Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have two statements for the Record that I want to enter into the Record, but I would like to say my debt of gratitude to the Senator from Massachusetts. Members of the Senate go to parades and salute the military, and we give speeches on the floor about how much we appreciate them and their sacrifice. This is an illustration of the Senate at its worst. We should be standing behind these men and women who have given their lives to our country, who will risk their lives for our country, some earning Bronze Stars, Purple Hearts for doing it. Listen, I want to tell you, if we are respecting these men and women, we should give them the promotions they have worked their whole lives to achieve and, in so doing, keep our military the strongest in the world. I respect these men and women, and I think what is happening on the floor of the Senate is not only dangerous but it is insulting. That is the only word that can be used for one Senator to hold up 184 men and women and their promotions in the military. I never thought I would see that day in the U.S. Senate. Whatever the reason, it is time to bring the charade to an end. We can debate the policy in the committee and on the floor, wherever we wish; but when it comes to these individuals, do not hold these men and women in the military hostage to the political debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for raising these issues.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, most Americans spent more time at home watching television during the pandemic. I know I did. And what was one of the most common commercials we saw? Direct-to-consumer drug ads. You know, those fancy commercials with catchy music, celebrity actors, and swinging golf clubs? Even before COVID, Americans saw an average of nine ads per day. Every year, the pharmaceutical industry spends more than $6 billion on ads--$6 billion. That is the same as the entire budget of the Food and Drug Administration. In fact, we know that most top Pharma companies spend more on their advertising budget than on drug research and development. It turns out, the United States is one of only two countries in the world that even allows these commercials. Can you guess the other? New Zealand. Do you want to know why Pharma spends so much money promoting their drugs? Because it increases their profit margins. Pharma pushes these ads because they steer patients to specific, expensive medications-- whether a patient actually needs the drugs or not. And sometimes it is easier in a 10-minute meeting for the doctor to just write the prescription than to take the time to explain why the drug may not be needed or a less expensive, generic version might be a better choice. Pharma thinks if they pummel you with enough ads that you finally learn how to spell Xarelto, you will insist to your doctor that this is the blood thinner you need though a less expensive option would be just as effective. With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information--don't take Xarelto if you are allergic to Xarelto--but kept in the dark on one crucial factor--the price. Take Rinvoq, which is manufactured by Illinois-based AbbVie for eczema and arthritis. It is now the most-advertised drug on television--replacing two other AbbVie medications, Humira and Skyrizi. AbbVie spent $315 million last year on TV ads for Rinvoq alone. But nowhere in the ad do they tell you it costs $6,100 per month. Well, Senator Grassley and I think it is time for Big Pharma to end the secrecy. If they are advertising a drug, they should disclose the price right up front. It is a basic transparency measure for patients. Consumer protection 101. So today, we are reintroducing bipartisan legislation to require price disclosures in direct-to-consumer drugs ads, or DTC ads. Our plan is simple, and it has actually passed the Senate once before. Here is why we think this transparency in drug ads is so important. Earlier this year, a study found that more than two-thirds of drugs advertised on television were considered, quote, ``low-value.'' Those pricey drugs that show you whitewater rafting or rock climbing? They are often no better than other, more affordable drugs. One-in-five Americans do not take their medications as prescribed because of the cost. They cut their pills in half or skip doses because they can't afford to take their medications as prescribed. So don't you think it is worth knowing right away that Rinvoq could run you $6,100 per month rather than waiting for that moment of truth at the pharmacy counter? Don't just take my word for it. These advertisements often urge you to ``ask your doctor if it is right for you.'' Well, we asked those doctors. The American Medical Association says: ``Direct-to-consumer advertising inflates demand for new and expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.'' As Democrats are working in Washington to avoid default and prevent our economy from crashing and to preserve the solvency of Medicare, we asked the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to look at the impact of these DTC ads on Medicare's budget. The GAO found that between 2016 and 2018, drugs advertised on television accounted for 58 percent of Medicare's spending. These DTC ads ballooned Medicare spending on a small handful of drugs, costing the Medicare Program $320 billion over 3 years. Humira topped the list with $500 million in advertising in 2018, which contributed to $2.4 billion in Medicare costs. I used this chart in 2017 when I first introduced this legislation, and when the monthly cost of Humira was $3,700 per month. But as you can see, the cost of Humira is now $6,900 per month. Shouldn't AbbVie-- makers of Humira--disclose that price to you so you can use this information when making treatment decisions? If they did, AbbVie may think twice before raising the price. Our DTC bill is supported by Democrats and Republicans, the AARP, American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, and 88 percent of Americans. President Trump supported our bill. This bill has passed the Senate before. And several Republicans have included this provision in larger packages they have supported. The only opposition comes from one place: Pharma. They hate the idea of being honest with patients about the price of their drugs and they are looking for Senators to help keep their secret. So when the Senate considers drug pricing legislation in the coming weeks, I will ask for a vote on this bipartisan policy. Senator Grassley has been a great partner in this effort; and we will work to bring this dose of sunshine to the airwaves. It is about time Americans catch a break when it comes to the cost of drugs. