Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 20 million Americans have health insurance, including more than 1 million in my State of Illinois. Why is it so important? Let me tell you the story of Stefanie from Oak Park, IL. Recently, Stefanie wrote about her son, who has a history of mental health and substance abuse issues. Because of the Affordable Care Act, her son will be able to stay on her health insurance plan until he reaches the age of 26. The Affordable Care Act also required that all health plans cover mental health and addiction treatment. It is hard to imagine that people were selling health insurance in America that did not cover mental health and addiction. Two Senators on the floor of the Senate--Paul Wellstone, who stood right over there, and Pete Domenici, who stood there--teamed up to require that every health insurance plan in America cover mental illness. It is so obvious. It is an issue many families face. But health insurance plans were excluding it. Why did these two Senators who were wildly different politically decide they would team up for this? Paul Wellstone had a brother and Senator Domenici had a son who were struggling with mental illness, and they didn't have protection in their health insurance, so the Senators fought to include it. Thank goodness they did. Because of that health law, insurance companies cannot discriminate against Stefanie's son because of his medical history. Her son just graduated college. She is thankful he can stay on her company's policy until he gets a job, and she is thankful her premiums are not higher due to her son's health needs. Stefanie is afraid that if these protections go away because of a court case that is currently pending or the actions of the Republican majority in this Senate, her son will be uninsurable or face enormous medical bills that he will be unable to pay. Stefanie wrote to me, and she said that if the Affordable Care Act were to be eliminated, they are ``contemplating leaving this country to seek manageable health care.'' Democrats are fighting to keep healthcare protections for people like Stefanie and her son. Because of the Affordable Care Act, people with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied coverage or charged higher premiums. Is there anyone among us who doesn't know someone with a preexisting condition? I have one. This protects 5 million people in Illinois who have a preexisting condition. Insurance companies are no longer allowed to impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits or to deny coverage for mental health, substance abuse treatment, prescription drugs, or hospitalizations, and young people are allowed to stay on their parents' plan until they reach age 26. Despite the Republican and Trump administration's continued efforts to repeal these protections both in Congress and in the courts, health insurance under the Affordable Care Act is open for business. If you are interested and want to know the policies available, healthcare.gov is the website to visit. Open enrollment for 2020 health plans began on November 1 and ends on December 15. If you can, sign up. It is a protection that you hope you will never need, but if you need it, it is good to have it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 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 New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 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, I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Rubio, Cardin, Menendez, and Representative Chris Smith for moving the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in both Chambers, legislation I was proud to cosponsor. With the situation deteriorating by the hour in Hong Kong, the passage of legislation could not be more timely. I urge my colleagues in the House to take action quickly without delay. This bill sends an important message of bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress for the democratic aspirations of the broad majority of the people of Hong Kong. Some of you may realize that we, just a few months ago, celebrated the 30th anniversary of the bloody crackdown that ended the peaceful democracy movement in Tiananmen Square. Who among us can forget those riveting weeks during which there was real hope and possibility of China opening its political system--the Goddess of Democracy statue modeled after our own Statue of Liberty--and, sadly, the jarring image of the protestor that was standing to try to block the onslaught of a tank? The crude propaganda and disinformation used by Communist hardliners to brainwash young military conscripts to turn on their own people was both heartbreaking and infuriating. Remembering those days, we must not sit by idly and quietly and allow Hong Kong's freedoms to be similarly threatened. I have been moved by the courageousness of the pro-democracy protestors in the face of increasingly excessive use of force by the Hong Kong police in one of the most vibrant cities in the world. What exactly are Hong Kong protesters fighting for--the freedoms we in America take for granted every day--the freedom of assembly, suffrage, speech, due process, and rule of law. Rather than sitting down with the protesters, Hong Kong authorities have increasingly used excessive force instead of engaging in constructive dialogue. Yet, ultimately, I believe the Hong Kong Government and the protesters are capable of finding a solution, and I hope they do. Let me end by appealing to the leadership in China to show the courage to allow the continued prosperous democratic autonomy enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong. Hong Kong's continued special status is the sign of strength and confidence, not weakness. