Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I would like some explanation as to where we are on the floor at this moment.

Mr. DURBIN. I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we have agreed that the Republican Senator from Kentucky is to offer an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood. I will be opposing that, but I believe he is entitled to a vote. On the Democratic side, we are asking to have an amendment, in a bipartisan nature, so that the Democratic amendment can be offered, which may be opposed by both of the Republican Senators. With that, there would be a real debate in the Senate, which we rarely have. Because Senator Paul and I agree that there should be both amendments--the Democratic and Republican amendments--and that we should move forward to close down debate on the overall bill, I will object until we get Senator Cornyn's agreement.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this year marks an important milestone for a true treasure in Illinois. The Lincoln Park Zoo, located in the heart of Chicago, is celebrating its 150th anniversary. From its inauspicious beginnings with the gift of two pairs of swans from Central Park in New York City, the Lincoln Park Zoo has grown to be a destination for Chicago residents and visitors alike. The zoo is visited by 3.7 million people annually. Visitors to the zoo appreciate its central location; it is close to cultural and shopping attractions in Chicago. But what everyone loves about the zoo is that there is no admission fee in order to enjoy the zoo's exhibits. That is right; admission to the Lincoln Park Zoo is free. In 1878, 20 years after those swans arrived from Central Park, it was resolved that the Zoo would always be free and open to the public. Today, Lincoln Park Zoo remains the Nation's only privately managed, free-admission zoo in the country. When people visit the zoo, they not only experience the seals, gorillas, polar bears, giraffes, the big cats at the Kovler Lion House, and a pygmy hippopotamus, they also are introduced to farm animals, equipment, and practices that reflect the importance of agriculture to my home State. For many urban children, the zoo allows an introduction to nature and agriculture in a way they may not otherwise experience. Generations of Chicagoans have fond memories of spending summer days at Lincoln Park Zoo with their families. Many can tell you that it is worth braving the blustery Chicago weather for a visit to Lincoln Park Zoo during Zoo Lights, their annual winter celebration. I have always considered Lincoln Park Zoo to be a hallmark of a Chicago childhood. It is a place I wanted to share with my twin grandchildren, now age 7, when they come to visit. Hopping on the 151 CTA bus and wandering the zoo grounds in summer and winter has always been a great adventure for my family. I want to join the community in celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Lincoln Park Zoo. The staff and volunteers of the zoo should be proud of their efforts to preserve and foster this Chicago treasure, ensuring future generations have the opportunity to create memories as I have done with my family.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his kind words and thank him for his leadership on so many issues. He is chairman of the health and education authorizing committee, and we also serve together on Appropriations Committee. It has been a real pleasure to work with him over the years on so many issues but particularly on the issue of medical research. It would surprise a lot of people--maybe even disappoint them--to know how bipartisan we are when it comes to this issue. I can say, on behalf of Senator Murray on our side of the aisle and Senator Blunt on the other side of the aisle, that he and I have created a little team, a little cabal, that watches the authorization and appropriations bills. This will be the fourth consecutive year that we have had 5 percent real growth at the National Institutes of Health. As Dr. Collins--one of the great living Americans--has told us, this is going to reap dividends, as the Senator described earlier in his speech, in terms of breakthroughs when it comes to dealing with suffering and disease and early death that we can do something about in our lifetimes. I don't quarrel with the Senator's conclusion in his speech that we are talking about the direct appropriations bills here, the direct spending of the government, and we are keeping that at a slow rate of increase. On the mandatory side of the programs where we see dramatic increase, part of it has to do with the cost of healthcare in America. That cost continues to go up. One of the drivers of the cost of healthcare, according to insurance companies and others, are the costs of prescription drugs. They are going up dramatically. We had a hearing yesterday, and a young mother came to tell us the story of losing her son who, I think, was about 23 years of age. No, I know exactly; I remember now. He was 26 years of age. He no longer qualified to be on the family health insurance. He was diabetic, and he went to buy his insulin at the drugstore and was told it would cost him $1,300. He wasn't going to get paid for 4 days, so he put it off. During that period of time, he died from complications of diabetes. The cost of insulin at $1,300 is incredible to me. This is a drug that has been available for decades, and that it would go up in cost so dramatically that he would be unable to afford it and lose his life is scandalous in this country. I know the Senator senses this, as well, and believes, as I do, that we want pharmaceutical companies to be profitable, we want them to do research, and we want them to invest in new drugs. But we cannot step back and ignore when their pricing is out of control, and in many instances that is the case. I have said before on the floor--I have asked the people who gathered here to follow our speeches: How many of you have never seen an ad on television for a drug? If you held up your hand, I know one thing for sure: You don't own a television because the average American sees nine drug ads a day--a day. Why do pharmaceutical companies buy nine drug ads a day for every American to consume at $6 billion a year? So that, eventually, we will become so familiar with the names of their drugs that we will ask our doctors to prescribe them, and doctors do prescribe them when the patients ask. Sometimes the patient may not need that drug. The patient may be able to deal with a generic drug that is much cheaper, but the pharmaceutical companies want us to reach the point at which we know these drugs by name and ask for them, and the doctors prescribe them. The most heavily prescribed drug in America today--here is a name you are familiar with: HUMIRA. Of course, if you turn on the television, you see HUMIRA, which was originally designed to deal with rheumatoid arthritis and is now being advertised as a cure for psoriasis. What they don't tell you is the information we put at the bottom of this display: HUMIRA costs $5,500 a month. Did you know that? You would never know it, listening to their ads because they don't disclose it. I have an amendment here that is bipartisan, which Senator Chuck Grassley and I have offered, to say that on all the drug ads, they have to put the price of the drug. It is pretty simple, right? If you knew HUMIRA cost $5,500 a month, you might not even consider it for that little red patch of psoriasis on your elbow. If you knew that some of these drugs they are talking about, like XARELTO--it took about 10 times for me to figure out how to pronounce it and spell it, but they keep coming at you. It is a blood thinner, and it costs $500 or $600 a month. All of these disclosures made to consumers would give them more information to make a decision and perhaps think twice before they ask for a very expensive prescription drug. So I have this bipartisan amendment pending on this bill, which would say to the Trump administration and the Department of Health and Human Services: Develop the rules for putting prices of these drugs on the ads. The Trump administration supports it. How about that? Republican Senator Grassley, Democratic Senator Durbin, and the Trump administration support it. It sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn't it? It sounds like just the kind of thing that would pass in the ordinary course of business in the Senate. But, unfortunately, it ran into a problem. The problem? Pharma. The pharmaceutical companies don't want to tell us how much these drugs cost, so they are trying to stop this amendment. They are trying to stop this amendment. They have one Senator who has created many obstacles for me to bring this to the floor. We have had everybody on Earth calling him, and we are not getting anywhere. It seems that pharma is not ready for putting the cost of the drug on their ad. It means that when it comes down to it, not only will the American Medical Association, which supports our amendment, the American Association of Retired People, which supports our amendment, and the 76 percent of Americans--despite all of the support--we are going to have a tough time passing it. Pharma is hard to beat. Pharma is hard to beat. When we talk about the increasing cost of Medicare and the cost of healthcare across America, Blue Cross Blue Shield tells me it is the driver of the increase in healthcare costs, prescription drugs. Blue Cross Blue Shield in Illinois told me they spend more money on prescription drugs each year than they spend on inpatient hospital care. Think about that--more money than inpatient hospital care. If we are going to do something about it, we ought to do the basics. The basics would be disclosing to the American people how much these drugs cost. You haven't heard the last of it when it comes to this amendment. If Pharma is successful in stopping us from offering this amendment, and even getting a vote on it, I will be back. I am going to continue to return because I think it is important that consumers across America get full disclosure of information on these drug ads. Incidentally, you know how many countries in the world advertise drugs like the United States? Only one other country, New Zealand. New Zealand and the United States are the only two, and pharma spends $6 billion a year. When it comes to dealing with increasing costs of Medicare, this is one of the things we can do. We also want to say Medicare can bargain, just as the Veterans' Administration does, to get a good deal on drug pricing. Right now, they can't, but if they could bring down the cost of drugs under Medicare, it would help us maintain the solvency of that critically important lifesaving program. I see the Senator from Tennessee is on his feet.