Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on average, we lose 100 Americans every single day to firearms. Last week marked 1 year since the House of Representatives passed H.R. 8. It was a bipartisan bill. Both Democrats and Republicans supported it. The bill stood for a very basic proposition, and the proposition is this: Whatever your constitutional rights or God-given rights--if you make that argument--to a firearm might be, we as a society cannot allow people who are convicted felons or who are shown to be mentally unstable to legally buy firearms in this country. We are supposed to have background checks to make sure this doesn't happen. It turns out that more than one out of five firearms are sold in America without there having been background checks on the purchasers. So H.R. 8, this bipartisan bill, passed the House to close the gaps in our background system. What kind of gaps are we talking about? We have terrible gun violence in the city of Chicago. Some of the critics of Chicago like to say: You have the toughest gun laws and the most gun deaths. Well, they don't tell you the whole story. Many of those guns start off not in Chicago and not in Illinois but at gun shows in Northwest Indiana, where they are sold sometimes in volume without there being any background checks made on the purchasers. It has been 1 year of nothing in the U.S. Senate in responding to this national crisis--not one thing. It is within the power of the majority leader, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, to at least let us address the issue and debate it. He has a majority. Nothing is going to pass here without Republican support. We know that. But don't the American people deserve a debate? One man, the Republican majority leader, says no. He styles himself as the Grim Reaper of the Senate. He takes pride in the fact that he has killed hundreds of bills passed by the House that will never, ever see the light of day in the U.S. Senate. Well, I can tell the Senator from Kentucky that after attending so many funerals, after giving heartbreaking sympathy to the families of those who have lost their children and loved ones, after hearing about so many mass shootings--mass shootings that should shock our conscience--aren't we shocked when people just go to a movie theater in Colorado and are gunned down as they watch a movie? Aren't we shocked when a crowd in Las Vegas just wants to enjoy a country western concert and they are gunned down? Weren't we shocked at a high school in Florida or a first grade classroom in Connecticut when mass shootings take place? What will it take, America? What will it take for this Senate, what will it take for this majority leader to realize enough is enough? I believe in Second Amendment rights to bear arms for those who buy them legally, use them and store them responsibly, whether it is for self-defense, sport, or hunting. But none of the people who come to me and argue this issue are arguing for convicted felons and mentally unstable people to buy a firearm. We need them to stand with us and to stand with law enforcement, who are often the victims of these firearms, to make this a safer nation. There are obvious gaps in the Federal gun laws that make it easy for felons, abusers, and mentally unstable people to get their hands on guns and hurt innocent people. Loopholes in the background check system, like the gun show loophole I mentioned and one I haven't mentioned--the loophole on the internet, where there is no real background check whatsoever--account for massive sales of firearms each year in the United States. The House-passed Bipartisan Background Checks Act would close these gaps in the background check system. Around 90 percent of Americans support the proposals in this bill--90 percent of them. It is good enough for America, but not good enough for the Senate. Obviously, the majority leader needs to be persuaded, and 90 percent of America is not enough. It is a commonsense, bipartisan step we should take, consistent with constitutional rights but consistent, as well, with common sense. I can't explain why the Senate Republicans will not take up a bipartisan, House-passed bill that is so overwhelmingly supported, even by Republicans. There are literally hundreds of bills, which have passed the House of Representatives, gathering dust on the Senate desk, and this is one of them. These bills deal with issues like reducing the cost of prescription drugs, protecting the pensions of working Americans and retired Americans, securing our elections from foreign interference, and, of course, reducing gun violence. They all wait on the desk of the Senator who styles himself the Grim Reaper. There have been too many excuses for inaction. There is plenty of time, as you can tell, on the Senate floor for us to roll up our sleeves and actually legislate, and when it comes to gun violence, the cost of inaction is devastating--100 Americans a day. It is time for Senator McConnell to call up H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, and have this Senate actually debate an issue and actually vote on an issue that can make a real difference in America.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Samuel Johnson was a great thinker in the 19th century and was quoted many times for things that he observed even then. He did have one statement about nothing focusing the mind like the prospect of a hanging, and I would like to use that as an analogy to my comments this morning. I do notice that the Senator from South Dakota has taken the floor. Let me yield to him because I think, in the order of speaking, he is next, and I will follow him. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as I noted earlier, Samuel Johnson once noted that there is nothing that focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. I would say there is nothing that focuses the mind on the issue of healthcare like the prospect of a pandemic, and that is what we are facing now with the coronavirus. Americans should not panic and shouldn't be pessimistic, but we need to be realistic as the numbers total up around the world and we start to take an assessment of our own vulnerabilities--personal, family, community, and State vulnerabilities--here in the United States of America. We are also, I hope, reflecting on what we are counting on to get us through this pandemic in a positive fashion in America. The first thing is we look to two major healthcare organizations of the Federal Government: the National Institutes of Health, which is the premier health research agency in the world, and the Centers for Disease Control, which, again, leads the world when it comes to preventing the spread of disease and threats to the public health of America. The question we should ask ourselves is, How have we treated these agencies to date? The answers are mixed. The answer, when it comes to National Institutes of Health, is a positive one. Over the last 4 years, something dramatic has occurred. I was happy to be part of a bipartisan effort that was led by Senator Patty Murray of Washington, Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. What we have accomplished in the last 4 years is to increase the spending at the National Institutes of Health for medical research grants from $30 billion to $39 billion. It is a dramatic increase. We started off with a premise we wanted to increase the NIH budget by real growth of 5 percent--that is 5 percent over inflation--each year. We held to that standard; in fact, some years were even better. We have a lot to show for it. There have been real breakthroughs when it comes to medical research. We want to continue down this line. When it came to the Centers for Disease Control, I had the same goal in mind. We didn't quite reach it. Over the last 4 years, we have seen a 14-percent increase at the CDC. I believe this coronavirus pandemic threat is going to open the eyes of America to the need to make sure the CDC is adequately, properly funded for years to come. At the outset, the focus of the mind is on those agencies of government which do the absolute essential work of research and the prevention of the spread of disease. The NIH and CDC need to occupy a special place when it comes to budgeting by the Federal Government. The second thing we note is there are practical questions to be asked and answered. We are now talking about the development of a test to determine whether individuals have been affected by the coronavirus. That test is now starting to come forward. It will be released in States across the United States in the next several weeks. Some obvious, practical questions face us: How much does this test cost? Is it covered by health insurance? If it is not covered by health insurance, can the average family afford it? These are the practical questions which those of us who have good health insurance and are not worried about the next paycheck can take care of, but for millions of Americans, it is a significant challenge. We notice that in some cases it takes more than one test to determine that a person is truly free of the coronavirus. The obvious question is, Does our health insurance cover this kind of testing? As I stand here, I don't know the answer to it. If it turns out to be an expensive test, and it is not covered by insurance, Americans are going to be faced with that challenge right off the bat. It brings to mind the real fundamental issue of the debate in Congress over the last 10 years about health insurance. Our friends on the other side of the aisle argue that people ought to be able to pay less for health insurance that covers even less. We on this side call that junk insurance. The Affordable Care Act said that health insurance plans had to have certain basic coverage before they could be offered in this country. We got rid of the lifetime limits that some health insurance plans had. We eliminated the discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. We said that kids could stay on their parents' health insurance plan until they reached the age of 26. We said every health insurance plan had to include those provisions. We included coverage in basic health insurance of mental illness and addiction services--basic fundamental care that every American should expect when they buy health insurance. The Republicans on the other side of the aisle say: Well, we ought to be able to buy insurance that doesn't cover those things. It will be cheaper. Let the consumers decide. It is OK for a consumer to decide for less coverage, I suppose, if they can be guaranteed good health for the rest of their lives. No one knows about the next accident or the next diagnosis that might really call into question the adequacy of our health insurance coverage. I stand with the Affordable Care Act. We should have a basic standard when it comes to health insurance in America so that when you buy a plan, it covers what most Americans will need, the basics that they will need. Junk insurance has no place in America, and it is no bargain for people who truly need health insurance for reimbursement. When it comes to the cost of dealing with the coronavirus, whether it is the initial test or followup hospitalizations, we all want the peace of mind that our health insurance plan will cover those needs. The third issue that is clear is that there are people who are going to miss work because of this coronavirus. Some of them are asked to stay home and work from home and things continue as usual, and they receive their regular paycheck, but for others, they have to leave the workplace because of fears they may