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when we in Congress are fortunate enough to win our elections, we then must take an oath of office. It is quite simple and straightforward: ``I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God''--defend the Constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of this sacred office. Notably, the oath does not say defend the President over the rule of law or our constitutional duties. And yet President Trump has made crude and inexcusable attacks against our professional diplomats and military officials who bravely and patriotically tried to abide by this same oath by upholding these values of honor and the rule of law. Career professionals testifying as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry are facing partisan attacks and even efforts that threaten their lives and careers. President Trump has made no secret of his long-held suspicion of government workers, which he and his allies have perpetually accused of trying to bring down his Presidency. That former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch told House Members that she felt ``threatened'' by our own President who called her ``bad news'' is despicable. In fact, Trump even attacked Yovanovitch on Twitter last week during her powerful public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. There have also been countless baseless attacks and insulting questions of loyalty faced by witnesses such as LTC Alexander Vindman. Vindman, who was born in Kiev, immigrated to the U.S. and spent 20 years as an Army officer, an officer who has shed blood for our country, as recognized by his Purple Heart. Twenty-five years ago, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was another longtime Army officer who was born behind the Iron Curtain. GEN John Shalikashvili was born in Poland and moved to Peoria, IL, when he was 16. Thank goodness he served our country in a time where his career was not derailed by such degrading attacks. I commend Defense Secretary Esper for promising that Lieutenant Colonel Vindman ``shouldn't have any fear of retaliation,'' which only begs the question: Why can't Secretary Pompeo make the same promise for State Department officials? U.S. diplomats and military officials put their lives at risk every day at embassies and conflict zones around the world. To be attacked by their own government--and at the highest levels--defies belief and is beneath the offices they hold. That President Trump and Republicans deride and bully these American patriots for telling the truth while Secretary Pompeo sits silently on his hands is simply beyond the pale. It is the opposite of what we teach our children. These career professionals--these patriots--are models of courage and respect for our democratic system that the President and his circle of enablers should look to emulate rather than belittle.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we celebrated Veterans Day last Monday. On the 11th day of the 11th month, we pause to honor the courage and sacrifice of our Nation's veterans. Millions of Americans have served in uniform over the years, many of whom return home with visible and invisible wounds alike, often to serve again in their communities. I had the privilege to meet with a group of such dedicated veterans recently at a meeting of the National Women Veterans United in Chicago. National Women Veterans United is the only center in Illinois dedicated to serving women servicemembers and veterans. Run by women and for women, I met with founder and president, the formidable Rochelle Crump. Rochelle served in the Army during the Vietnam era and has a long history of working with the VA at the Federal, State, and local levels. Rochelle and other members of her community in Chicago noticed that women veterans were falling through the cracks when it came to accessing the benefits they have earned, so they founded National Women Veterans United in 2005 to help fill the gap. The VA reports that there are approximately 2 million women veterans in America, reflecting 9 percent of the total veteran population. By 2045, the share of female veterans is projected to double to 18 percent. Women are among the fastest growing segments of the veteran population; yet many women veterans are either not aware of the benefits afforded to them or they are frustrated with the VA's inability to understand or address the unique needs of women veterans. For example, women veterans tend to be older. The top reported health issues they face are PTSD, TBI, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease, but many also require services related to unique health needs such as military sexual trauma and reproductive health. Now, the VA has made great strides over the years to provide for women veterans, but we must do more, especially when it comes to changing the culture at the VA that has often been a barrier to women seeking care at the VA. Groups like National Women Veterans United try to break down those barriers. They have helped hundreds of women veterans and their families, providing assistance in navigating the VA, holding healthcare screenings, and offering a host of personal and professional development opportunities and support groups. National Women Veterans United also supported entire families, such as the Gold Star Robinson-Wilson family. SGT Simone Robinson of Robbins, IL, was 21 years old when she died of wounds sustained while serving in Afghanistan. At the time, she had a 2-year-old daughter. National Women Veterans United has helped care for the family after the sergeant's death. Earlier this year, they named their beautiful new center after her, now the SGT Simone A. Robinson Military Women Veteran's Center. I would like to recognize a few of the other great women I had the opportunity to meet during my visit with National Women Veterans United, including two Korean war veterans: Wille Merine Rouse and Miljan Akin--Rouse also served again in Iraq, as did her daughter Rene--Sharon Stokes-Parry, who served in Iraq with the Marine Corps; Diane Halle, a retired U.S, Army master sergeant who later worked at the Jesse Brown VA and with Team Rubicon on disaster relief around the world; Jeannie Adams, a Vietnam Air Force veteran who serves as their treasurer; Donna Cooper; Hazel Noble; Valorie Harris--the list goes on. I look forward to continuing to work with National Women Veterans United. These brave women stood guard for our freedom in uniform, and now, they continue to stand in support of their community--and specifically as African Americans, some of whom served during times of racial segregation, they faced challenges not only as women, but as Black women. Now, they help others who face challenges. May we use their inspiration--and the inspiration of all of our veterans--to find our own ways to sacrifice for the good of our Nation and our world.