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Tennessee. I value his friendship and professional support on this idea. This is basic that Americans know what the cost of the prescription drugs will be. Do you know when you discover it? When you go to the cash register, that is when you discover it. Shouldn't we know in advance? Shouldn't we know so that if Humira, which is now at $5,500 per month, goes up to $6,000--and I understand it just did--we are aware of that fact? If we can't use transparency in competition, what are the alternatives--a government mandate? There are alternatives to that, which I think we have come up with. Let's let the American consumer know what they are facing when it comes to these drugs, and let's use this Congress, as we are elected to use it, to reflect the will of the people, who are fed up with the spiraling cost of prescription drugs. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for joining me on the floor. I yield. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pending before the U.S. Senate today are two of the biggest appropriations bills we will consider this year. As Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, mentioned, they are the eighth and ninth bills we will pass. One of those bills I have had a direct interest in as the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. We are about to break a record. This spending bill for the Department of Defense is one of the largest increases we have seen in any given year. This bill is $607 billion for day-to-day operations of the Department of Defense and another $68 billion for something known as Overseas Contingency Operations, which is just another category of spending. This one bill-- one bill of the Department of Defense--comprises 49 percent of all of discretionary spending of the Government of the United States of America. Almost half of our discretionary budget is going to be spent in this bill. Accompanying it is the bill on health and education, which is the second largest appropriations bill we consider. So between the two of these bills, we are talking about a massive government expenditure. Let's reflect on that expenditure for a moment. There is no replacement for a strong national defense, but we should ask ourselves why. Why does it cost the American taxpayer so much to defend America? The last budget deal, under which we are working here, provided a near-record increase for the Department of Defense. Going back almost 50 years, you can only find two or three other increases comparable. We are talking about a massive expenditure and a substantial, historic increase in the Department of Defense. Why? Because we face enemies in this world. I am not naive about that. I believe it. When it comes to superpowers threatening us, at the top of the list is Russia, and second on the list is China. How much do they spend, when it comes to the defense budgets of those two countries--our two hard targets, the most threatening nations when it comes to the United States? That is where you have to step back and shake your head and say that can't be true. But it is true. The Russian defense budget from 2017 to 2018 is $78 billion. Remember my earlier figures? We are going to be spending $700 billion, and their annual budget is $78 billion. How can there be such a disparity? Some people have argued that it is because of the accounting methods. It is the fact that Russian soldiers are paid dirt wages and ours, thank goodness, are paid just compensation and are given benefits. I accept all of that, but it still doesn't explain an almost 10-to-1 ratio of spending in the United States against spending in Russia. What about China? There is another nation that we are worried about in terms of our national defense. China is believed to spend about $175 billion a year, about one-fourth of our total defense spending. Here is Russia spending about 10 percent of our defense spending, and we are concerned about the threat they pose to the United States and our allies. Here is China spending one-fourth of what we do, and we worry about their expanded roles in places like the Pacific. What is baffling about that comparison is that we spend so much more than our major adversaries in the world. Yet many experts testify over and over before congressional committees that we are falling behind in the development of key technologies--technologies like satellites, artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles, and quantum computing. It doesn't stand to reason that the United States of America, with all of its strength and all of its innovation and all of its ingenuity, is being challenged in the world by countries that are spending a fraction of what we spend. The conclusion is obvious. Our large increase of military spending calls for more accountability on how these funds are being spent. I voted for Secretary Mattis. I respect him very much, not only for his service to our country as a General in the U.S. Marine Corps but also as our Secretary of Defense. Thank goodness he is on the job. I have a lot of faith in him, and I believe he has a steady hand in an administration where there aren't too many steady hands. In March, Secretary Mattis sent a memo to every member of the Department of Defense, and here was the title: ``Be Peerless Stewards of the Taxpayers' Dollars.'' I have had the opportunity on two or three occasions to have direct conversations with Secretary Mattis about my concern that we are dramatically increasing American spending over our adversaries and still we believe they have a competitive edge or a near-competitive edge in many critical areas. Secretary Mattis correctly assessed in this report that the Pentagon needs a culture of performance and accountability in order to increase the trust and confidence that not only Congress but especially the American taxpayer places in his team. We also have a procurement system--a purchasing system--that sadly encourages poor behavior and poor results. I asked Dr. Michael Griffin, the top research and development official in the Department of Defense: Why do we spend so much more in the United States and continue to fall behind? He said that many members of the Department of Defense are afraid to be the last to say yes to a program that may not succeed. Too many decisions are pushed up the bureaucratic ladder to higher levels, which strangles these programs in redtape and delays them even more. If something goes wrong, failures are the subject of heated congressional hearings. We have seen that over and over--from $20,000 toilet seats and similar scandals in the past. I agree with Dr. Griffin's findings. The Department of Defense needs to do so much more to change the culture of accountability at that agency. We need to establish a new spirit of transparency. Right now, every weapon system--every single one of them--is sold to Congress with a rosy scenario: technological breakthroughs at a modest cost. There is no difference between the sales pitch on a program that is easy to develop and one that is a giant risk. The Department of Defense needs to be more upfront and more candid with what can go wrong and what will happen if something does go wrong. Very often, the contentious hearings that Dr. Griffin spoke about are not the result of a failed test but a broken promise. While the Pentagon has much work ahead of it to improve its accountability, the world does stand still. The Defense appropriations bill before the Senate makes major investments and innovation, and these are critical to our servicemembers, their families, and to the defense of our Nation. In this bill there is $95.1 billion in research and development spending. Remember, the total budget is almost $700 billion, and $95.1 billion goes for R&D. This is the highest level of R&D funding in programs in the history of the Department of Defense, even when adjusted for inflation, and I support it. The increases provided by the committee will include major investments in areas that are challenging and promising at the same time: artificial intelligence, satellite technologies, and basic research. In addition, the bill provides $1.8 billion, just a small proportion of the total budget, and that money goes to medical research. That is a 5-percent increase over last year's spending. This DOD research is just a fraction of what is invested at the National Institutes of Health, which I will address in a moment, that resulted in breakthroughs ranging from breast cancer treatments to battlefield medical care. Our soldiers, sailors, marines, members of the Coast Guard, and airmen are surviving in battle because of this research at the Department of Defense. It is money well spent. With all of the valuable investments that are included in this bill, I want to especially thank Chairman Richard Shelby, of Alabama, for all of his work on this bill. It has been a real joy to work with him. We have disagreed on a few things--don't get me wrong--and I am sure we will continue to do so, but we have known one another for many years. We respect one another, and we are determined that this critical bill is going to be part of the success report that comes out of the Senate as we break for the Labor Day recess. Chairman Shelby has been receptive to many suggestions and comments, and I have tried to do the same when he has made some ideas a part of his proposal in this bill. I want to commend him for all of his work to get the appropriations process on track, not just on this bill but on the others as well. We stand a real chance in the Senate of sending most appropriations bills to the President before the end of the fiscal year the last day of September--a feat that has not been accomplished for the defense budget in 10 years. To Chairman Shelby's great credit, he understands that moving this Defense appropriations bill along also means moving other appropriations bills with it. While there may be tough votes coming up, we have come a long way to reestablish regular order in the last few months, and I am happy to be a part of this bipartisan solution. I hope the House will come back soon and join us in this effort. We would love to see them again. Now, let me say a word about the other appropriations bill that is part of our package on the floor. This bill, the Labor-HHS-Education bill, includes funding for the National Institutes of Health. For the past 6 years, I have made this the focal point of my work here in the Senate. I don't take particular credit for the results, but I have done my darndest to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this a priority, and I am happy to report they have. For the fourth year in a row, Congress is on track to provide the National Institutes of Health with funding increases of at least 5 percent in real growth--a $2 billion increase in this bill. In the fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill before the Senate, we will help to ensure that our Nation's best and brightest medical researchers have the funding they need to conduct research on the diseases and conditions that impact every single American. NIH researchers are currently trying to develop cures for cancer, to figure out developments to delay or prevent the threat of Alzheimer's, and to help better those living with heart disease or diabetes. Between 