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam 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 California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 24 years ago today, tragedy struck Littleton, CO. It was a day that began like any other but--in a matter of hours--would scar our Nation forever. Today, the word ``Columbine'' is synonymous with an act of terror that every parent fears: school shootings. If you had told me 24 years ago that the scenes we witnessed that morning--students and teachers being shot down, traumatized children being escorted out of classrooms by armed officers, if you told me this would become a common--almost weekly--occurrence in America, I wouldn't have believed you. But here we are. In the years since Columbine, hundreds of American students have died--or been injured--in school shootings, and thousands more have been traumatized. Gunfire has become the No. 1 cause of death for our Nation's children. And one in five Americans now say they have lost a loved one to gun violence. Some politicians have resigned themselves to the idea that this is just part of American life we must accept. Shame on them. This is a uniquely American crisis--and lawmakers have the power to resolve it. Yet Republicans in Congress actually want to take steps backwards. We are seeing that in the House right now, where the MAGA majority is trying to wipe off the books a gun law restricting braces that turn pistols into short-barreled rifles. This is the kind of weapon that was carried by the mass shooters in Dayton, OH; Boulder, CO; and just a few weeks ago at a school shooting in Nashville, TN. Parents shouldn't have to worry that, when they send their kids to school, they may not return home. Children shouldn't be forced to live with the fear that their classroom could be the next target. People of all political stripes are calling on Congress to act. Let's start by keeping assault weapons and short-barreled rifles off of our streets and out of our classrooms.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 2, on adoption of the Van Hollen amendment to provide grants fire station construction through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 85. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, most Americans spent more time at home watching television during the pandemic. I know I did. And what was one of the most common commercials we saw? Direct-to-consumer drug ads. You know, those fancy commercials with catchy music, celebrity actors, and swinging golf clubs? Even before COVID, Americans saw an average of nine ads per day. Every year, the pharmaceutical industry spends more than $6 billion on ads--$6 billion. That is the same as the entire budget of the Food and Drug Administration. In fact, we know that most top Pharma companies spend more on their advertising budget than on drug research and development. It turns out, the United States is one of only two countries in the world that even allows these commercials. Can you guess the other? New Zealand. Do you want to know why Pharma spends so much money promoting their drugs? Because it increases their profit margins. Pharma pushes these ads because they steer patients to specific, expensive medications-- whether a patient actually needs the drugs or not. And sometimes it is easier in a 10-minute meeting for the doctor to just write the prescription than to take the time to explain why the drug may not be needed or a less expensive, generic version might be a better choice. Pharma thinks if they pummel you with enough ads that you finally learn how to spell Xarelto, you will insist to your doctor that this is the blood thinner you need though a less expensive option would be just as effective. With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information--don't take Xarelto if you are allergic to Xarelto--but kept in the dark on one crucial factor--the price. Take Rinvoq, which is manufactured by Illinois-based AbbVie for eczema and arthritis. It is now the most-advertised drug on television--replacing two other AbbVie medications, Humira and Skyrizi. AbbVie spent $315 million last year on TV ads for Rinvoq alone. But nowhere in the ad do they tell you it costs $6,100 per month. Well, Senator Grassley and I think it is time for Big Pharma to end the secrecy. If they are advertising a drug, they should disclose the price right up front. It is a basic transparency measure for patients. Consumer protection 101. So today, we are reintroducing bipartisan legislation to require price disclosures in direct-to-consumer drugs ads, or DTC ads. Our plan is simple, and it has actually passed the Senate once before. Here is why we think this transparency in drug ads is so important. Earlier this year, a study found that more than two-thirds of drugs advertised on television were considered, quote, ``low-value.'' Those pricey drugs that show you whitewater rafting or rock climbing? They are often no better than other, more affordable drugs. One-in-five Americans do not take their medications as prescribed because of the cost. They cut their pills in half or skip doses because they can't afford to take their medications as prescribed. So don't you think it is worth knowing right away that Rinvoq could run you $6,100 per month rather than waiting for that moment of truth at the pharmacy counter? Don't just take my word for it. These advertisements often urge you to ``ask your doctor if it is right for you.'' Well, we asked those doctors. The American Medical Association says: ``Direct-to-consumer advertising inflates demand for new and expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.'' As Democrats are