Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on August 10, Fulton County Sheriff Deputy Troy Chisum should be turning 40 years old. He should be spending the day watching his daughters play softball, or he should be playing football with his friends and excitedly discussing the upcoming Minnesota Vikings football season. But, sadly, he won't be doing these things. Deputy Chisum was killed in the line of duty on June 25. I want to honor him today. Deputy Chisum was answering a call about a domestic disturbance in Avon, IL. He was 4 minutes closer than any other deputy. When he arrived at the scene, he saw the suspect on the porch. As he moved back for safety, he was shot in the back and killed. The suspect barricaded himself in the house for the next 19 hours before the standoff ended. Deputy Chisum was the fifth law enforcement officer in America in an 8-day period to be shot and killed while on duty. Another police officer has been shot and killed since then. Their deaths are a heartbreaking reminder of the dangers officers face every day. Troy Chisum loved his community. He always answered the call to help. He worked as a paramedic with the Fulton County EMA and as a firefighter with Northern Tazewell County. He also was a member of the West Central Illinois Special Response Team and the Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System Weapon of Mass Destruction/Special Response Team, Region Six. He had formerly worked for Lewistown Police Department. He was a consummate public servant. His family was always his No. 1 priority. He loved any activity with his wife Amanda and his time with his three daughters. He helped inspire his daughter Kyleigh to pursue a medical career. He made his girls so proud. Deputy Chisum's wife Amanda, their three daughters Kyleigh, Abigail, and Gracie, his father, Phil Chisum, his mother and stepfather, Debra and Mike Wheeler and too many relatives, colleagues and friends to name; they were all proud of Troy. Deputy Chisum was one of the good ones. His colleagues knew him as the first one in every morning and the last one out every night. His legacy and sacrifice will be remembered.

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 Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 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. DURBIN. This opioid epidemic wasn't started by some runaway virus. They were decisions made by real people to flood America's towns and streets with ``a blizzard of prescriptions,'' as Richard Sackler of Purdue Pharma put it in his own words. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry in the United States produced 14 billion opioid pills in 2016 alone--enough opioid pills for every adult in America to have a 3-week supply of opioids. Who would approve the production of 14 billion opioid pills in 1 year, 2016? It turned out it was your government. The Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States of America is responsible for determining and basically giving a license for the production of a specific amount of opioid pills allowed to be distributed to the market each year. It is the Drug Enforcement Administration--of all agencies--that establishes annual production quotas for opioids that are, effectively, the gatekeepers for pharma. Pharma, of course, wants to produce as much as possible in order to sell as much as possible. The Drug Enforcement Administration is supposed to draw the line. Yet, for all of these years, while we have faced this epidemic, our government--the Drug Enforcement Administration--has been increasing the production quotas each year for opioid pills. Between 1993 and 2015, the Drug Enforcement Administration allowed the production of oxycodone to increase in America 39 times--from 3\1/ 2\ tons of opioids in 1993 to 151 tons of opioids in 2015. It is the same story for hydrocodone, which increased twelvefold, and for fentanyl, which increased twenty-fivefold. I pressed those in the Drug Enforcement Administration on this issue. I asked them how they could possibly approve of these ever-increasing quotas while America faced this epidemic. How did they reconcile their decision to flood America with these drugs at a time in which they were being abused and when addiction was leading to death all across our country? Last year, I passed bipartisan legislation. I and Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, gave those at the Drug Enforcement Administration more authority to set commonsense production levels. It is hard to believe we had to do that--to actually bring to their attention that they were authorizing the production of opioid pills for an America that was facing the worst opioid epidemic in its history. Previously, those at the Drug Enforcement Administration could only look at what pharma asked for when it determined quotas. In other words, they believed, officially, that they had statutory blinders by which they couldn't even consider the impact of pharma's annual request for production. So Senator Kennedy and I, on a bipartisan basis, changed the law to require the Drug Enforcement Administration to consider abuse, overdose deaths, and the impact on public health. Finally, between 2016 and 2019, the Drug Enforcement Administration has lowered opioid quotas by an average of 46 percent. No longer can Big Pharma get away with producing this sheer volume of painkillers. The Drug Enforcement Administration will soon be proposing its 2020 quotas, and I will soon be sending it a letter and will urge it to use