2010 and 2016, the Food and Drug Administration approved 210 new drugs in that 6-year period of time for treatments in the United States. Every single one of these new drugs was developed with funding by the National Institutes of Health. I hope, as we move forward to conference with the House on this bill, that we can include at least a 5-percent funding increase for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as other agencies that allow America to literally lead the world in medical innovation. This bill provides $3.7 billion for the prevention and treatment of the scourge of opioid addiction. It will help our Federal agencies to respond better to this ongoing public health challenge. It includes provisions I requested to help the CDC address the toll of violence in the city of Chicago and assist with the Legionnaires' disease outbreak in Quincy, IL. It rejects President Trump's efforts to slash the Federal-Work Study Program and includes an increase in the maximum Pell grant of $100. It includes $5 million for the Open Textbooks Pilot Program, helping college students across America with the exploding cost of higher education. It is a good bill, and I want to commend Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the Democrat, and Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican, for crafting the bipartisan fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. I do think we should be addressing the skyrocketing drug costs that every single American is well aware of. It is something we all talk about, but the underlying bill doesn't address it. I filed a bipartisan amendment with my friend and colleague from Iowa, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, to improve price transparency and direct-to-consumer drug advertising. If I ask you whether you have seen any ads for drugs on television and you answer no, then, I know automatically that you don't own a television because the average American sees a drug advertisement about nine times a day. Why do the drug companies spend so much money advertising on television in the United States? Doesn't every other country do the same? No. It turns out that the United States and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow pharma, drug companies, to advertise their products on television directly to consumers. Why would pharma spend $6 billion a year on advertising so many different ways for Americans to buy these drugs? Because it is profitable. Americans, finally, after the fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth time they have seen it can not only pronounce but even spell Xarelto. When they go to the doctor's office, they say: Doctor, maybe I need a little different blood thinner; maybe I need Xarelto. Xarelto turns out to be the brand name of a very expensive prescription drug. What about the drug Humira? How many ads have you seen for the drug Humira? You can't escape them. It is the most advertised treatment on television. Humira was designed to deal with rheumatoid arthritis, a very serious illness that many Americans face. Then, they found out that Humira might have some value when it comes to something called psoriasis. What is psoriasis? It is the red patch on my elbow. They said: You know, you ought to consider Humira to deal with psoriasis. Here is a Humira ad. Here is the one thing they don't disclose about Humira on the ad. It costs $5,500 a month. I would like to have perfect skin on my elbow--but at a cost of $5,500 per month? Would you think twice about asking for this drug from your doctor if you knew that it was going to cost this much? Of course you would. Senator Grassley and I have a simple amendment. The drug companies that want to advertise on television ought to advertise the price of their product or treatment as well. Pharma hates this idea like the devil hates holy water. The notion of actually disclosing what these drugs cost would not only give you a jolt--as you hear $5,500 a month for Humira--but it would also dramatize the increases in drug costs that we see happening all of the time. Senator Grassley and I have an amendment before this Senate that is going to call for the disclosure of drug pricing. Don't you think the American people deserve this information? Guess what. Look at the passenger side behind the driver's seat in your car. Look at the window. There is a little disclosure about exactly what you should have to pay for that car. But when it comes to paying for prescription drugs, pharma doesn't want to tell you. They want you to finally face it at the cash register. I think Americans have a right to know earlier and more about the cost of these prescription drugs. Seventy-six percent of the American people, incidentally, agree with that position. This amendment is bipartisan and is supported, incidentally, by 76 percent of Americans, the American Association of Retired Persons, the American Medical Association, and--hold on to your hat--President Donald Trump supports this provision as well. We have an amendment that is bipartisan and is supported by the administration, which should be included in this bill, which will move us toward price disclosure. I think it is overdue. We also need to increase the funding for the Centers for Disease Control's work on congenital heart disease, the most common and deadliest category of birth defects. I will be filing an amendment to increase the funding for this program from $4 million to $7 million--a modest amount in a bill of billions of dollars but one that would help 2.4 million Americans living with congenital heart disease. Student Loan Debt Madam President, I also plan to file 2 amendments to help some of the 44 million Americans who are struggling with student loan debt by bringing sanity to the way student loans are treated in bankruptcy. Unlike most types of debt, student loans are extremely difficult-- almost impossible--to discharge in bankruptcy. Why? There are two reasons. A debtor has to meet a high bar of showing ``undue hardship'' in order to get student loans discharged, and the Department of Education pays private contracting firms to fight the students tooth and nail in court if they try to seek a discharge of their student debt because of undue hardship. My amendments would bar the use of Federal funds to pay these contractors who contest undue hardship claims in bankruptcy court when the claims are brought by certain student debtors. Listen to the categories of people we have included in this amendment, people I think would be deserving of discharge of their student debts in bankruptcy court: No. 1, veterans who have been deemed unemployable because of a service-connected disability; No. 2, family caregivers of veterans or of the elderly or disabled family members; No. 3, people receiving Social Security disability whose only income is Social Security payments; and No. 4, borrowers who have finished school but have spent at least 5 years at a low income of less than $24,000 a year. Those are four of the categories of people we think deserve a break when it comes to student loan debt. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping disabled veterans and their caregivers and the others included in this amendment. A second amendment would focus exclusively on disabled veterans and family caregivers. Finally, I will file two amendments to protect students from our Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. Secretary DeVos is planning to repeal or rewrite Obama-era borrower defense and gainful employment rules that help students and taxpayers avoid being cheated by for- profit colleges and universities. Do you want to know the story on for-profit colleges and universities? You need to know only two numbers: only 9 percent of all post-secondary students attend for-profit schools--University of Phoenix, DeVry, and similar schools; 9 percent of students go to that type of school, yet 33 percent of all student loan defaults are from students who attend these for-profit schools. Why--9 percent of the students, 33 percent of the student loan defaults? There are two reasons. No. 1 is they charge too darn much. They are dramatically more expensive than other alternative education at the higher education level. Secondly, their diplomas aren't worth the paper they are written on. These students learn after they graduate that they can't get a job to pay back their student loans. So I think in this situation Secretary DeVos is doing exactly the wrong thing. She is not holding these schools accountable. She is making it tougher for the students who are lured into their traps to get relief. I am pleased that many of my colleagues have joined in this effort. The Secretary of Education should not roll back important protections for students and taxpayers, and the Secretary should not eliminate Federal student debt relief for borrowers defrauded by predatory for-profit schools like Corinthian and ITT Tech. It is my hope that these amendments will be included in the final bill. Madam President, once again, the Senate is considering bipartisan appropriations bills. These bills may not include everything I want or everything other Members want. They are good compromises, which I plan to support. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I note my colleagues have come before me to discuss the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court after the retirement of Justice Kennedy. I checked, just to make sure I understood the section of the Constitution. It is article II, relative to the President's powers, which talks about the power of the President to fill that vacancy on the Supreme Court, subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. One hundred U.S. Senators ultimately have the last word on any nominee. I am fortunate to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where we get the first chance to review any nominee and take a look at their background and vote as a committee before the matter is brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate. I have listened to my colleagues who support Judge Kavanaugh ascending to the bench and to a lifetime appointment to the highest Court of the land. I am troubled by one particular aspect of this nomination. It is different than any nomination to the Supreme Court in the history of the United States in this respect: This President made it clear that any person who wanted to be eligible for the U.S. Supreme Court needed to pass a clearance by two organizations. One is called the Federalist Society and the other is the Heritage Foundation. Both of these are conservative organizations which reviewed all of the potential Supreme Court nominees and produced a list of 20 or more men and women who would be eligible for the Supreme Court by their judgment. Is their judgment important? I will point to one fact in history which illustrates. When Neil Gorsuch was considered by President Trump to serve on the Supreme Court and fill the vacancy of Antonin Scalia, he was not notified by the White House. The White House called the