have a flu or may be contagious or someone else at work might be. What happens when they go home when it comes to their paycheck? Are they going to be given medical leave and paid for their absences? It is an issue which comes to the forefront in this coronavirus debate. Frankly, it is with us all of the time. Those of us on the Democratic side believe that medical leave should be extended. We have just expanded it when it comes to Federal employees. We should do it as well for people across the United States. Medical leave gives you peace of mind to make the right medical decision. Don't go to work with a fever. Don't go to school with a fever. Stay home. Protect yourself, your family, the people you work with, the people you are around during the course of a day. Medical leave gives you that option, and it is one that is a practical solution to something that we face all the time. The fourth issue that I will raise has been brought up by this coronavirus debate is the role of pharma in the future. It is interesting that across America when you ask Americans their concern when it comes to the cost of healthcare, the cost of prescription drugs is high on the list. It is also interesting that health insurance companies--the major companies--tell us that one of the biggest drivers in the increase in health insurance premiums is the cost of prescription drugs. Pharma is obviously a challenge to all of us. We want them to have the money to be profitable, to invest in research, but we don't want them to dramatically overcharge for the products they make. ``Your money'' or ``your life'' is not a good answer when it comes to pharma and the public health of America. Now we are going to face it again, the prospect of a vaccine. We hope to have a vaccine quickly, but even ``quickly'' by medical terms is a long time. Dr. Fauci, of NIH, has said it could be a year, a year and a half, even 2 years before a real, reliable vaccine is discovered to deal with coronavirus. It is an indication of the kind of research that has to take place--research that starts, I might add, at the Federal level, with your government doing research. I know pharmaceutical companies will ultimately produce the product, the vaccine, but it starts with an investment by the Federal Government in the basic research to lead up to that vaccine whenever it is discovered. Then we have the question about once the vaccine is discovered, who will sell it to America and at what price? That is a debate that we went through several years ago. We faced the swine flu. During that period of time, some 40 million Americans were actually vaccinated in 1976 for swine flu--45 million, to be exact. For several months, four pharmaceutical firms refused to sell the vaccine they had manufactured to the government until they received full liability indemnity and a guaranteed profit. The vaccine was there, but they wouldn't sell it until they received those promises. In fact, the Federal Government assumed the liability for this vaccine. According to this article that was published this morning in the New York Times, they eventually paid out over $100 million in claims. Are we going to face that again with pharma when it comes to a vaccine for coronavirus? Certainly, they are entitled to a profit for their own investment, whatever it may be in that vaccine, but the initial work on the research is being done by the Federal Government. That Federal Government research will lead to a product which will lead to a profit for these companies. I am not opposed to a reasonable profit, but I do think, if they are going to hold us hostage for months over a guaranteed profit that is unreasonable, that America is going to rebel against these pharmaceutical companies. Our debate about pharma and its relationship with America in the future has really sharpened its focus by this debate on the coronavirus that we are facing today. Madam President, there is one other aspect that I would like to raise. I was surprised at the briefing we received 2 weeks ago in Washington on the coronavirus to learn how many pharmaceuticals are actually produced in China and how many pharmaceutical ingredients are produced in China and India. It turns out we have a real dependence, when it comes to developing medicines and drugs, on these two countries and many others. When it comes to medical devices, the same is true; medical equipment, the same. It raised a question in my mind as to whether we should do something thoughtful and perspective in terms of dealing with global dependence on medicine, medical devices, and medical supplies. I am introducing legislation this week calling for the creation of a commission to look at this dependence, to measure it today. Today we are facing the coronavirus, the possible--I underline ``possible''-- interruption in the supply of pharmaceuticals and the supply of pharmaceutical ingredients from China because of the coronavirus. Did we anticipate this? Have we stockpiled enough of these drugs so we will not be caught short on something that is absolutely vital? If we haven't, we should. We should also think about the prospect that in the future, for certain critical drugs, there should be a domestic source in the United States that we can count on if there is some interruption in global trade because of a medical crisis such as this or because of terrorism, for example. I hope we can get some guidance on this from the agencies involved and from those we respect who can give us third-party judgment on this. Let us, at this moment in time as we face this crisis, look ahead to what the next challenge might be and be prepared for it. As we debate this coronavirus, I urge my colleagues to do our best to try to find bipartisan ground to work on. I have found, across my State, regardless of political