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. 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 New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last month, we lost Kay Hagan after a long illness. Kay was always a fighter, starting with her days in the North Carolina State Legislature and continuing to when she answered the call of serving the Senate during the perilous days of the great recession. Kay was the right person to fight for North Carolina when she was needed the most. She came from a family who knows service and sacrifice. Her uncle was Lawton Chiles, a Korean war veteran and former Representative, Senator, and Governor of Florida. Her father and brother served in the Navy. Her father-in-law was a major general in the Marine Corps. Her husband is a Vietnam veteran who used his GI bill to pay for law school. When Kay talked about veterans' issues, she spoke from the heart. Kay was born into politics. As a young girl, she was putting bumper stickers on cars for her uncle. Her father won an election to become mayor of Lakeland, FL. While interning for her uncle, Kay learned about the ups and downs of Congress, literally. She operated the Senators- only elevator in this building. North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt first encouraged Kay to run for office when she served as his Guilford County campaign chairman. In 1998, she unseated a Republican incumbent and won a seat in the North Carolina State Senate. For 10 years, Kay Hagan earned a reputation as a commonsense hard worker, interested in results, not partisan fighting. As cochair of the State budget committee, she increased the State's rainy day fund and balanced five straight budgets. She helped make record investments in education, raised the pay for teachers, and increased the minimum wage. She was one of the most versatile women in her State. She juggled Girl Scout events, winning reelection four times, raising her growing family, and serving as a Sunday school teacher and a Presbyterian Church elder. In 2008, Kay ran for and won a U.S. Senate seat, becoming the Senate's first female Democratic Senator. With her family's military background, it surprised no one that Kay fought hard in the Senate for military families and veterans. When she heard about 9-year-old Janey Ensminger--daughter of a retired marine--passing away from leukemia because of contaminated water on the base of Camp Lejeune, she worked to pass the Janey Ensminger Act to help those affected receive healthcare. Kay also introduced a bill that was close to my heart. It would ban for-profit colleges from using the phrase ``GI bill'' in their aggressive marketing efforts aimed at separating veterans and servicemembers from their hard-earned education benefits. Kay was fearless with her voting. She made the toughest votes count, knowing the consequences to her own career. As long as it helped people of North Carolina and the United States, she was always a crucial partner. The Affordable Care Act and the 2009 economic stimulus package were politically difficult for many, but Kay stepped up and supported them. She was brave to the highest degree. Historians will remember that bravery. She stepped up when America needed her. Today, because of it, America is stronger and better. We will all remember Kay Hagan for her friendship and that we had the privilege to call her a friend and colleague. She is survived by her husband Chip, her three children--Jeanette Hagan, Tilden Hagan, Carrie Hagan Stewart--her father Joe P. Ruthven, two brothers, and five grandchildren. It was my honor to serve with Kay Hagan and to memorialize her service to North Carolina and the United States in this statement today. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if members of the American public came to the Senate Chamber this week to witness legislative activity, such as a piece of legislation on the floor, amendments, debate, votes, deliberation, or compromise, they are out of luck. We don't do that in the Senate anymore. We are not going to do it this week; we didn't do it last week; and we didn't do it the week before. Now, the Republican leader just said the problem is impeachment. The problem is not impeachment. The problem is the Senate is not a Senate anymore. All we do in the Senate--all we do in the Senate is this serial list of judicial nominations, one after the other, after the other, after the other. That is it. We don't take up legislation. Yesterday there was a--right across the street from this Capitol Building, in front of the Supreme Court, hundreds of people were there because of a hearing in the Supreme Court on the issue of DACA, which was created by President Obama, where 780,000 undocumented young people had a chance to stay in this country and was abolished by President Trump. Hundreds came out yesterday. They wanted to hear--at least try to hear the Supreme Court deliberations on their future and what would happen to them. It is quite possible that the Court will rule in the President's favor. I hope not, but it is possible, and the future of these young people will be deportation. You can imagine how they feel about this issue. They look back over here at the Capitol and they wonder: What are they doing in the U.S. Capitol building to deal with an issue of such grave importance for such a large group of people in the United