Federalist Society head, Leonard Leo, and asked him to call Mr. Gorsuch and tell him the good news. So to say that the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation played a critical role in the selection of a nominee is an understatement. If you don't clear their background test, their litmus test, you cannot be considered by the Trump administration for the Supreme Court. That is offensive to me. We don't see any reference to the Federalist Society or the Heritage Foundation in the U.S. Constitution. There is a clear reference to a President elected by the people of the United States, but to give to any special interest group, right, left or center, that kind of authority is way beyond what our Founding Fathers imagined would be this process for selecting someone for the Supreme Court. Then it gets even more complicated. Before we consider a nominee for the Supreme Court, we have to carefully review their records. It takes time. Literally, scores of lawyers sit down and go through the published opinions and speeches and other documents which evidence a person's background, and when it comes to Brett Kavanaugh, it is an extensive background. He has had a role at the highest levels of the Federal Government for years: Ken Starr's Office of Independent Counsel, the Bush v. Gore lawsuit that went down to the State of Florida and beyond. The cases he was involved in as a member of the court are pretty obvious and published, but many of his other activities--particularly in the White House when he served as Staff Secretary to the President of the United States--were extensive. For a 3-year period of time, for 35 months, he was the gatekeeper in the White House as to the documentation the President would receive and read. It involved a pretty massive amount of time and documentation on all of the major issues facing the Presidency for almost 3 years. Should we take a look at it? Is it worth our investigation and inquiry into what Mr. Kavanaugh said and did during those years? Well, there was a time here when Republicans thought it was not only important but essential when it came to a nominee named Elena Kagan. Elena Kagan had never served on the Federal judiciary. She was nominated by President Obama. At the time, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, insisted on the full documentation of her role in the White House, and the Democratic Senator, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, joined him in making that request. As a result, 170,000 pages of documents were produced because of the request made by Senator Sessions and Senator Leahy. It was a bipartisan request. It established a standard. The same standard was applied for Democratic nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Documentation had to be presented to the committee and carefully reviewed before there was a vote on whether that person would serve in a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land. Most of us assumed, at that point, that it was a settled practice in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee when it came to the documentary proof we would ask for when nominees came before us for the Supreme Court. We thought that, but we were wrong because when the Republicans took control, everything changed. It changed, of course, with Antonin Scalia's vacancy as a result of his untimely death--a vacancy President Obama sought to fill during his last year in office. He ended up nominating Merrick Garland, a DC Circuit Court judge of impeccable credentials to fill the vacancy. Many Republicans in the Senate refused to even meet with Merrick Garland, let alone consider him and vote on him. So, for a whole year, the vacancy continued at the Supreme Court while the Republicans broke Senate tradition and refused to consider President Obama's nominee. Then came the election of Donald Trump, the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, and the process went forward to fill the vacancy the Republicans had kept open for more than a year before Neil Gorsuch was finally voted on by the U.S. Senate. So here came the second vacancy under the Trump administration--a vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Kennedy--and the question was obviously asked: What standard will you use for asking for the documentary evidence of the person's background in public service? Many of us assumed it would have been the same standard that was pushed by Senator Sessions, a Republican of Alabama, and Senator Leahy, a Democrat of Vermont. We were wrong. Instead, what the Republicans said is, we are going to have a new rule when it comes to Republican nominees from the Trump administration in the case of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and that new rule said we will not ask for documentation for the 35 months when he served in the White House as the closest adviser to the President of the United States. I can tell you there were a myriad of issues that were considered by the President in that period of time, and Brett Kavanaugh, then assistant to the President, was involved in these decisions. We will not know what he said or did because the Republicans have refused to ask for the documentary evidence of his time there. There is more to the story. The Republicans decided, for those documents they might consider asking for, they would have a final filter, and the final filter is a man named Burck, who has served as an attorney for not only President Bush but also in the past for Steve Bannon. Does the name ring a bell? Steve Bannon of Breitbart News. Burck has served as his counsel and was a deputy to Brett Kavanaugh in the White House. Mr. Burck is literally going through Kavanaugh's documents from his time in the White House Counsel's Office to decide which ones will be given to the Senate Judiciary Committee to consider. So it means he is the filter of things he doesn't want us to see and he doesn't want the American people to see. This Republican advocate attorney is going to be a decisionmaker when it comes to whether we can see documents that were produced by Brett Kavanaugh when he served in the White House Counsel's Office. It gets even worse. It turns out, those documents, which he preclears for us to read in the Senate Judiciary Committee, are subject to some sort of committee confidentiality. I have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for a number of years, and I know there are documents which are considered somewhat committee confidential, but it is rare, and it is usually a case you wouldn't argue over; classified information, for example. In this case, these Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the final, final filter as to whether the American people will know the background of Brett Kavanaugh. Why is there so much secrecy here? Why wouldn't these documents be made public? Well, let's look back in time. When Elena Kagan was asked to produce her documents from the time when she served in the White House, she produced every one of them except those that were personal and private. On how many of those 170,000 pages did she assert executive privilege and say: I can't produce them? None. Every single document was turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now, when it comes to Brett Kavanaugh, I can't tell you what is going on here. There is a concealment which is impossible to explain. What would we find in those documents that have been carefully screened by Mr. Burck and then again by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republican majority? I am concerned about it because this is a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land. We know the Court is carefully divided. It is legitimate for us to ask the questions about Judge Kavanaugh's background because of our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent, but we can't ask those questions if they don't produce the documents, and that is where we are today. So my colleagues can come to the floor and talk about Judge Kavanaugh's record leading up to this nomination. They are limited in the information they have been given, and the limitations are unprecedented in the U.S. Senate. The Republicans, when it comes to the Supreme Court, just rewrite the rules. Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee: Sorry. No thanks. We are not interested in interviewing him or even considering him for that appointment. When it came to this judge, Judge Kavanaugh, the ordinary production of documents, by a standard established by the Republicans and Senator Sessions, is being ignored now when it comes to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. We will be given limited information because of this process and have to do our best to carefully review this nominee before he is considered for this lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land. I yield floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 183 on confirmation of the nomination of A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation of the nomination, as I did in the Judiciary Committee. Further, I was necessarily absent for vote Nos. 184 and 185, relative to the nomination of Julius Ness Richardson to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture and yea on confirmation of the nomination, as I did in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 182 on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit. Had I been present, I would have voted aye on the motion to invoke cloture.