allegiance, the people of Illinois and in many other States are looking for us in Washington to address this problem responsibly, in a mature way, in a totally nonpolitical way. When statements are made by political observers, even by the President himself, that are far afield from the truth, let's not be derailed by that. Let's focus on medical expertise that we can trust, public health experts who can guide us through this in the appropriate way. In the meantime, realize we are blessed to live in a country with the best, most talented medical professionals in the world and the best medical resources on Earth. We want to make certain we give them all the room they need to lead us through this crisis and challenge in a very positive way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for roll call vote No. 62, confirmation of the nomination of Travis Greaves to be a judge for the U.S. Tax Court. As I did on cloture, had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to note that this morning at 8 a.m., an unusual meeting took place in this Capitol Building. It was in the area of the building that is reserved for top-secret classified briefings. All Members of the Senate were invited. The issue at that briefing was the coronavirus. I sat through the major part of that briefing before I had to leave for another meeting. There wasn't anything in there that should have been classified or top secret. If there were ever a time when we need to be open, honest, and complete in telling the whole story to the American people, it is this moment when we face the coronavirus, which started, we believe, in China and is now spreading across the world. I back up what the Democratic leader said earlier because the request was made at this meeting for some $2 billion in the United States to respond to this coronavirus threat. When we questioned the administration as to why that number and what they were going to do with it, the answers were limited. In fact, when it came to the source of the money, they had no answer at all. Remember, this is an administration which has consistently asked to cut the funding for the Centers for Disease Control. It has been a low priority of the Trump administration until we faced this threat, and now they have suddenly awakened. It turns out that even in the next fiscal year, which begins on October 1, the Trump administration has asked to cut the money for the Centers for Disease Control again. You ask yourself, who is in charge over there? Who is making the basic decisions? Well, it could be the person who has decided that every available dollar needs to be put into a wall on the Mexican border. Think of this for a moment: Ten billion dollars currently sits in an account for the building of this wall--unspent. They can't spend it. Yet the President recently asked for $3.8 billion more for building his almighty wall--which I thought Mexico was going to pay for--and now comes at the last minute asking for some $2 billion for the coronavirus. As one Senator said in the meeting this morning, when it comes down to it, if our business is to protect the American people, isn't the highest priority to stop the spread of this virus in the United States? Of course it is, and that is why it should be a higher priority. No wall is going to stop that virus from coming into the United States. The President ought to wake up to that reality. When you look at the efforts that are being made here in the United States and around the world, we can and should do more. I support this request for a dramatic increase in funding for this purpose now--now, before it spreads across the United States, which God forbid it ever does. We don't want it to. We want to make sure we have done everything in our power to stop it, and that means empowering those in charge with the knowledge, with the expertise, and with the authority to protect our families. First and foremost, protect American families. That is a much higher priority than any campaign promise this President made about a wall on our southern border. I support the effort by Senator Schumer asking for some top doc or some individual with management authority, management experience, and the knowledge of the public health threat we face with this coronavirus, to be put in charge to coordinate the myriad agencies that will be touched by this campaign to protect America. Now is the time to do it. The time to do it--at least now, but it should have been much earlier, with more money dedicated to this purpose rather than cutting back on these key agencies.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, later this afternoon, we are going to have two votes on motions to proceed. They are procedural votes to go forward on two pieces of legislation relative to the issue of abortion. Those of us in public life know full well that this is a very controversial issue. There are people who feel very strongly on one side and very strongly on the other. These votes this afternoon will not resolve that conflict. They don't try to. What the Republican majority under Senator McConnell has decided to do is to bring back for a vote two items we already voted on. We know the outcome. We can virtually predict within one or two votes what it is going to be. At the end of the day, Republicans will turn to a special interest group and say: We told you we could call this every year. We did it. We will have Members who will vote their conscience on both sides of the aisle, but the net result of that is not going to be to change anything for the better in the United States, when it comes to the issues that challenge us. What I would like to do is to come to this floor with a radical idea. I have an idea how we can come together, regardless of our position on that issue, and do something constructive for this country. Let