States? Here's what we are doing: Nothing--nothing. The House of Representatives passed the American Dream and Promise Act in the month of June, and the U.S. Senate and Senator McConnell will not let us bring it to the floor. Is he going to blame the impeachment proceedings for the fact that we have waited 5 months now with this critical bill, having passed the House, not even being considered in the U.S. Senate? Is that the reason we haven't been able to take up serious legislation for weeks in the U.S. Senate? Of course not. It is not about impeachment; it is about a strategy designed by the Senate Republican leader not to entertain substantive legislation-- just to take up the issues of nominations. The nominations, of course, are an issue themselves. I mentioned the judicial nominations. Well, last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we had the ninth Trump nominee for the Federal bench who had been found unqualified by the American Bar Association. That is nine so far. You say to yourself, well, that must happen from time to time. It never happened one time under President Obama; not one nominee was judged unqualified. There are nine of them under President Trump. Why? Because this administration, with the cooperation of Senator McConnell, is hell-bent to fill these vacancies, regardless of the competency of the individual who is being nominated. On the calendar today is another nomination. Today the Senate is going to vote on the nomination of Chad Wolf. This is technically a vote for Mr. Wolf to be the Department of Homeland Security's Under Secretary for policy. Let's be clear. This is actually a vote on whether Mr. Wolf would run the entire Department of Homeland Security. He would be the sixth Secretary in charge of this critical agency, the Department of Homeland Security--the sixth one since President Trump was elected. Talk about a fast-moving, revolving exit door. You can hardly get your desk put together with a few pens and computers on top of it; then, with President Trump, you are out the door if you are the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Next up is Chad Wolf. The President has indicated he is going to appoint him, not as the Secretary of Homeland Security--no, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. But he first has to be confirmed as an Under Secretary. The Trump administration has shown in their immigration policy an approach to this issue that we haven't seen for decades in Washington or the United States. The President has been especially harsh when it comes to families and children. President Trump's ineffective policies have made our southern border much less secure than when he took office. The situation has even been worsened by this gaping leadership vacuum in the Department of Homeland Security. In less than 3 years, there have been four heads of the Department. Wolf would be the fifth person--I said six earlier, sorry--to run it and the third Acting Secretary. Every position at the Department of Homeland Security with responsibility for immigration is now held by a temporary appointee ready to be fired at a moment's notice, and the White House is not even submitting nominations for those positions. This is a conscious choice by the Trump White House to increase their power and to undermine the role of the U.S. Senate, and the Republican majority thinks it is just fine. The President has boasted about all of his Acting Secretaries. He even has an Acting Chief of Staff. Donald Trump said: I like acting. It gives you great, great flexibility. It sure does. You can just fire a person and call the next up in a moment, in a matter of days. Stephen Vladeck, a leading expert on the Senate's confirmation process, notes that the President's approach is ``depriving the Senate of its constitutional role--and in the process, of opportunities to vet his nominees, to reject those who are unqualified, and to conduct meaningful oversight of the executive branch.'' So what does the Senate institutionalists and the Senator from Kentucky think about diminishing the roles of the Senate? Just fine, Mr. President, whatever you want. Today, the Senate will actually have a chance to vote on this individual, Chad Wolf, to become an Under Secretary on his quick path to become an Acting Secretary on his even quicker path to be in some way retired or fired. So is Chad Wolf the right person to run the Department of Homeland Security, one of the most important law enforcement agencies? His main qualification appears to be that he was Chief of Staff and top adviser to former Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. I would say that arguably she may have been one of the worst performing Homeland Security Secretaries ever in our history. It was Kirstjen Nielsen who falsely claimed, ``We do not have a policy of separating families at the border.'' Then came along the Federal judge in Southern California and demanded an accounting of what actually was going on at the border. Do you know what the judge found after he demanded that the Department of Homeland Security under Kirstjen Nielsen account for family separations? They found that more than 2,800 infants, toddlers, and children had been separated from their parents at the border. Even worse, there was no effort made to trace where the parents were headed and where the child was headed. At the end, some