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we know that President Trump during the course of his campaign made immigration a major issue. Almost from the beginning, he made it clear that he would take a different approach to immigration than previous Presidents of either political party. We can remember when he referred to those coming to the United States from Mexico as murderers and rapists. We can remember when he called for the construction of a 2,000-mile wall between the United States and Mexico, and quickly added: And Mexico will pay for it. We can remember all of the statements that were made during the course of the campaign about immigration and terrorism. We knew we were in for a change in policy with this administration. Some of the things that have occurred have been stunning, and some of them have been horrible. One of those things was the subject of a hearing this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I serve on. It was about the zero tolerance policy. Some may remember that last year President Trump decided to eliminate and abolish the DACA Program. That was a program for those young people brought to the United States as children-- infants, toddlers, and children--who grew up in the United States and believed they were part of this country and future. They learned, probably about the time they became teenagers, that this wasn't true. They didn't have legal status. They weren't documented in the United States. They have lived their whole lives here. They have gone through our schools, and some of them have been amazing students. They had planned to go on with their education and their lives, and they learned they had an obstacle in their path. President Obama created an opportunity for them to continue to live in the United States without fear of deportation and to be able to work here. So 790,000 of them stepped up and paid a $500 filing fee, went through a criminal background check, and were given, on a temporary renewable basis, this protection under President Obama's Executive action. President Trump eliminated that order. In doing so, he eliminated the protection they had to stay here. Their fate and their future were in doubt because of the President's unilateral action. He challenged Congress to pass a law to save them. We tried. At the last minute, a bipartisan bill, agreed to here in the Senate by a majority of the Members, was rejected by President Trump. It also included massive construction of his wall, but he rejected it nevertheless. Today, the only thing protecting those young people--the 790,000--are court orders, which can change any day or any week. The President's effort on immigration and children didn't end with his elimination of the DACA Program. Just a few months ago, they announced something called zero tolerance. Here is how it would work. At our border, any person who presented themselves between ports of entry and wasn't a legal resident of the United States could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor--a criminal misdemeanor--of trying to come into this country without legal documentation. People can come in without legal documentation between ports of entry and claim asylum and refugee status, but no distinctions were made. If a person presented themselves and didn't have legal status, they face this misdemeanor criminal charge. What flowed from that has created a humanitarian disaster. Because of that charge, the Trump administration then ordered the agencies to forcibly remove all the children who were with their parents who came to the border. That meant that almost 3,000 children were forcibly removed from their parents at the border under the zero tolerance policy. That was the law of the land for some period of time, or at least that was the President's order for some period of time, until public reaction from both Republicans and Democrats was so strong that on June 20, President Trump did something very rare in his administration. He almost admitted he made a mistake. He decided to eliminate the family separation policy. The elimination of that policy did not solve the problem for 2,700 children who were in the custody of the U.S. Government. These are children under the age of 18 who were basically spread across the United States, and are being held by government agencies and government contractor facilities. The case went before a judge in the Southern District of California, Judge Sabraw, as to what to do with these children. A number of organizations, like the ACLU, came forward and said: These children should be reunited with their parents. Our government separated them. They should be reunited. He set a time table and schedule for that to occur. A lot was done, but not nearly enough. We had a hearing this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which went on for several hours with representatives from five different agencies of the Trump administration trying to explain how we created this policy and what we have done ever since to reunify these parents with their children. All of us know it is not healthy to take kids away from their parents. The pediatric physicians in America--the American Academy of Pediatrics--came forward and called it institutional child abuse. If that sounds like an exaggeration, imagine if it were your child who was being taken away by our government, or your grandchild, for that matter. I know how I would feel as a parent and a grandparent, and I am sure most people realize it would be a traumatic experience for any parent--or for grandparent, for that matter--to go through. Then, from the side of the children, we know that kind of separation can cause real psychological problems for these kids. I met some of these kids--they were 5 and 6 years old--in Chicago. They had been transported 2,000 miles from the border to Chicago and were being held by our government in a contractual facility--5 and 6 years old. These little kids couldn't figure out what had happened to them in their lives. I will never forget the scene of being in a room with 10 of them and watching 2 little girls walk into the room who were hanging on to one another for dear life. I thought they were twins. They weren't. They weren't even sisters. One of them said: ``No, amigas.'' They had really latched on to one another because they were so uncertain about where they were and what their future would be. Doctors tell us that isn't healthy for children. Yet it continues for too many of these kids. At the hearing we held, we talked about how many kids are still out there who haven't been reunited, who have been separated from their parents by our government agencies under this Trump zero tolerance policy. The numbers change almost by the day, but they estimate that over 700 children are currently separated, and in over 400 of those cases, their parents have been deported. So the parents come to the border, the kids are taken away, the parents are invited to leave the country, and the kids remain. Where are the parents? No record was kept as to where they were going. How will we reunite these kids with their parents? No one really knows. It was clear at this hearing that nobody had even thought in advance about what that meant. When you listened to the testimony of the sworn government witnesses there, it was clear that no one from day one even envisioned what this policy was going to do. One of the people who testified before us--a man whose degree and expertise are in public health--said that he warned this administration. He told them that this was not a healthy thing to do to children, to separate them and put them in some institutional setting. Yet they went forward with this plan, and not a single one of them could point to any effort made to keep track of the kids and the parents so that someday they could be reunited. In fact, what we found was that the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, on June 17, sent out the following tweet. It said: ``We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.'' The sworn testimony this week tells us that is not true, and it wasn't true from the beginning of the zero tolerance policy. There was a policy of separating children from parents. What this member of the Trump Cabinet said was just wrong, just plain wrong. Listen to what the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security said on June 23. In a fact sheet that they sent out across the country, they said: ``The United States Government knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with their families.'' Here we are, 6 weeks later, and they have fallen 700 children short of what they claim they already knew back in June. These were two falsehoods that were promulgated on the American people to try to get them to believe this wasn't a serious problem. Well, we know better, because this Federal judge got serious about it, and he said: I am going to set a deadline for you to put these kids back with their families. Our government failed to meet the deadline. Now read what this Federal judge had to say about it. This judge, incidentally, was appointed by a Republican President, lest you think this is some Democrat who is trying to make political hay. Here is what Judge Sabraw said: ``The practice of separating these families was implemented without any effective system or procedure for tracking the children after they were separated from their parents, enabling communication between the parents and their children after separation, and reuniting the parents and children.'' That is what the Federal judge said about the zero tolerance policy. I can't remember a more heartbreaking and embarrassing chapter in American Government history in recent years--to think that our government set out with a policy to separate these kids from their parents, forcibly removing them and separating them without any plans to reunite them. They argued afterward: We can't send these kids back to parents who might be dangerous. No one argues with that. We can't send them back to smugglers who are pretending to be parents. Well, we can't argue with that either. But the United States accepted responsibility when we took custody of those children. We became what they call in law in loco parentis. In other words, we accepted a parental responsibility for these children. We have not met that responsibility. I asked at some point, who is going to accept responsibility for this humanitarian disaster in this Trump administration? Absolutely no one has. I believe Secretary Nielsen should. I believe she should step down because this policy--this disastrous policy--has given a black eye to the United States. What we have seen happen here is not consistent with our values as a nation. It is not consistent with the kind of treatment we have given to those who have come to our border over the years. Think about the refugees who presented themselves to become part of the United States and our history. Think about the thousands of Cubans who came to this country saying: We want to escape communism. We want to come to the United States. Think about what a valuable contribution they have made. Did we punish them when they came into the United States? We accepted them. Have Cuban Americans been an important part of our country? Ask three U.S. Senators who are Cuban Americans. The answer is in the affirmative. Think about the Soviet Jews, those of the Jewish religion who were living in the Soviet Union and facing all sorts of prejudice and discrimination. They asked for an opportunity to come to the United States, and we opened our arms. Think about the Vietnamese who worked with us during the war trying to protect our soldiers, trying to be a part of the solution to their problems, risking their own lives in the process. We welcomed them to the United States too. Time and again, this country has opened its arms to refugees who needed a helping hand and a place of safety. We did not put them in internment camps. We didn't take their children away to punish them. We said: We will hear you out, and if you have a legitimate claim, a fear of where you live, we will stand by you. We know what is happening in Central America--in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. At this point, there are higher rates of murder, domestic violence, and rape than almost anywhere in our hemisphere, and these people are bringing their kids here for their safety. I met in Chicago with one of the immigration lawyers who represent some of these immigrants, and she said to me: ``Senator, they believe their children will die if they leave them in these countries. They are willing to put their entire life savings on the line to get them to our border in the hope that they can be treated as refugees or people seeking asylum, and they are going to keep coming because the alternative is to accept rape and murder on their children.'' Think about if that were your choice in life, what you would do. Would you do everything in your power to protect these children? Well, they have done it, and they have come to the border, and we answered them by separating them from their children and deporting many of them back to these dangerous countries. This isn't consistent with what America is all about. We should stand together, both political parties, and not only condemn zero tolerance but make a solemn commitment to return these children to their parents. These lost children sadly reflect on our Nation, and we need these children to be with their parents as quickly as possible. That needs to be our highest priority. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, let me join my colleague from North Carolina in his request for humanitarian care and the release of Pastor Brunson. It is something we share on a bipartisan basis. I thank him for calling that to the attention of the Senate and to those who are following our proceedings.