working in Washington to avoid default and prevent our economy from crashing and to preserve the solvency of Medicare, we asked the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to look at the impact of these DTC ads on Medicare's budget. The GAO found that between 2016 and 2018, drugs advertised on television accounted for 58 percent of Medicare's spending. These DTC ads ballooned Medicare spending on a small handful of drugs, costing the Medicare Program $320 billion over 3 years. Humira topped the list with $500 million in advertising in 2018, which contributed to $2.4 billion in Medicare costs. I used this chart in 2017 when I first introduced this legislation, and when the monthly cost of Humira was $3,700 per month. But as you can see, the cost of Humira is now $6,900 per month. Shouldn't AbbVie-- makers of Humira--disclose that price to you so you can use this information when making treatment decisions? If they did, AbbVie may think twice before raising the price. Our DTC bill is supported by Democrats and Republicans, the AARP, American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, and 88 percent of Americans. President Trump supported our bill. This bill has passed the Senate before. And several Republicans have included this provision in larger packages they have supported. The only opposition comes from one place: Pharma. They hate the idea of being honest with patients about the price of their drugs and they are looking for Senators to help keep their secret. So when the Senate considers drug pricing legislation in the coming weeks, I will ask for a vote on this bipartisan policy. Senator Grassley has been a great partner in this effort; and we will work to bring this dose of sunshine to the airwaves. It is about time Americans catch a break when it comes to the cost of drugs. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there is a grave threat to America's future lurking online. Big Tech giants and other online platforms are working every day to capture the minds of our children in order to pad their profits. Toddlers, before they can walk or barely talk, have learned to reach out and touch that bright little screen. Mothers and fathers on car rides and plane trips trust that little screen will buy them quiet time. Captivated, mesmerized, even hypnotized, the screen experience continues. And unless parents are very careful, it can go from bad to worse. It starts with music and games, which many of the parents find harmless. As the child grows up and graduates to a cell phone, there is an opportunity to move to a new level of information and communication. Let's face it, even the most caring, conscientious parent struggles to keep up with all the apps and options. And the producers of these online experiences are determined to work on the brains of these children, capture their little customers in the process, and pad their profits. So who is protecting our kids from internet profiteers and predators? I am sorry to say, almost no one. In fact, our laws are written to protect the predators, not the kids. Clearly, every child can benefit from a safe online experience. They can make friends, expand their knowledge, learn skills. But social media, we all know, has a dangerous dark side. Innocent children are lured into online environments and powerful algorithms working to keep them there. Unsuspecting kids can be sexually exploited and their childhood images captured forever by predators and profit-taking abusers. Drug pushers no longer search for playgrounds to sell deadly narcotics. Two clicks on the internet bring them their new young customers. Many children are bullied and harassed online or pressured into dangerous, deadly behavior. Rose Bronstein is a mother from Chicago. She knows how cruel and dangerous the online world can be. Rose's son Nate was a 10th grader at a private school when he started being taunted by classmates using texts and Snapchat. The bullying of her son was vicious, and it included messages urging Nate to kill himself. Nate died by suicide at the age of 15. We have known for years about the online dangers to children's privacy and safety. We have talked a lot about them. We have even held hearings in Congress about them. Journalists have written so many articles about the dangers, but the problem has only grown worse. Research into exactly how social media use affects children is still in its early stage, largely because of Big Tech's failure to adequately monitor, report, and prevent violation of children's online privacy and safety. But a picture is emerging, and it is alarming. This chart tells a story. The gold line you see here shows the amount of time teenagers spend scrolling through social media and watching online videos. According to Common Sense, a group that tracks media use by young kids and teens, kids spend an average of nearly 3 hours a day on sites like Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. That is a nearly 60-percent increase in the last 6 years. This white line shows that an increase in teens' use of social media has been accompanied by a sharp spike in teen depression. According to the CDC, between 2013 and 2021, the percentage of teens who reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness shot up 42 percent-- between 2013 and 2021. The blue line shows what happens with girls' mental health. Today, nearly one in three girls in America say they have seriously considered suicide. That is a 34-percent spike in the past decade. We have given tech companies nearly three decades to police themselves. They have failed miserably, and our children are paying the price. Our teenagers are in a mental health crisis. Congress must impose stronger, enforceable online protections for kids. Our children are not commodities, and we can't continue to expect parents and victims alone to stand up to Big Tech with few ways to hold tech companies accountable. Two months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, held a hearing on online threats to children's safety. We heard powerful testimony from those working to increase children's privacy and safety online. They included law enforcement, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the