its new authority, which we put in this new law that I passed with Senator Kennedy, to continue reining in Big Pharma's insatiable demand. Think about that. While we are going through this opioid epidemic, pharma--made up of the people who make the pills--is coming to Washington, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, and is getting permission each year to produce billions of opioid pills to be sold in the United States--enough for every adult American to have a 3-week opioid prescription. Incidentally, 2 years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent out a notice to doctors. It read that only in the most extraordinary cases should one prescribe a drug to last for more than 3 days--only in the most extraordinary cases. Then watch them carefully because, in a short period of time, addiction begins. Three days? Pharma was asking for a production of opioid pills so that each adult American could buy 3 weeks' worth of pills, and the Drug Enforcement Administration was complicit. To hold all stakeholders accountable, major legal challenges have been brought against the pharmaceutical industry for its role in deceptive promotion and all of the suffering and deaths that have resulted. Over 1,600 lawsuits from States, counties, cities, and victims have been consolidated into one Federal case in Cleveland, OH. This reminds me of another public health scourge we confronted when Americans suffered the consequences of misleading marketing and false information about the health risks of tobacco. It took the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement to finally hold major manufacturers of tobacco responsible for their actions--that of cigarettes that hook adults and youth to lifetimes of addiction and death. That settlement was estimated to provide States with $246 billion over 25 years ago. Sadly, only a tiny fraction of that amount--only 8 percent of the settlement--was actually dedicated to tobacco's prevention and cessation. Instead, $145 billion from the tobacco settlement has gone to fill State budgets and pet projects--roads, bridges, stadiums, even a tobacco museum. Should today's opioid litigation result in large monetary settlements from the pharmaceutical companies and their distributors, it will be essential that this funding be dedicated to legitimate public health efforts so as to respond to the current epidemic and prevent the next one. In the city of Chicago, near an area known as Greektown, there is a drug rehab facility that I have visited many times. It is called Haymarket. It was started many years ago by a Catholic priest who took on a ministry that nobody else wanted. He was the one who prowled every night along skid row and helped those who were addicted to drugs and alcohol turn their lives around. He started this Haymarket House as a refuge for them in an attempt to get them some help in escaping their addictions and being rehabbed. Can you imagine what it is like today? Today, sadly, he is gone, but they continue the Haymarket House. Imagine what they face in trying to deal with a combination of addiction to drugs and alcohol and mental illness on top of it. They are dramatically understaffed. They don't have the necessary bed space for people who need a helping hand--for folks who realize they need a helping hand. Should there be a successful outcome of this Cleveland lawsuit, wouldn't it be best if some of the resources would be dedicated to places just like that all over the United States? I can tell you, in the city of Chicago, there are many more options than there are in the more sparsely populated downstate areas from which I hail. There are some counties in which people wait 6 months-- once they have realized their need for help--for any kind of treatment whatsoever, and then they have to travel great distances for that to happen. Senator Sherrod Brown and I recently wrote an opinion piece that was published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. I confess publicly that I hope those who are party to this lawsuit in Cleveland will read it, which is where the consolidated court case is taking place. In it, we outlined what we thought should happen if we were to have any input in a settlement agreement. We need to make sure that the money is spent for addiction; treatment; medication; residential and community treatment services; mental health counseling, which is a necessary adjunct to this effort; building on a behavioral health workforce and naloxone distribution; and addressing childhood trauma, which is often the root of addiction. Wouldn't it be great if there were to be a settlement here that would be dedicated to ending this drug epidemic, turning lives around, and saving people from addiction and death? The diversion of tobacco's settlement money should be a cautionary tale that guides our efforts to heal from the opioid epidemic. If Big Pharma is held to account for fueling this crisis, its restitution should be devoted to helping our Nation heal. This chart shows the dramatic increase in the production of two of the most popular opioid products. I will never be able to explain how the agency of the U.S. Federal Government, which is dedicated to protecting us from drug crime and drug addiction, ended up authorizing these enormous quotas of the production of opioid pills. Yet we know what happened. In tiny Hardin County in southern Illinois, as well as on the streets of Chicago, they were flooded with opioid pills. When the opioid pills became too expensive, they turned to a