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 to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, from the earliest moments in the Presidential campaign, Donald Trump made it clear that immigration was an important issue to his election. You will recall statements that he made about the construction of the wall on the southern border of the United States. He called it the big, glorious, gorgeous 2,000-mile wall, and he promised us that the Mexicans would pay for it. Over and over he promised us they would pay for it. That wasn't the only reference made to immigration during the course of the campaign, so it came as no surprise, when President Trump was elected, that immigration became a major issue in his administration. It is ironic, in a way, that this Nation of immigrants called America would have such struggles these days with the issue of immigration. Many of us can trace our origins to recent immigrants. In my own case, my mother was an immigrant to this country, and here her son turned out to have a full-time government job as a U.S. Senator. My story is my family's story, but it is also America's story of how the sons and daughters of immigrants came here and tried to--and in many ways did--make a difference in the country we live in. Despite that fact, despite the Statue of Liberty and all of our heritage from immigrants coming to America, there has always been a political voice and a political force that has resisted more immigration. There were people who have said: We have enough. They are going to take our jobs. They don't practice our religions. They don't speak our language. Their food smells funny. We don't like the way they dress. Over the course of decades, if not centuries, that was always part of the American political life, but it was a minority position. With the Trump administration, immigration issues have been front and center. We have seen that many times. Years ago, I introduced the Dream Act. The Dream Act said that if you were brought to this country, undocumented as a baby, as a child, you should have a chance to earn your way to legal status to become part of America's future. I have tried to pass that bill, and I have been successful in the Senate a few times. We have been successful in the House, but it has never made it through both Chambers to become the law of the land. President Obama created a program called DACA, based on the Dream Act, which allowed those who qualified to have 2-year temporary, renewable status, protected from deportation, with the legal right to work. Last year, President Trump abolished the program, and 790,000 young people who were protected--who had registered with the government, who had paid a filing fee, who had gone through a criminal background check and were going to school and working--were told their protection would go away. Were it not for a court decision to protect them, many of them would be deported today. But that court decision can change any day, any week, any month. We tried in February on the floor of the Senate to come up with a bipartisan approach to solving this problem, but we fell short. When a bipartisan group of Senators came up with a proposal, which I supported and which received over 50 votes, at the end of the day, the Trump administration opposed it, so it went down, and we did not answer the need for the passage of legislation. There is a new issue before us, one most Americans are well aware of; that is, the President's announcement of what is known as the zero tolerance policy. It started at the beginning of April, and it was a policy by our government to literally arrest and charge every person who came to this border without legal status. You could come to the United States without legal status and apply to become a person protected with asylum or a refugee. Just coming to the border itself is not a crime if you come for that purpose. But this new zero tolerance policy said that they would charge every person who came to the border as a criminal. Well, one thing led to another because once a person has been charged as a criminal--even as a misdemeanant criminal--in most circumstances, their children, minors in their custody, are removed from them. That is exactly what happened. In 2,700 cases, our government, under the President's zero tolerance policy, forcibly removed children from their parents. We had a hearing on it today, and it is the reason I have come to the floor. We asked the heads of the agencies who created this policy some basic questions. We asked them if they had created a means of determining what would happen to the children, where the parents would be, and how they would be reunited. The sad answer, the real answer, is no. So when a Federal judge in Southern California stepped in and said that the zero tolerance policy must end, and now there must be a reunification of these families--parents with their children--it turned out that this Government of the United States of America did not have the records to reunite parents and children. They literally turned thousands of people loose, trying to match up these kids with their parents--kids who had been separated by our government at the border. You think to yourself, as one of my colleagues said: When you take your child into Chuck E. Cheese, they sometimes give them little plastic bracelets so that they don't get lost and we know who that little child belongs to. Our Federal Government didn't do that, and, as a consequence, thousands--thousands--of children were turned loose into a system, and when the court order was applied we couldn't comply; we couldn't reunify them. Where are we today? Today, out of the 2,700 or more children who were separated from their parents, we have reunified about 2,000 of them, roughly, but for 711, we are still short of bringing the reunification together; the parents are not reunited with their children. For 94 of these children, we do not have information. We don't know where their parents are. Think about that. In the United States of America, with our vast wealth and talent and resources and computers, we removed children from their families and tossed them into the bureaucratic sea. I am not sure how this story is going to end, but it is a pretty sad situation. One of my colleagues, Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut, asked the assembled representatives of the Trump administration the following question: Do you believe that the zero tolerance policy was a success? Not one of them did. Do you believe that the United States should engage in further family separation? Not one of them did. So we know it was a mistake, and we know there are still victims out there--kids who have not been reunited. The obvious question is: What can we do about it? Well, we can use every resource at our disposal to make sure that we bring these children back in contact with their parents. I went to one of the shelters in Chicago about 5 weeks ago to meet with 10 of these kids. Their ages ranged from about 5 years of age to 14, and the youngest ones were from Central America and Mexico. They came into the room. I remember two little girls holding hands, walking into the room, cutest little things, and they looked like twins because their hair was fixed the same way. It turns out that they were not twins; they were not even sisters. One of the little girls said: ``No, amigas''--friends. I watched them. They held on to one another through the entire meeting, and as they left the room, they held hands together. They were clinging to the only connectivity--the only anchors--in their lives: other children who were going through the same experience. They had been forcibly separated from their parents. I brought some cards with me, made by kids of my staff in Chicago-- just cards with stickers on them, construction paper with little messages, some in Spanish, some in English. I let the kids choose from these cards if they wanted them. Every single one of them took one and hung on to it like it was a Christmas gift. What is it like for these children to be separated at that early age? I am not an expert. I have been a dad and a grandfather, if that gives me any claim to expertise. But when you turn to the experts, the pediatric physicians, they say that it is institutional child abuse to forcibly remove children from their parents and set them off in a strange setting, this institutional setting, for weeks and for months, and that is exactly what we did. The President finally realized that he was wrong and reversed the policy, but the kids are still there. The kids have not been united, and we have not solved the problems that face this country. There are a lot of things that divide Democrats and Republicans in this town. I hope there are several things we can all agree on. No. 1, the United States needs border security. We can't have open borders for everyone who wants to come to this country. It wouldn't work, it wouldn't be safe, and I am not advocating that. I doubt that many people are. Secondly, we need to make sure that dangerous people who want to come into this country are stopped, and anyone who is here, undocumented and dangerous, should be removed. I think we all agree on that. The third thing we need--clearly need--is comprehensive immigration reform. Our immigration system is desperately broken. It doesn't serve our needs in so many different ways. I was part of an effort 5 years ago when eight Senators--four Democrats and four Republicans joined together. John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Michael Bennet, Bob Menendez, Jeff Flake, Marco Rubio, and I spent about 6 months writing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. We all had to give a little. That is what happens when you are in a political situation. We brought the bill to