of these children never ever were reunited with their parents, separated by Kirstjen Nielsen's Department of Homeland Security. I have seen the results of these disastrous separations. At the immigration court in downtown Chicago, in a Loop high-rise building that you would never pick out as a court, you take an elevator to one of the top floors and get out on a crowded floor. There are people standing four- and five-deep waiting for the docket call for immigration court. I went into the court just last year to see what family separation was all about. I found a good judge who had been at it for almost 20 years, and she said to me: Senator, please stay for the docket call, at least the first group of clients. The first group of clients were called. Marta was one of the clients. The judge said: Would the clients please take their seats. The problem--the problem was, Marta was 2 years old. Marta had to be lifted into her chair and handed a stuffed animal that she was hanging onto throughout this hearing, which I am sure she never understood. Hamilton was a little boy who was also a client in the immigration court that day. He was 4 years old--4 years old in a U.S. immigration court because of the separation of children from their parents. He did jump up on the chair because he saw a Matchbox car on the table that he could play with while this hearing was deciding his fate. Do you know what happened? They continued their cases for another 6 months. Fortunately, Marta was reunited with her father in less than 6 months. Do you know what happened when separated children were united? Some of these children would not even let their own mothers hold them. That is what happens when you separate a 2-year old from her mother for months at a time. That is what happened over and over again on the watch of Kirstjen Nielsen, the Secretary of Homeland Security. Mr. Chad Wolf, who is on our calendar today, was her chief of staff during this zero-tolerance policy. These disastrous separations have done permanent damage to countless children. I saw two of them. Publicly released emails show that Mr. Chad Wolf, who will be voted on today in the Senate, was deeply involved in the discussions that led to this policy. As far back as December of 2017, Wolf was Acting Chief of Staff to Secretary Nielsen. He sent the Justice Department a list of 16 options for deterring undocumented immigrants. No. 2 on the list was ``separate family units.'' His fingerprints are all over zero tolerance. Mr. Wolf was also intimately involved in the Trump administration's efforts to use Dreamers as bargaining chips to advance the President's anti-immigrant agenda. After he repealed DACA, President Trump rejected numerous bipartisan deals to protect Dreamers. I will not go through the awful details of our bipartisan efforts to come up with a bill, which the President time and again rejected. Instead, he said: Here is my approach to the Senate. Take it or leave it. The Senate left. It received fewer than 40 votes in a Senate dominated by a Republican majority. The administration said that it would support the authorization of Dreamers if the Congress passed his plan, which included the largest cut in legal immigration in almost a century. The Senate rejected it. How do I know that Mr. Wolf was involved in this effort? I sat in on a half dozen meetings with Secretary Nielsen and Mr. Wolf, just down the hall from here in the office of Republican Congressman Kevin McCarthy. He was there. Wolf was part of the program. In another administration, involvement in family separation and DACA repeal would be grounds for dismissal. In the Trump administration, it is grounds for promotion--promotion to become the Acting Secretary and to see if this flavor of the month as the head of one of these key agencies can actually gut it out for 6 months. It might be a record if he did. I urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Mr. Wolf.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me start by saying I support this bill, the bill offered by Senators Cornyn and Blumenthal. It is bipartisan in nature and passed the Judiciary Committee. I not only voted for it, I cosponsored it, and I think it should become the law of the land. It will be helpful in reducing the cost of pharmaceuticals. I am offering a modification to the bill. I believe this modification is one that should be passed by the Senate as well. In fact, it did pass the Senate last year by a voice vote. Not a single Senator objected when it passed the Senate last year. We know--I have been told by my colleagues--that they support the concept, but they are not alone. The bill I am offering is also supported by the American Medical Association; the American Hospital Association; 88 percent of the American people, Republicans and Democrats; President Trump; his health Secretary, Dr. Azar; the AARP--a long list. What could I possibly propose that would have all of these people supporting it? Simple. When the drug companies decide to run an ad on television--and you see a lot of them, don't you? The average American sees nine every day. All we ask is that included in the ad, they disclose the cost of the drug. How did I pick this as the cost for the drug? I didn't pick it; it was chosen by the pharmaceutical company. That is the list price of the drug. They can go on to say ``You will not have to pay