cheaper alternative--heroin. Heroin was then being laced with fentanyl, and we have today this deadly epidemic that is almost out of control. I can't understand what pharma was thinking except for its just looking at the profits and the bottom line that would justify the production of that level of opioid pills into the United States of America. All I can promise is that a number of us--myself included-- will be holding the Drug Enforcement Administration accountable in order to make certain that this is not duplicated again in the years to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday marked the passing of a giant in American law. Justice John Paul Stevens passed away at the age of 99. I just bought his most recent book. The subtitle of it is ``My First 94 Years.'' Justice Stevens was a favorite, born and raised in the city of Chicago. He was a lifelong Cubs fan. He was in the crowd of Wrigley Field as a very young man in 1932, on October 1, during a World Series game, when Babe Ruth made the famous called shot--hitting a home run over the fence. He attended the University of Chicago and Northwestern School of Law. Naturally, he graduated at the top of his class. In between, he served as lieutenant commander of the U.S. Navy during World War II and was awarded the Bronze Star. After law school and a clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Wiley Rutledge, John Paul Stevens became an accomplished attorney in Chicago, leading to his nomination to the Seventh Circuit in 1970. In 1975, he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Gerald Ford and confirmed by the Senate 98 to 0. Judge Stevens served on the Supreme Court for nearly 35 years, bringing to the Court his midwestern blend of brilliance, courtesy, and humility. He leaves behind an enormous legacy. He was committed to safeguarding the rights and liberties protected by the Constitution, and he cherished the importance of the Judiciary as an ``impartial guardian of the rule of law.'' Those were his words in his famous Bush v. Gore dissent, where he said that judging of the Court as an ``impartial guardian of the rule of law'' was at stake in that majority opinion. He was respectful at all times and respected by his colleagues at all times, and by litigants, and by the American people. When he retired in 2010, at the age of 90, he was the third longest tenured Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. He was the last living Justice to have served in World War II. I want to extend my sympathy to Justice Stevens' family, including his surviving daughters, Elizabeth and Susan, his 9 grandchildren and 13 great-grandchildren. Today we bid farewell to a giant, and we thank Justice Stevens for his decades of service to this country and for his profound contribution to American law.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I listened as the Republican leader came to the floor and announced the business of the Senate for this week. Highlighted in the business will be tax treaties--tax treaties with Spain, Switzerland, Japan, and Luxembourg. According to the Republican leader, these are critical to economic development in the United States. I don't question their importance, but I will tell you that, routinely, these are done by voice vote. We don't spend the time of the Senate to come to the floor and talk about our relationship with Luxembourg. When you look at the issues that most American families expect us to address, I would say the tax treaty with Luxembourg would be low on the list. What might be high on the list and should be considered in the Senate this week is the No. 1 concern of families across America-- Democrats and Republicans. The highest concern and the No. 1 issue when asked about the economy of the United States is the cost of prescription drugs. The United States Senate has the authority to do something about the cost of prescription drugs. We will not be doing it this week. We will be dealing with a tax treaty with Luxembourg. What kind of issues, when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs, might be important? Let's start with one that I have started focusing on back home. Did you know that there are 30 million Americans who suffer from diabetes, type 1 and type 2 diabetes? Did you know that 7.5 million Americans use insulin every single day to stay alive? Four of them were in my office last week from Illinois. They were between the ages of 10 and 17. Talk about amazing young people. Three young women and a young boy talked about their lives and what had happened to them since it was discovered that they had juvenile diabetes. Their lives have been changed a lot. Each one of them is hooked up to a CGM--I believe that is the proper term, a continuous glucose monitor--that measures whether they need additional insulin, which is pumped in another device on their arm. They talked about how this was a commitment around the clock to make sure their insulin levels were appropriate. One little girl talked about what it meant to her family for her to be a type 1 diabetic. This beautiful young lady started talking about it. Then she got to the point where she said: It has changed our family; my diabetes has changed our family. Then she started crying. She said: We can't do things in our family that others do. We can't take the same vacations that my cousins take, and we can't rent that house out on the lake because of the cost of my drugs, the cost of my insulin. I turned to her mother, and I said: Tell me, what does it come down