the floor of the Senate, and it passed with 64 votes. That is a pretty healthy margin in a Chamber that is often bitterly divided. We had comprehensive immigration reform. So what happened to it? It crossed the Rotunda into the House of Representatives and disappeared. They never held a hearing, and they never called a bill. They ignored it completely. They left the mess that we now have in place. Well, we need to return to this issue, and we need to do it quickly. We need to make sure that we have another comprehensive immigration reform bill that starts addressing the basic issues we addressed in our last effort. That, to me, is the only way to put us on the right track to do the right thing. In the meantime, there are too many victims, and too darn many of them are children. We can do better as a nation. The United States is a caring and compassionate nation. We have proved it over and over again throughout our history. We need to do it again. National Defense Authorization Bill Mr. President, I want to discuss the conference report that is coming over for the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. I want to thank Senator John McCain, who has been absent from the Chamber for months, but we think of him every day and remember fondly his amazing ability to shepherd this bill through the Senate and through conference committee; Jack Reed, the Democrat serving on that same defense authorization committee; Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has stepped in to fill in for John McCain in his absence; Congressman Thornberry, Congressman Smith, and all of those who worked on this conference agreement. Since I am the ranking Democrat or vice chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I know how hard it is to take a bill of this complexity and size and work out a political compromise. But that was achieved with the National Defense Authorization Act, and it was done with many extraordinary efforts when it came to defense and foreign policy. No compromise is perfect, but I am troubled and disappointed by several particular provisions in the bill, and I wanted to speak to them on the floor before the bill comes up for consideration later this week. This last January, Secretary of Defense Mattis, whom I respect greatly and voted for, argued in his national defense strategy that we were seeing ``the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition,'' especially against Russia and China. I don't think anyone disputes that, and yet two high-profile provisions in this Defense authorization bill weaken the pressure that we should be exerting against these two nations. Russia has illegally seized territory in Ukraine and Georgia. It has protected the murderous Syrian regime. It has murdered its critics with chemical attacks on foreign soil. It has attempted to undermine democratic elections across the Western world, from France to our own United States. For that reason, Congress put in place tough sanctions against Russia last year. They passed with overwhelming votes in the House and the Senate. I voted for them as did most of the Members from both sides of the aisle. Many of those sanctions required the President to impose the sanctions. It was mandatory that he do this. It gave Congress the right to review those sanctions if the President decided to waive and not apply them. Why? It is sad to say that this congressional review was included because no one trusted President Trump to stand up to Vladimir Putin. He believes the word of Vladimir Putin over that of our intelligence community professionals. Unfortunately, our President has shown on almost a daily basis, that he simply doesn't have it in him to stand up for American interests if Vladimir Putin disagrees. Yet the conference report before us provides the administration with an even bigger national security waiver on these sanctions, a larger escape clause so that the President could avoid applying sanctions to Russia, and it removes Congress's ability to review that decision. I am sure the Secretary of Defense will use his powers in this bill wisely to allow the United States to help key allies wean themselves off of Russian military equipment. The problem is that this is not the only way the administration can use this broad waiver. It makes congressional review more, not less, important, and yet the conference report, I think, goes in thing wrong direction. We need to be firm with Russia. They need to understand there is a price to pay for what they are doing to their neighbors, as well as to the rest of the world and especially to the electoral process of the United States. It was only last week that we received the latest notification that one of my fellow colleagues in this Chamber has had her office hacked by the Russians during the course of her reelection campaign. This is not the end of Russian intrigue, and we have to address this Russian threat with our eyes wide open. I wish the Defense authorization bill were more explicit in that regard. This conference agreement also waters down sanctions against China. Last year, a large Chinese telecommunications company was caught redhanded evading U.S. sanctions on North Korea and Iran. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense also stopped selling its phones to the military because it ``may pose an unacceptable risk to personnel, information, and mission.'' These phones from China ``may pose an unacceptable risk to personnel, information, and mission.'' Our Department of Defense has warned us that this Chinese equipment can be dangerous if used by our military establishment in the United States. We responded forcefully to these repeated violations of the law and national security risk, passing a provision to prohibit this company from doing any business in the United States, but, again, just as with the Russia provision, this was watered down from prohibiting it from doing business with the U.S. Government. What it means is that the Chinese telecommunications company, which we fear is going to make us weaker in terms of national security, is prohibited for business with our government but is able to sell its products in the general commerce of America. That cannot make our country any safer. The agreement also contains a comprehensive overhaul of the way we protect our economy from national security threats. So perhaps next time, if the Chinese violate it or any other country does, we can catch them before damage is done. We could have made this provision much stronger. Another reason why I am disappointed by this conference committee report is the irresponsible removal of provisions related to Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. The House bill contained five provisions restricting security engagement with Burma, imposing sanctions on Burmese officials responsible for human rights abuses, and requiring the State Department to make a determination on whether the atrocities committed against the Rohingya people, a minority, constituted ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, or genocide. These provisions were included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. Similar language passed out of our Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a stand-alone bill with bipartisan support. It looked like these provisions were destined to be in the final work product. We are all aware of the horrific persecution of the Rohingya people by the Burmese military, stemming from decades of deep-seated misconceptions and hatred that have led to violence, most recently last August, when a small group of militants attacked a security outpost. The Burmese military brutally responded in a scorched-earth campaign against the Rohingya people, killing thousands, including children, violating their women, forcibly starving their people, and burning down their villages. More than 700,000 Rohingya people fled Burma to nearby Bangladesh, as they had been overwhelmed by the Burmese military and their forces. In neighboring Bangladesh, they were forced into squalid refugee camps, which I visited. I know the Bangladeshis and others are doing their best to help them, but these are horrible living conditions for anyone. In Burma the government authorities continue to deny that any of this took place. They burned and overtook former Rohingya villages. They ignored calls for safe and voluntary repatriation and accountability. I am particularly disappointed in Aung San Suu Kyi. Her silence on these problems is hard to explain. Many of us admired her for a long period of time and the courage she showed against the Burmese military, but when it comes to this moral humanitarian choice, her silence is distressing. Just this month, an extensive and devastating report released by the group Fortify Rights found that the Burmese authorities had actually made the preparations for attacks against the Rohingya people before the August 25 militant attack, which they blamed for their actions. Groups such as Fortify Rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and countless others have even documented the Burmese military officials and units responsible for the crimes against the Rohingya, led by General Min Aung Hlaing. Despite this, our President has been slow to sanction military officials. The Trump administration has been sitting on a potential list for months and so far has sanctioned one person only. Here in the Senate, one of our Senate leaders, dismayed, continues to block movement of any bipartisan sanction effort aimed for those responsible for this atrocity. I am sorry to say that what looked like an easy bipartisan provision to condemn this behavior by the Burmese military is a casualty of this conference committee, and it is another reason that I am troubled by the work product. Finally, I want to note that this conference agreement provides zero paid increases for defense civilian personnel. That is just unacceptable. The President did not request an increase in his budget proposal even though Secretary Mattis has called their contributions essential to our military operations for everything from acquisition to policy expertise. Congress should exercise its independent judgment to provide this civilian pay increase. After all, we cannot expect to continue to recruit and retain the best civilian workers in our military without appropriate pay. I am glad that the Appropriations Committee was providing modest increases for all Federal and civilian employees, but every committee in every branch of government must take responsibility for this in the future. I understand that one cannot demand perfection in the legislative process, and there are many provisions in this conference report that I appreciate and the work that was put into it. The conferees rejected unrelated poison pill environmental provisions from the House and retained a very strong Senate statement in support of NATO. These are two of the hundreds of good provisions contained in this bill and conference report. But as I stated at the outset, I believe the agreement