me tell you what I have in mind. The United States currently ranks 32 out of 35 industrial nations when it comes to infant mortality. That is right--32 out of 35 when it comes to the survival of babies in the United States once born. A 2018 report published in Health Affairs by Global Health characterized the United States of America as ``the most dangerous of wealthy nations for a child to be born into.'' What they found was that U.S. babies--babies born in the United States--are three times as likely to die of premature birth and more than twice as likely to die of SIDS than babies in comparably rich countries. Every year, more than 23,000 infants die in the United States, largely due to factors that in many cases could have been prevented: low birth weight, maternal health complications, prematurity. Babies of color are particularly at risk. Black infants are twice as likely to die in America as White infants, a disparity that is greater than it was in the year 1850 in this country. We are not only losing babies, we are losing mothers, as well. Listen to this statistic. The United States is one of only 13 countries in the world where the rate of maternal mortality--mothers dying during the birth process, related to pregnancy or childbirth, for up to a year postpartum--is worse than it was 25 years ago. We haven't moved forward. We have moved backward when it comes to mothers surviving child birth. Nationwide, more than 700 women die every year as a result of pregnancy and more than 70,000 suffer near-fatal complications. More than 660 percent of these deaths are preventable. Sadly, much like with babies, the tragedy of maternal mortality is even more pronounced when you look at communities of color. In the United States of America, women of color are three to four times more likely than White women to die as a result of pregnancy. If you think it has something to do with poverty and wealth--that is what I thought--there is no correlation. The only correlation is race. In my State of Illinois, I am sorry to report that if you are an African-American woman, you are six times more likely than a White woman to die in childbirth. That is why Congressional Representative Robin Kelly, in the House, and my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth and I, in the Senate, have joined in introducing the MOMMA's Act. First and foremost, more than anything, this bill would expand the length of time that a new mother can keep her Medicaid health coverage. Currently, Medicaid only has to cover women for 2 months after the child is born. Our bill would expand that to a full year. The Medicaid Program pays for 50 percent of all births nationwide--44 percent in Illinois. It is a big part of the treatment of women who are giving birth to children. This program is vital for new moms and babies, and it makes no sense that a new mom's health coverage is terminated 2 months after she has given birth. Why don't we stick with her so she can live? Why don't we do something affirmative to say that we are committed to mothers and children on a bipartisan basis, regardless of our position on any other issue? The MOMMA's Act would also provide access to doulas, as well as improve implicit bias and cultural competency training among healthcare providers. Too often Black women are ignored or not taken seriously by healthcare providers. Doulas can help provide education advocacy and support for women whose voices today are being ignored. Our bill would establish national obstetric emergency protocols and ensure dissemination of the best practices for healthcare providers dealing with moms and babies. Finally, it would help to standardize maternal and infant health data collection reporting so we have a better idea of what is happening and why. Our bill is supported by the American Medical Association, Families USA, the March of Dimes, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the Black Mamas Matter Alliance. Our bill is supported by these and many other public health and provider organizations because it would save the lives and improve the lives of moms and babies. We can debate the issue of abortion back and forth all day. We know how the votes are going to turn out, and we know nothing is going to occur. Why don't we come together on something bipartisan that says we are all dedicated to reducing the incidence of infant mortality and maternal mortality in this country? Isn't that one thing we can agree on? That is my challenge to this Senate Chamber. Leader McConnell has made it clear that he has no intention of allowing the Senate to debate and pass legislation that will actually help families in need. I hope he is wrong. Instead, he wants us only to vote on controversial judicial nominees and politically charged anti- choice legislation that has no chance of passing. If he is serious about wanting to save the lives of babies and their mothers, I hope that he will make an exception for the MOMMA's Act. I would like to make a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 916, the Mothers and Offspring Mortality and Morbidity Awareness Act, also known as the MOMMA's Act; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. I do not question the sincerity of my colleague. I know you come to this issue with a sincere heart. I don't question that at all. What I am saying to you is that you and I could spend the rest of this day and the next on this floor debating the issue of abortion, and we are not going to resolve it--not in this Chamber, not in this country. What I am asking you to do is look beyond the current issues that are coming to the floor this afternoon and try to find some common ground-- Republicans and Democrats--on the issue of maternal mortality. You have to be shocked, as I am, to read these numbers about the babies