that amount,'' but I believe the American people should know what the drugs cost. The most heavily advertised drug in America today is HUMIRA. HUMIRA is used for forms of arthritis and psoriasis. But few Americans know, as they watch people sitting by the swimming pool with clear skin, that HUMIRA costs $5,500 per month. The reason I want to disclose this is because I think consumers have the right to know. Someone is going to pay that amount--your insurance company. Somebody is going to pay that amount. When Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois says that the No. 1 driver in health insurance premiums is high prescription drug prices, I think people ought to know. It is not just a matter of being in a bathing suit without a red patch on your elbow; it is $5,500 per month. President Trump believes that disclosure should be made, the Secretary of Health and Human Services believes it, the American Medical Association, the Hospital Association, all the people I mentioned, as well as almost 90 percent of Democrats and Republicans. Who opposes this? Who would oppose disclosing the price of the drug? I will bet you are guessing the pharmaceutical industry, and you are right. They are looking for one Senator who will object to what I am offering. That is what they need. They need just one Senator to say no, and frankly I am afraid we are going to face that this afternoon. The bottom line is this: If you believe consumers in America have a right to know the cost of a drug, if you believe the pharmaceutical companies have a responsibility to disclose it, if you believe high prescription drug prices are unfair and costing a lot more in our healthcare system than they should, then support this basic measure that passed the Senate last year without one negative voice. None. None whatsoever. So having reserved the right to object, I ask that the Senator modify his request so that in addition to the pending request, the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1437 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Durbin-Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; that the Durbin-Grassley amendment to the title be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object. I am not a zoologist, so I don't know if crocodiles can cry, but I am very concerned about the argument the Senator from Pennsylvania made. He is actually standing here, in defense of senior citizens, by objecting to disclosing the list price that the pharmaceutical companies charge for these drugs. I didn't choose that price; they chose that price.

Mr. DURBIN. I will not yield until I am finished. I said they could put a disclaimer on that saying maybe you will not pay the full list price depending on your insurance or coverage, but to argue that you are standing here in defense of senior citizens and denying this information to them and that the only way we can consider this measure is call up the Department of Defense appropriations bill-- from where I am standing, this measure, which passed the Senate without your objection last year, should pass now with the underlying legislation. Let's get this done in a comprehensive way to help seniors, and let's not stand in defense of pharmaceutical companies. They have plenty of people to defend them.

Mr. DURBIN. I object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on September 29, Thomas Owens of Chicago passed away, leaving a legacy of faith, philanthropy, and friendship. He was an innovator and an advocate for helping people. Tom was dedicated to the biblical proverb, ``To whom much is given, much is expected.'' Tom used to joke that he entered philanthropic ventures because he spent too much time hovering around the kitchen with his wife, Mary. In truth, he just believed in helping those less fortunate. Tom and Mary founded the Owens Foundation in 1985, inspired by the work of Saint Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Tom and Mary enjoyed a friendship with Mother Teresa and were instrumental in supporting Missionary of Charity projects in Chicago, Arizona, and Tijuana, Mexico, to alleviate poverty and provide hope to those in need. In the early 1990s, Tom retired from a successful business and having spent 20 years as an IBM executive. Many people would have considered slowing down after that, but not Tom. That same year he retired, he founded Cara Chicago. Tom started Cara out of the back of his car. He drove shelter to shelter, connecting women with business colleagues and contacts he had accumulated over the years. Nearly 30 years later, Cara is a world- class job training and placement program, helping more than 6,000 people into more than 10,000 jobs. Cara is the Gaelic word for friend, and this program helps give people a professional friend when they need it most. Tom earned numerous awards like being one of the Streetwise Foundation's 20 Most Inspirational Chicagoans. He also was Leo High School's Lifetime Achievement Award winner in 2018. Leo High School's motto is Facta non Verba, meaning Deeds not Words. Tom's work as one of the most caring people I have known speaks for itself. Tom liked to say, ``Don't just make it a good day . . . make it a great day!'' Many people have great days because of his work. Tom is survived by his wife, five children, 22 grandchildren, and the thousands of people who have better days because of Tom.