to? Her mom said: We are lucky. We have health insurance. Our health insurance covers prescription drugs. However, there is an $8,000 deductible. So we start each year buying the insulin for our daughter until we have spent $8,000 out of our savings. Then the health insurance kicks in. Usually it is about 3 months. She is paying, or she is being charged, about $3,000 a month for insulin. Let's look into this for a minute as we consider why the U.S. Senate thinks a tax treaty with Luxembourg is more important than this issue. Let's look into the fact that insulin was discovered almost 100 years ago in Canada, and the researchers who discovered it came to the United States and said: We have the patent rights to this lifesaving drug for diabetics. We never want to see anybody make a profit at the expense of this lifesaving drug. The Canadian researchers surrendered their patent rights to insulin for $1--gave it up. I recall that when it came to the Salk vaccine for polio, he did the same thing. He said that no one should ever make a profit on a drug that eliminated polio. These two Canadian researchers felt the same about insulin. What happened then? Insulin was produced in the earliest stages in a rather crude way but in an effective way to save the lives of people with diabetes. Over the years, that process was improved. There is no question about that. Today there are three major pharmaceutical companies that make insulin products for the United States--Eli Lilly of Indianapolis, IN, is one of them; Novo Nordisk is another; Sanofi is another. I know a little bit about the Eli Lilly product. It is called Humalog. Humalog was introduced in the American market in 1996, an insulin product. The charge was about $20 to $30 for a dosage--a vial, I should say, and was used as a dosage for those with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes. It was about $21. Here we are 20 years later, and how much is that same vial? It is $329. Remember, this was a drug discovered almost 100 years ago. Remember, those who could have capitalized and made a fortune off of it surrendered their patent rights. How did we reach the point where this drug, in 20 years, is 10 times more than it cost when it was introduced? It is the same drug from the same company. Why has it gone up so much in price? Because they can do it, because these pharmaceutical companies have the power to raise their prices, and people like that little girl in my office from Jerseyville, IL, who broke down in tears, can't control how much that price would be. They need this to survive. Now you must ask yourself: What are other countries paying for exactly the same drug made by the same American pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly? We don't have to go very far to find out. All we need to go to is Canada--Canada. The $329 Humalog vial in Canada costs $39. Why? It is exactly the same drug and is a fraction of the cost in Canada. It is because the Canadian Government stands up for the people of that country and says: You cannot gouge, you cannot overprice these drugs. You are going to be paid a reasonable amount so that you make a profit, but you aren't going to do it at the expense of our families in Canada. They care. They have done something about it. We care about a tax treaty with Luxembourg. I am sorry, but as important as that may be in that small part of the world, it is more important for us to deal with the issue of prescription drugs and to ask ourselves why this U.S. Senate, this empty Chamber, is not filled with Senators of both political parties doing something about the cost of prescription drugs. There is one traffic cop in this Chamber. He just spoke. The Republican leader decides what comes to the floor of the Senate. He has decided we are not going to consider prescription drugs. Maybe he will change his mind, but I think he will need some persuading to reach that point. What I am hoping is that the 30 million Americans and their families will speak up when it comes to the cost of lifesaving insulin for diabetes. I hope they will do the same when it comes to other drugs--so many of them. Senator Grassley of Iowa, a Republican, was just on the floor a few minutes ago when we opened the session. He and I are working on a bill, which is just a first step--and I underline, only a first step and not the answer to the problem. But it comes down to this: You can't turn on the television these days without seeing a drug ad. If you haven't seen drug ads on television, you must not own a television. They are on all the time. All of the information we are given about drugs with long names that are hard to pronounce and remember--all of that information is given to us over and over again so that we know much more than we ever dreamed we would know about XARELTO. We can even spell it. We know what different drugs are supposed to do to improve the lives of individuals. Those ads are being thrown at us so that eventually we have that name in our head and take it into the doctor's office and ask for that expensive drug as opposed to a generic drug. That is running up the cost of healthcare. Senator Grassley and I put in a bill, and the bill is pretty basic. With all of the things they tell you on television about the drugs, it wasn't until just 2 weeks ago--the first time I have ever seen it--that one of these companies disclosed the cost of the drug. You say to yourself, maybe that is an important part of speaking to consumers across America. Senator Grassley and I have a bill that will require price disclosure on these pharmaceutical companies' advertising. It is not the total answer, but I am hoping it will in some way at least slow down, if not embarrass these companies from the runups in cost that these drugs are going through. That is part of the answer, but it is not the total answer by any means. There is a long list of things we can do and should do that are a lot more important than a tax treaty with Luxembourg, which should pass by a voice vote without taking the time of the Senate.