and mothers who are dying, particularly babies and mothers of color. If we can do something as a nation to show we truly do care about this, even though we have differences on this issue of abortion, wouldn't that be a breakthrough for this Chamber? I think the people across this country would applaud us and say: They finally did something. They finally came to an agreement. What I propose is the MOMMA's Act, which is a good bill and is one that I think should pass. The Senator has proposed an alternative. Here is an idea. Listen to this radical idea: What if we bring the MOMMA's Act to the floor and agree that we will debate an amendment--any amendment one would want to offer? Do you know what it would be? It would be like the U.S. Senate. It would be the Senate. Think of it. The Senator as a Republican and I as a Democrat would actually be debating an issue that would make a difference in America. We would be putting our best ideas up for a vote on the Senate floor. How about that for a motion? We are not going to get anywhere with the Senator's proposal this afternoon, because we have passed it before. We know the outcome. We know the final vote. I would say the Senator's alternative proposal, which was once offered by Senator Grassley on the floor when I tried this before, is just inadequate. The resources aren't there to deal with the scope and gravity of the problem. So why don't we do this? Why don't we act like Senators? Why don't we do something on a bipartisan basis and bring an issue to the floor that truly counts and that people care about? It would be a breakthrough. It might make a headline. It might even make a tweet somewhere. This is not the way to do it--that it is the Senator's way or my way. What I would suggest to the Senator, though, is to bring it to the floor and to join me in doing it on a bipartisan basis. Appeal to Senator McConnell to finally let the Senate be the Senate. The Senator knows we have people who come to the Galleries here who look down at these desks and say: You know, I think there used to be Senators who sat at those desks who actually legislated, who actually debated, who actually had amendments. Last year, under Senator McConnell, we had 22 amendments on the floor of the Senate. Why not more than 22? That is it. We are not talking about anything else. If the Senator truly wants to join me on this floor in a bipartisan debate on this issue of infant and maternal mortality, let's do it. For the time being, I have to object to what the Senator has proposed. Please, I didn't question the Senator's sincerity in bringing up this issue, and I hope he won't question mine in suggesting we ought to be the Senate and debate this issue. I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, infanticide should be a crime, and it is. That is what the Senator from Nebraska will not concede. He thinks he has come up with a novel idea--that you shouldn't be able to kill a baby with impunity in America. It is not novel. It has been in Federal law for over a decade, and it is in State laws all across the United States. If one has any doubt about it, be prepared to write down a name--the name of Kermit Gosnell. Thirteen years ago, I believe it was, this physician was convicted of infanticide. He is now serving life without parole, plus 30 years. To argue that the Senator has some novel idea that infanticide should be a crime and that we don't cover it now under the law is just not accurate, and it is not factual. That is why I think the Senator's bill is unnecessary. This bill is necessary. Mothers are dying and babies are dying, and we can do something about it. It doesn't matter whether one goes to a pro-life or to a pro-choice rally; we all agree that this is something we can do on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when one looks at a largely unified and democratic Europe, today it is easy to forget just how different it was in Eastern Europe not that long ago. For half a century, millions lived under the tyranny and repression of the Soviet Union. But in the late 1980s, things began to change, particularly in the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Who can forget when 2 million people joined hands across these three nations to form the 420- mile Baltic Chain of Freedom in August 1989? And not long after in February of the following year, Lithuania held its first free elections since World War II, voting for the country's first postwar non- Communist government. Immediately thereafter, the new Parliament voted to make Lithuania the first occupied Soviet republic to declare independence. Lithuania's bold move was followed later that year by Latvia and Estonia. These brave efforts culminated a year later in February 1991, when the Lithuania people overwhelmingly voted for independence--a historic move recognized by the US and Soviet Union that same year. My first visit to Lithuania was nearly 40 years ago, but my ties reach back even further. One hundred years ago, my grandmother left her village of Jubarkas with her three small children to join my grandfather in America. In her arms, she carried a 2-year-old toddler-- my mother, Ona Kutkaite. Hidden in my grandmother's baggage was a small Catholic prayer book, printed in Vilnius in 1863, the last year before printing in Lithuanian was outlawed by the czars. That prayer book--the last, cherished relic of my family's life in their beautiful and ancient home--escaped the czars and was kept safe with our family in America during the brutal Soviet occupation. When I had the honor of addressing the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on the 20th anniversary of independence, I was proud to bring that prayer book home to a free Lithuania. Those brave Lithuanians 30 years ago--including my friend Vytautus Landsbergis, who