American Psychological Association, and the child internet safety advocacy organization known as Fairplay. We also heard from victims. The stories were frightening, frightening to every parent and every grandparent, and heartbreaking. Charlotte--and I am using a pseudonym here--didn't attend the hearing, but she has allowed me to tell her story in the hope that it may help others who have been victimized online, as she has been, by sexual predators. Charlotte was 16 years old when she first visited a social media site that a friend told her about. It sounded so exciting, she said, a place where she could meet people from all over the world. I won't use the name of the site, but you would recognize it immediately. It is used by tens of millions of people every single day. Among the people Charlotte met online was a man who showered her with attention and compliments, gained her trust, and eventually enticed Charlotte into performing sex acts for him over the webcam and sending explicit videos to him. Maybe that sounds shocking to you, but be prepared. Research shows that over one-third of teenagers today believe that it is normal to share the same sorts of images and videos that Charlotte shared online--one-third. She was still in high school when the online harassment began. First came anonymous emails, then a phone call to her parents' house calling her vile names. Eventually, the images she shared with that man she thought was a friend would be posted on more than 100 websites across the world, often with her name and identifiable information included. Charlotte filed her first of six police reports about the images when she reached the age of 18. Eventually, she, her mother, her boyfriend, and child safety groups would file hundreds of reports with social media providers around the world trying to get these horrible images taken down, often to no avail. While she was in college studying to be a teacher--her lifelong dream--the images were posted again, along with her name and the name of her college. When the university found out about it, it canceled her student teaching placement and threatened to withhold her degree. She was a teacher of special education at a middle school when one of her students saw the images again online. Charlotte told her principal. She was fired a few days later. Again and again, it was Charlotte who was blamed, not the abusers who tormented her online. Over the years, Charlotte tried three times to take her own life. It has now been 14 years since she met that predator online, but the images continue to circulate again and again. The abuse never stops, and Charlotte says she doubts she will ever feel safe again. This Senate can help Charlotte and countless other young people who are sexually abused online each year by passing a bill that I am introducing today. It is called the Stop CSAM Act. CSAM, C-S-A-M, stands for ``child sexual abuse material.'' Federal law still uses the old term--``pornography,'' ``child pornography''--but that is misleading because pornography implies consent, and children under the age of 18 cannot legally consent to the creation or sharing of sexually explicit images of themselves. So these images are, by definition, evidence of a crime. Yet, under current law, it is extremely difficult to bring lawsuits against tech companies that allow child sexual abuse materials to be posted on their websites. How can this be, you ask? Here is how. The Communications Decency Act of 1996--remember that year--contains a section, section 230, that offers near-total immunity to Big Tech. As a result, victims like Charlotte have no way to force tech companies to remove content posted on their sites--not even these child sexual abuse horrible images. My bill, the Stop CSAM Act, is going to change that. It would protect victims and promote accountability within the tech industry. Companies that fail to remove CSAM and related imagery after being notified about them would face significant fines. They would also be required to produce annual reports detailing their efforts to keep children safe from online sex predators, and any company that promotes or facilitates online child exploitation could face new criminal and civil penalties. When section 230 was created in 1996, Mark Zuckerberg was in the sixth grade. Facebook and social media sites didn't even exist. It is time that we rewrite the law to reflect the reality of today's world. A bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Graham and Blumenthal would also help to do that. It is called the EARN IT Act, and it would let CSAM victims--these child sexual abuse victims--have their day in court by amending section 230 to eliminate Big Tech's near-total immunity from liability and responsibility. When we learned two decades ago that Big Tobacco was lying about their efforts to hook kids on smoking, Congress took action to establish reasonable guardrails to protect public health, and the courts held Big Tobacco accountable for the damage and death it had caused. Now, Big Tech is using the same playbook in order to profit by hooking America's kids on its dangerous products. It is time to hold them accountable just as we did with Big Tobacco. I will close with one more story from our committee hearing. Kristin Bride is a mother from Oregon. After being bullied relentlessly by supposed friends using Snapchat and anonymous messaging apps, Kristin's 16-year-old son Carson hanged himself in his family's garage. After his death, Kristin discovered the online taunts they had been throwing at her son. She sued the anonymous messaging apps in California State court for failing to enforce even their own safety standard. The court dismissed the lawsuit, and what did they cite? Section 230, our law from 1996. As Kristin told our committee, ``It shouldn't take grieving parents filing lawsuits to hold the industry accountable for their dangerous and addictive product design.'' We have the bipartisan support in the Senate to protect our children and grandchildren online. It is time that we use it. Madam 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 California (Mrs. Feinstein, is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.