Zealand. No other country allows them to take place. I wonder if the American people realize that the same exact American drugs that are sold here at the highest prices are sold at a deep discount in other countries: Canada. In Canada, the reason American drugs cost less than they do in America is because the Canadian people won't tolerate the prices pharmaceutical companies charge people in this country. So they established standards and cut the prices for the exact same drugs made, manufactured, and sold in the United States. They are not alone. Europe does the same thing, bringing down these prices. So we decided that at least in one area--one area--we were going to make an exception to this overpricing of prescription drugs: the Veterans' Administration. We said it costs a lot to keep our promise to veterans who have served this country and need medical care afterward. So we are going to allow the Veterans' Administration--we do under law--to negotiate with the drug companies to bring prices down. It works. They are brought down dramatically. For the longest time, many of us have thought that isn't enough because most of the drugs are being sold outside the Veterans' Administration, and there is no negotiation; it is a take-it-or-leave- it. Medicare--tens of millions of Americans who are covered by Medicare face the cost of drugs which are sky-high. So we decided, on the Democratic side, that we were going to listen to the people we represent, who have told us over and over again that when it comes to the cost of living and expenses families face, many of these families were facing a choice of their money or their lives to buy drugs that doctors told them were essential for their survival. So we proposed that, finally, the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate with the government when it comes to Medicare drug pricing. Now, you didn't hear that directly from the Senator from Kentucky who just spoke. He talked about socialism in pricing drugs. Socialism? For the government to suggest we want to bargain for prices? These companies, incidentally, are not getting by hand to mouth. They are doing quite well, and they are making a lot of money. And they didn't do it on their own. I want to address that issue, this notion that if they were paid less for their drugs, it would stifle innovation. The pharmaceutical industry typically spends more money on advertising than they do on research. Why would they do that? So that some people watching the ad of a person skipping through a field of flowers will finally get to the point where they can spell ``Xarelto'' and go into a doctor's office and say: I want to skip through flowers. I want Xarelto. And--you know what--some doctors say ``fine'' and write the script. That is why the cost of medicine and healthcare goes up. The bottom line is this. These pharmaceutical companies, as good as they are, as many things as they find, they don't do it alone. You know what the No. 1 supplier of research information is to the private sector pharmaceutical companies in America? The Federal Government. The National Institutes of Health. We spend tens of billions of dollars each year doing basic research, which is then used by the pharmaceutical company to develop their drugs. Is it too much to ask them to bargain a fair price for drugs sold to Medicare so that the taxpayers get a break, and the pharmaceutical profits may go down just slightly? I don't think it is too much to ask. We are going to have an interesting debate in the next few weeks because the Democrats think it is time that pharma be held responsible for dramatically overcharging Americans for pharmaceutical drugs that cost a fraction of its price in Canada and Europe. The Senator from Kentucky obviously sees it another way. He thinks it is socialism. He calls it a free lunch--we want to give away a free lunch. It isn't a free lunch when you can't afford to fill your prescription the doctor gave you and you wonder if you are jeopardizing your health or your life. Take the drug insulin. We are working on that too. Insulin wasn't discovered by Americans; it was discovered by Canadians back in the early part of the 20th century. And they decided--and what a gesture it was--that they were going to give away and surrender the patent on this discovery. Before then, it was not atypical that people died from diabetes. After insulin, they could survive. It was a life and death drug. And the researchers who discovered it said: This shouldn't be a profitmaker; this should be something that is priced so that people can continue to live. Well, what has happened to insulin? Over the years, the pharmaceutical companies started doing their magic, and the cost of insulin for many people is dramatically higher than they can afford. Some people actually cut the amount of insulin which they are told to take because they can't afford it. We want to bring down the cost of this lifesaving drug to a $35 a month maximum premium for insulin, and I think that is a reasonable amount of money. So I believe that when it comes to the drug industry in America, it is a great sector of our economy. They have found some wonderful things, with the help of Federal research. They are making profits, as I guess every private sector company is designed to do. But it is not unreasonable for us to ask, it is not socialistic for us to ask, as American citizens, that they negotiate fair prices for all Americans. They do it for veterans. They can do it for Medicare and others. And if Senator McConnell is signaling we are in for a fight over this issue, all I have to say are three words: Bring it on. Bring it on. The American people are sick and tired of the overpricing of these drugs, and I think it is time that we have this debate. And if the Republicans want to stay on the side of pharma and say the Democrats are wrong, let's take that to the American people in November. I think it is a viable issue.