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), and the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank my colleague and friend, the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, for raising the issues of immigration. We are at a moment in the history of this country that I am sure will be reviewed and reflected upon for many generations to come. Decisions that are being made in the White House today in the area of immigration will be criticized, analyzed, and in many cases repudiated in years to come. It is time for us, at this moment, to have a sober reflection on what this administration has done in 2\1/2\ years with the issue of immigration and where we stand at this very moment. This President came to the White House promising he was going to get tough on immigration--immigration. Probably at the heart of America, more than anything, has been the issue of immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to this country. I believe the diversity of our Nation is one of our core strengths because we have attracted people from all over the world. This President doesn't understand it. If he does, he is not pushing policies that show any reflection on that reality and that historic background. Think of how this administration started. Within hours after this President was elected, he announced the Muslim travel ban; that he would single out countries with Muslim-majority populations and say that their people were not welcome in the United States. The reaction was immediate across the United States. In the city of Chicago, I can remember the supporters of those coming from other countries heading out to O'Hare and attorneys volunteering to give them counsel. There was an outpouring of support for these people, realizing that fundamentally innocent people were traveling to this country. Yet the President, with his travel ban, made it clear from the very start of his administration his view on these immigrants. What followed from there was a decision by this administration to eliminate temporary protective status. Three hundred thousand immigrants in this country came here because of natural disasters and political upheaval and got protection in the United States. The President wanted to turn them away. Was there any measurement as to which ones might be dangerous? No. All would be turned away. Then, of course, there was the President's decision to eliminate the DACA Program. The DACA Program was created by President Obama. These people were brought to the United States as children because of decisions by their parents. They grew up in this country, and every day in classrooms they pledged allegiance to that flag, believing it was their flag too. At some point in their lives, they learned they were undocumented. They didn't have legal status in America. President Obama felt--and I, as a sponsor of the Dream Act, agreed with and encouraged the creation by Executive order of the DACA Program. So 790,000 of these young people came forward, paid a filing fee, went through a criminal background check, and after they were approved, they were given 2 years to stay in the United States, renewable, where they couldn't be deported, and they could work legally in this country. That program, as I said, attracted 790,000 successful applicants, many of them outstanding students and amazing young people. I told their stories on the floor of the Senate. President Trump decided to abolish that program and to end the protection for these young people--790,000 of them. That wasn't the end of it. The President continued with policies such as zero tolerance. Do you remember that one? Last year, the Attorney General of the United States stood up and quoted from the Bible as to how it was the right thing to do to separate 2,880 infants, toddlers, and children from their parents at our borders. Zero tolerance; treat the parents like criminals and separate the kids. What was worse was that no effort was made to track those children as to where they were placed and what happened to their parents. It wasn't until a Federal judge in Southern California came forward and forced this administration to finally match up the children with their parents that the effort was undertaken, and still more than 100 of them were never matched--lost in the bureaucratic sea of the Trump administration. That wasn't the end of it by far. What we have seen at the border in the last several months has been shocking and unprecedented in American history. This ``get tough'' President, who says he is going to cut off foreign aid to countries in Central America and get tough at the border with his almighty wall, has ended up attracting larger numbers of people who are presenting themselves for asylum status at the border of the United States than we have ever seen--dramatic increases we haven't seen for decades with regard to the number of people at the border. The President's immigration policy has backfired.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 2 minutes.