served as Lithuanian's first post-independence head of state--led the country to a prosperous and democratic future. Lithuania today is a vital member of the European Union, NATO, and the community of democracies. It held the presidency of the European Union earlier this decade and is a leading voice on the continent for standing up to Russia, defending Ukraine, and upholding key democratic values. And as it faces renewed threats from Russia, I have been a strong supporter of strengthening NATO operations and defenses in the Baltic nations. A few years ago, I visited the Lithuanian town of Rukla, where U.S. and German forces were rotating through as part of the European Reassurance Initiative aimed at keeping the Baltic safe. As the cochair of the Senate Baltic Caucus, I will be introducing a resolution in the weeks ahead reaffirming this security cooperation and recognizing Lithuania's great achievements around its 30th anniversary of independence. In February 1990, when I came to Lithuania as part of an American delegation to observe the historic elections, my friends took me inside the Seimas to show me the arsenal of the Lithuanian freedom fighters. In the corner stood a handful of old rifles--no match for the Soviet war machine. But Lithuanians were armed with stronger weapons--faith, courage, and a burning desire to reclaim their independence. Because of the sacrifices of so many patriots, known and unknown, we can proudly and without fear proclaim here today on the 30th anniversary of these historic events: Laisva Lietuva. Free Lithuania. Now and always. So let us use this historic anniversary to recommit to our continued support for our Baltic allies through economic and security cooperation and to reaffirm America's commitment to NATO and the enduring transatlantic alliance. Doing so will help ensure the next 30 years of the longstanding U.S.-Baltic friendship are equally strong and fruitful.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Florence Hayden Towne dedicated her book, ``Neighbor: Stories of Neighborhood House Work in a Great City,'' to the Erie Neighborhood House. She wrote, it ``brought new hope and courage and a new way of life these whom we call `neighbors.' '' Throughout its 150-year history, the Erie House has consistently improved the lives of low-income, immigrant families in Chicago. Though the people, challenges, and times may have changed, the Erie House's mission has remained firm. Immigrant families have always found Erie House to be a place that empowers them and helps creates a more engaged community. Today, we celebrate the great work of Erie House and congratulate its staff and supporters on the 150th anniversary. Erie Neighborhood House began as Holland Presbyterian Church on the corner of North Noble Street and West Erie Street in 1870. The congregation offered several programs, including kindergarten and Sunday school, to the new families arriving from Dutch, Scandinavian, and German countries to the West Chicago neighborhood. The congregation moved to 1347 West Erie Street and changed its name to Erie Chapel in 1886. In 1893, Erie Kindergarten became one of the 20 flagship programs in Chicago's Free Kindergarten Association initiative and expanded youth programs to include choirs for children and adults and industrial classes. As the neighborhood immigrant population changed to include Catholic countries like Poland and Italy, Erie Chapel renamed itself the Erie Chapel Institute and continued to serve the community and advance the settlement house tradition. In 1936, the staff rechristened the 1347 building with a new name, the Erie Neighborhood House. Erie Neighborhood House continued to meet the challenges of the time. In 1942, with the Second World War raging, Erie House began providing daycare services since many men were deployed overseas and many women had entered the workforce. In February 1945, Reverend Douglas Cedarleaf marched with members of Erie House to protest the treatment of the Strongs, a Black family that had recently moved into a White community and faced violence from their neighbors. In 1957, volunteer physicians at Northwestern Memorial and Erie Neighborhood House founded the Erie Family Health Center to provide a variety of primary care, case management, and dental services to low- income, underinsured, and uninsured Chicagoans. Now, every year, nearly 38,000 patients receive high-quality healthcare at the center, regardless of their ability to pay. With the crisis in housing growing in the late 1960s, Erie House founded the Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation to create affordable housing opportunities for members of the community. Since its founding, Bickerdike has developed more than 2,000 affordable homes for families. Today, the West Town and Little Village neighborhoods are primarily Latino, and Erie Neighborhood House is helping people with the tools they need to build a foundation for greater well-being. Erie House has hosted me several times and has been an important ally in working toward comprehensive immigration reform and supporting Dreamers, providing legal consultation and representing people in immigration and asylum cases. The blueprint created 150 years ago has evolved, but that mission has remained constant. Today, Erie House helps 18,000 people all across the city of Chicago annually. Young people and adults attend mentoring programs and learn about career opportunities. Families experiencing violence can find counseling. Erie House remains an essential ally as we work toward a just, inclusive society where we accept our new neighbors and help them achieve their potential. Congratulations to Erie Neighborhood House on 150 years of good work, giving people hope and courage. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.