also makes improper changes in the key areas that I have outlined, and for those reasons I will be voting against cloture on the conference agreement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I want to say a few words about a special anniversary. Earlier this month, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the very first Special Olympic Games, which took place at Soldier Field in Chicago, IL. The Special Olympics didn't just give people a chance to compete; it gave them a chance to come out of the shadows. It is hard to imagine, but before the Special Olympics, people with intellectual disabilities were offered little education and oftentimes were left in isolation and despair. Thankfully, Eunice Shriver shared the compassion and vision to create these games, but I want to talk about someone whose role in the games creation is often overlooked: Illinois Supreme Court justice and my friend, Anne Burke. Before becoming a justice on Illinois' Supreme Court, Anne was a physical education teacher. She had an idea to create a summer jamboree where kids with special needs could compete in an athletic competition at Soldier Field, just like other children who attended day camps across the State of Illinois. So Anne took that idea to Washington, DC, and Eunice Shriver. What did Eunice Shriver say to Anne's proposal? Unacceptable. It was simply too small. Eunice decided it needed to be bigger. With Eunice's help, Anne returned home to Chicago, rewrote the proposal, and made it a national Olympic program. Eunice joined Anne in Chicago on July 20, 1968, and they celebrated the first Special Olympic Games. During those first games in 1968, Mayor Richard Daley told Eunice: ``The world will never be the same after this.'' Eunice Shriver and Anne Burke knew it. Eunice boldly predicted that 1 million of the world's intellectually challenged would someday compete in these games. Well, she was wrong. Today, more than 5 million athletes train year- round in all 50 States and 172 countries. Here are just a couple examples of how the world changed after that summer day in Chicago. In 2003, after the games were held in Dublin, Ireland rewrote its antidiscrimination laws. Across the Middle East, people who were once forced into the shadows now play soccer in the light of day. That is the legacy of the Special Olympics: inclusion. I will close with one more story from those first games at Soldier Field. After one athlete, Frank Olivo, finished competing, he said: ``People always put me down. And said, I wouldn't amount to anything. And now they say, he does amount to something. He's special.'' That is what makes the Special Olympics so special. Congratulations to the Special Olympics for 50 years of making athletes like Frank understand that hearts beat the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, first let me thank my colleague and friend from Maine. If you ask the American people from one corner of this country to the other, what are they worried about, what are they concerned about, what you have just talked about is the top 1, 2, 3 issue: the accessibility and affordability of health insurance, time and again. Some of us have been in a predicament in life when someone we love was very sick and had no health insurance. People never forget it as long as they live--people who live every single day with that prospect of not having health insurance or it is so darned expensive they can't pay for it. I thank the Senator from Maine for the comments he made regarding the efforts by this administration to undermine and sabotage health insurance. It is one thing to say you are against ObamaCare, you are against the Affordable Care Act; the obvious question is, What would you replace it with? When given a chance, the other side of the aisle had nothing. That is why, thankfully, we stopped their efforts to repeal it. You and I, and everyone on this side of the aisle, is open to talking about making it better, make it work more efficiently, and reach more people in a more efficient way. But just saying we are going to get rid of it and then we will talk about it later is not an answer. I thank the Senator for the comments that he made. Madam President, I am going to address the second issue that comes up when you talk to people across America who are concerned with it, and I will start with a question: Have you ever, ever, in your whole life, seen an ad on television for prescription drugs--ever? If the answer is no, I know one thing for sure: You don't own a television because the average American sees nine--nine--television prescription drug ads every single day. They see nine every day. You know what I am talking about; they mumble as fast as they can: If you take this you may die; don't take it if you are allergic to it. All of those ads, all of those names of all those drugs--it took about 20 times for me to watch the XARELTO ad to get to the point where I could spell XARELTO. I am not sure I have it right still. But here is what it is all about. Why does pharma--pharmaceutical companies--spend so much money on television advertising? What is this all about? You can't buy most of these drugs over the counter; you need a doctor. Here is why they do it: They believe, if they keep suggesting to you that this is a drug that might help you, when you go to the doctor you will ask him or her: Doctor, should I be taking XARELTO? Well, the doctor may say to you that you don't need it--or may say to you that you can take a generic that is a lot cheaper and does the same thing. But in many, many cases, the doctor says ``Let me write a prescription for XARELTO for you,'' and what we have happening across the United States is the increasing cost of healthcare for everyone, which is being driven by the increasing costs of prescription drug prices. You see, in the United States of America, there is no control over the increases in prescription drug pricing. So these companies that spend billions of dollars advertising on television end up getting more of their drugs prescribed, making more money, raising their prices, and it goes on and on, and we see the cost of healthcare increasing. How many countries in the world today allow drug companies to advertise on television the way they do in the United States? There are two--the United States and New Zealand. That is it. What does the American Medical Association--the doctors of America--have to say about this television advertising of prescription drugs? They say it is a bad idea because what it does is incentivize first the patients and then the doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs than are necessary, and that drives up the cost of healthcare. So I decided to try to address this. There are lots of ways you could address it. I decided one of the things we might do is simply do something that is fair and open and honest: Ask the drug companies in their ads to disclose the price of the drug. Simply that: How much does it cost? Put it in the ad. Well, you might be surprised. Here is one for you. Have you seen the ads for the drug HUMIRA? HUMIRA. I bet you have. I have--plenty. It was a drug originally designed to treat rheumatoid arthritis, but then they found that it also could impact psoriasis. Most of us know, psoriasis is a skin problem. For many of us, it is just a tiny little patch on the elbow; for some people, it is more serious. But they now advertise that HUMIRA could be used for psoriasis. That is good to know. Here is what they don't tell you. Do you know what HUMIRA costs? Do you know how much it costs each month for HUMIRA? $5,500. They don't advertise that because, for $5,000 a month, I think I can live with that patch on my elbow. What I think, and many agree, is that we ought to move to the point where the pharmaceutical companies tell us the cost of the drug in their advertisement. That is not unreasonable, is it? In fact, it is so reasonable that--hang onto your hats--President Donald Trump and this Senator happen to agree on it. The President, at a press conference a couple months ago, said: Let's have pharma advertise in their advertising the cost of the drug. I thought to myself, Well, that is an issue that I have been working on for a while. I agree with the administration. Maybe we can do it together. So I went to my colleague and friend, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and I asked him: Will you cosponsor an amendment to the bill on the floor today that gives appropriations to the Food and Drug Administration to support asking pharma to disclose their prices on their advertising? We introduced this amendment, and, frankly, with 76 percent of the American people supporting the idea, we have an interesting coalition: Durbin, Democrat of Illinois; Grassley, Republican of Iowa; President Donald Trump; and--I came to learn last night--the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Azar. He called me. I don't know him. I have never met him. But he said: I want to tell you that we support your amendment, the Durbin-Grassley amendment for the disclosure of the cost of drugs. We think it is a good thing. We think it will start to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. That is a great thing. It turns out the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration also supports it. So now we have kind of an amazing coalition: Democrats and Republicans--here in the Senate, as well as in the White House, the administration--coming together. How often does that happen around here? Not that often. Sadly, it doesn't. So let's seize this opportunity. I am asking those who are managing this bill to include this language--this appropriations language in this amendment in the bill as a step toward giving us some control over the increasing cost of prescription drugs. Pharma hates this amendment like the devil hates holy water. They don't want to tell people that HUMIRA costs $5,500 a month. It kind of spoils your ad when you are talking about psoriasis, and it comes out to be over $5,000 a month for their drug. So they don't want to tell you. They hope it gets lost in the system. I think it is better for Americans to know what they are getting into. Why is pharma afraid to tell the consumers how much their drugs cost? We shouldn't wait to be surprised when we go to the pharmacy, when we stand by the register to pay for what we are buying. People have a right to know. You know the price of a car before you buy it. Don't you? How about the price of that washer and dryer? I looked at those over the weekend with my wife. We know those prices right now. Why shouldn't we know the price of those drugs? So I am calling on my colleagues--we have amendments Nos. 3611 and 3612. Let's put them on this bill. Let's do something. Let's do the first thing we have done this year--the very first thing we have done this year to address the serious concern which Americans have on the cost of prescription drugs. I see my colleague and friend, Senator Grassley, is here. I thank him for joining me on this amendment. I yield the floor.