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, July 14, be waived.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 988.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Republican leader comes to the floor regularly with heartfelt concerns about the burdens facing America's families. I share those concerns. I think all Senators share those concerns. Inflation is a tough thing to deal with in the family budget. I go home to Illinois to see the price of gasoline at the gas stations. I shop in my local stores and see what it costs for the basics. I understand that, although it is an inconvenience for me, for many people, it is a hardship. So for the Republican leader to come to the floor and remind us of that problem which we are facing in our economy is certainly understandable. Yesterday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the Consumer Price Index for the month of June. It came in higher than anticipated. Prices rose by 1.3 percent in June, and when compared to June 2021, prices are up 9.1 percent--the fastest year over year increase since 1981. When you dive into the data, you will see that prices jumped within categories that affect almost every household: food, energy, rent, gas. We know, for many American families, a break can't come soon enough. So what are we going to do about it, give speeches? There are a lot of opportunities for us to do that, for the Republican leader and the Democratic leader--or are we going to do something? The Democrats think it is time to do something, and we have picked one category of cost that is particularly important to American families. It is the category of cost that not only is a life-and-death issue but that determines the cost of health insurance for families. We know that because we are told by the largest health insurers in the United States that the cost of prescription drugs is driving the cost of premiums for health insurance, so Democrats have decided to tackle this directly. Credit should go to our Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, who is in negotiation now on prescription drug pricing with Senator Manchin of West Virginia. I have been skeptical of the outcome of that negotiation, but I am beginning to be encouraged by what I hear from Senator Schumer and from Senator Manchin; that, in fact, we can give relief to American families on the life or death inflationary cost of prescription drugs. Wouldn't that be a breakthrough? Wouldn't it be something if this 50- 50 Senate could end up doing something on a bipartisan basis that American families actually feel and for which seniors in our country would be able to say, ``There is a limitation on how much I am going to be asked to spend for prescription drugs, and beyond that, I won't have to pay''? That is amazing--a breakthrough. Would it have made a difference when it comes to the cost of living for families? Of course it would. So you would think that the Senator from Kentucky, who comes to the floor every day to give a speech on inflation, would be the leading cheerleader in our effort to contain the cost of prescription drugs. Wouldn't you think so? No. No. He has announced that he would oppose the increased effort to lower the cost of prescription drugs because it might raise taxes on the wealthiest people in this country. Hard to imagine, isn't it? His sympathy for millionaires and billionaires gets in the way of his caring for working families. I think he should set it aside and should ask his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle to join us in a bipartisan effort to contain the cost of prescription drugs. We recognize how these price increases are squeezing household budgets across America, and we take it seriously. We have plans to lower prescription drug prices, decrease the price of gas at the pump, help families with the cost of childcare, and increase the supply of housing, all of which will address inflation, but item No. 1, priority No. 1, is prescription drugs. The Senator from Kentucky has said he will oppose that. I hope he changes his mind. I hope, as he tells the stories of working families who tell him of the burdens they face with inflation, that he will also ask them the questions: How about reduction? How about prescription drugs? Are those expensive for you? Does it create a hardship? You know they do. It is time for us to do something, and we would certainly like to have the Republican leader on our team to deal with one of the serious problems of the cost of living in America today.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Virginia. Every Member of the U.S. Senate should have heard his words and, if not, read his words to understand the gravity of the decisions by the Supreme Court and the threats that have been made by Justice Thomas to venture into even more areas, depriving us of our basic constitutional rights in the name of States' rights. I want to thank the Senator from Virginia. He gave a big part of his life to civil rights litigation. And if you are a lawyer and heard his presentation today, you would not want to be on the other side of the courtroom. He is convincing; he is well-prepared; and he explains with clarity why this is a moment in history which we should not ignore.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 1035.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) 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:

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There begin no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows: