Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I have served in the House and Senate for a number of years. One of the issues that has always been of interest to me is tobacco. I lost my father to lung cancer when I was 14 years old. He was 53. Two packs of Camels a day, and he died of lung cancer. I have thought about that a lot throughout my life.

When I was elected to the House of Representatives, I decided to start asking a few questions about tobacco and government subsidies and government policies. It was not the most popular position I ever took within the House of Representatives. There was generally a rule--or at least a custom--of never raising the issue. I did. It resulted in a decision by the House of Representatives that surprised almost everyone.

I introduced an amendment to ban smoking on airplanes. It was opposed by not only my own party leadership but the leadership of the Republican Party. Yet we prevailed. It turned out that the Members of the House of Representatives represented one of the largest frequent flier clubs in America, and they were sick and tired of secondhand smoke in airplanes.

I called on Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey to be my ally on this side of the Rotunda, and he was successful in passing the legislation with me, which was signed into law.

People started asking obvious questions about secondhand smoke: If it is dangerous in an airplane, why is it not dangerous on the train, the bus, at a hospital, in an office building, in a restaurant?

So, to my surprise, this measure to make clean air more prevalent on airplanes ended up being a tipping point in American history on tobacco policy. Everything started changing--and fast. Lives were saved. People were discouraged from smoking. Tobacco companies, which had been untouchable to that point, were not only touchable, they were vulnerable. And they had to sit down and devise a new policy to make money.

Now, the premise of tobacco was to entice young people to start smoking at an early age, and the chemicals in tobacco, like nicotine, were addictive. People knew, in the tobacco industry, that if you could drag kids into smoking at an early age and get them addicted, they might face a lifetime with that addiction and, ultimately, die from it, but they would have loyal customers to the tobacco companies, and they would continue to make money.

When we started raising questions about tobacco, the tobacco companies needed an alternative. They found it. Do you know what it was? It was e-cigarettes and vaping. The tobacco companies made big investments in these companies--selling them as a new marketable product that was a lot safer--though, it wasn't--and creating addictions among children by advertising and selling fruit-flavored, bubble gum-flavored vaping devices that looked an awful lot like something you would carry around for your computer.

Visit a high school in America today in your State or visit a junior high or a middle school, for that matter. Ask the teachers and administrators what the prevalence is of vaping and e-cigarettes among the kids in these schools. You will be shocked to learn that kids mistakenly believe that these are harmless; yet they are extremely addictive--e-cigarettes and vaping.

So I contacted the Food and Drug Administration, which has the legal authority to regulate these products, and said: What are you going to do about it? Well, they weren't quite sure what to do about it. That is why I have come to the floor today--to tell you, up-to-date, what was just announced.

The decade-long delay from the Food and Drug Administration to properly regulate vaping and e-cigarettes is in a league of its own in the modern history of that Agency. You see, under the law known as premarket review, no tobacco product--and vaping is a tobacco product using tobacco chemicals like nicotine--is permitted on store shelves unless the producer, the manufacturer, proves--listen--proves to the Food and Drug Administration in advance, prior to selling the product on the market, that it is ``appropriate for the protection of public health.''

For years, the Food and Drug Administration, despite this charge under the law, has ignored it. Instead, they sit back as millions-- millions--of e-cigarettes in fruit, mint, candy flavors, even with cartoon images, are illegally flooding the market and addicting America's children. The Food and Drug Administration watched as this happened. It was so bad that in year 2019--4 years ago--a Federal judge intervened, ruling that the Food and Drug

Administration ``decided not to enforce the premarket review provisions at all.''

In other words, the court found what I have just said to be the fact. The law said you need approval ahead of time before you can sell this product. The industry--the tobacco industry, the e-vaping industry-- ignored it and sold these products nationwide, addicting these children and ignoring their responsibilities under the law.

So, in 2019, this Federal court ordered the Food and Drug Administration to enforce the law, to review all e-cigarette applications, as the law requires, and gave them a deadline--a deadline--to get it done that was almost 2 years later, September 9, 2021. That was more than 16 months ago, and, still, the Food and Drug Administration has not finished its job. In that time, while the FDA has dithered, dallied, and delayed, more than 1 million of America's kids have started vaping.

How could our Federal regulators be so passive and so ineffective?

Then, on Tuesday, this last Tuesday, in a stunning filing to the Federal judge, the Food and Drug Administration disclosed that it will take another 6 months--another 6-month delay--to fulfill the public health duty announced by the court years ago and that the Food and Drug Administration will not finish reviewing applications for the most popular e-cigarettes until the end of 2023--another outrageous delay.

I don't think I have ever heard of a Federal Agency defying a court order for 2 years. I am going to leave it up to the Federal court to assess this development.

How can this Federal Agency knowingly, willingly, ignore this court order to protect America's children? How can they ignore the fact that the law requires their approval of a product before it goes on the shelf? And these products are being sold across America without that approval.

To this Senator, the Food and Drug Administration's deference to the tobacco industry, at the risk of 1 million more children getting addicted to nicotine over the next year, is just plain outrageous and indefensible.

The Food and Drug Administration has one choice, three words: Follow the law. Immediately halt these unauthorized sales of these e- cigarettes on the market--not next year, not next month--immediately, today. Otherwise, this Agency and the people who guide it bear a responsibility for the result, and that result is the addiction of children to a product which will harm their health. Otherwise, the Food and Drug Administration is complicit in endangering the health of America's kids.

Think about that for a second. An Agency created over a century ago to protect American consumers is, in fact, failing to protect the most vulnerable American consumers--our children.

The Food and Drug Administration has the authority today, before the end of this business day, to order these vaping products off the market--period.

Do it. Don't wait until some attorney talks you out of it at the Food and Drug Administration. Protect America's kids. Tell the tobacco industry: Sorry. The party is over. You must prove that what you sell is in the interest of public health. We are going to protect kids first and deal with the lawyers later. End the free pass. Follow the law. Do not allow these tobacco companies one more day of preying on our children.

(The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 126 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, earlier this month, our Nation lost a champion for justice. Her name was Kimberly Naranjo. She was a mother of seven, a tireless advocate for her neighbors struggling with addiction, and a hero for tens of thousands of consumers who had been wronged by some of the most profitable companies in the world.

Tragically, Ms. Naranjo passed away after a battle with mesothelioma on January 7, 2023.

While I can only imagine the grief that Ms. Naranjo's family is feeling at this moment, I hope that they find some comfort in her memory--and her indefatigable commitment to supporting and uplifting our most vulnerable neighbors.

Ms. Naranjo had a difficult start in life, but she refused to let any obstacle stand in her way. With the loving support of her family, she overcame the disease of addiction--a great success itself--and then dedicated her life to aiding others on their path to recovery. After years of determination and hard work, she earned a degree in alcohol and drug counseling, purchased her first home, and landed her dream job: working for the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office as an addiction counselor.

Ms. Naranjo's courage in drawing from her own challenges to help others-and her determination to build a better life for her children-- is an example we should all aspire to. And even after she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a debilitating illness with no known cure, she kept fighting for what she believed in.

Last February, for instance, she brought her campaign to Washington. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights on her ongoing efforts to hold Johnson & Johnson--and other corporations that have harmed consumers like her--accountable.

You see, Ms. Naranjo's diagnosis was not merely a tragic twist of fate; it was the direct result of Johnson & Johnson's failure to keep its customers safe. Like many young parents, Ms. Naranjo was a loyal consumer of Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder--but in using the product, she had no idea that she was exposing herself and her babies to asbestos.

Soon after she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, Ms. Naranjo joined tens of thousands of other consumers in filing a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. But instead of facing these claims from consumers, Johnson & Johnson engaged in a devious scheme to sidestep accountability. They tried to exploit a loophole in bankruptcy law to protect the company's profits and prevent consumers like Ms. Naranjo who trusted Johnson & Johnson to produce products safe for consumption from receiving justice.

In testifying before the subcommittee, Ms. Naranjo spoke for every person who has suffered--and continues to suffer--from mesothelioma or cancer after using Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder.

This decision to devote the remainder of her life to demanding justice and accountability, not just for herself, but for thousands of others exemplified Ms. Naranjo's selflessness and courage. She refused to stop fighting for what she believed in even after being diagnosed with a debilitating terminal illness. That is nothing short of extraordinary.

In her powerful testimony, Ms. Naranjo summed up her character, her strength, and her dedication to others in one short phrase: ``I will not quit, no matter how tough this gets.''

Ms. Naranjo did not quit, and neither will we--thanks, in part, to her example. Now, it is on all of us to carry her legacy forward--and to defend those who have been left behind or denied justice.

Loretta and I join Ms. Naranjo's daughters Maria, Adrianna, Monaliza, Faviola, Karina, and Angelica; her son Jayce; her brother Eddie; her mother Cathy; her extended family; and her community in mourning her loss. Thank you all for keeping her memory alive.

Mr. President, last week, Chicago lost a legend, a man who devoted his entire life to his community, his family, and to his passion--building a more equitable justice system in America. His name was Larry Rogers, Sr. And over the past many years, I have been lucky to count him as a friend, as well as a role model.

You see, to families throughout Chicago, Larry Rogers, Sr. was a hero. He blazed a trail for generations of lawyers, especially African- American lawyers, and fought tirelessly to defend our most vulnerable neighbors.

And if you really want to understand who Larry was, you have to start with the person who raised him: his mother. Like me, sadly, Larry lost his father at the age of 14. It is a loss that not only takes a great emotional toll on a family, but a financial one as well. And after his father passed, Larry's mom became the sole breadwinner for him and all six of his siblings.

Growing up in the Rosedale neighborhood of the south side of Chicago, Larry's mom worked two jobs to support her children and the cost of their catholic school education. Her work ethic and deep belief in the value of a good education molded Larry into the leader that so many of us in Chicago knew and loved.

Following his mother's example, Larry excelled in school; he was even accepted into law school after graduating college, but was forced to put his legal career on hold due to a health issue. But like his mom, Larry didn't

have the luxury of slowing down. He was a young father with a family to feed. So, after leaving school, he started working three jobs to pay the bills.

One of those jobs was at a gas station across the street from Comiskey Park. As fate would have it, that job ended up changing Larry's life. It was while working at that gas station that he struck up a friendship with a regular customer--a young lawyer named Joe Power. After becoming friends, Joe encouraged Larry to finish law school and even recruited him to the law firm where he worked.

It was the beginning of a 40-year friendship and professional partnership. Together, Larry and Joe founded a personal injury law and medical malpractice firm that has become an institution in in Chicago and throughout the legal world: Power Rogers, LLP.

Soon after he began his career as a trial attorney, Larry swiftly emerged as a mastermind in the courtroom, as well as a champion pugilist in the fight for justice. In the words of his son, Larry Jr., Larry Sr. was, ``the Michael Jordan of law before Michael Jordan was the Michael Jordan of basketball.''

Well, it is true. Back in 1985, for instance, Larry Sr. won the largest personal injury victory in Illinois history-an eight-figure verdict for families who had been wronged by a baby formula company, which had sold chloride-deficient formula and hindered the intellectual development of babies consuming it. Fifteen years later, Larry made legal history once again: He won a $55 million verdict for a woman who had suffered brain damage during a bronchoscopy exam; it was the largest medical malpractice verdict that went to judgement in our State's history.

Larry's record in the courtroom is remarkable. In just four decades, he won major verdicts for victims of medical malpractice, motor vehicle negligence, aviation accident cases, and more.

And with every victory, Larry didn't just climb the next rung of the professional ladder; he looked back and offered a helping hand to young lawyers hoping to follow his lead.

Larry paid his success forward in mentorship, guidance, and support for African-American students and attorneys who had long been excluded from the legal world. And nobody was better positioned to recruit a new generation of change makers than Larry. After all, he served as the president of the Cook County Bar Association--CCBA--the first African- American president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association--ITLA--and was awarded an endless list of accolades. He was even named one of the top 500 trial lawyers in the entire country.

But above all, Larry was a dedicated and loving father and grandfather. He instilled in his family the same values he learned from his own Mom, like a strong work ethic and a deep commitment to serving others. And Larry never pressured his kids to follow him into the legal career; he simply encouraged them to pursue their passions like he did: with diligence and determination.

Still, Larry's example as an accomplished and principled lawyer had a strong influence on his children. Some years after Larry made history as the first African-American president of the ITLA, another young trailblazer followed in his footsteps: Larry Rogers Jr.--the second- ever African-American president of the ITLA. Like his Dad, Larry Jr. also became the president of the CCBA and, eventually, a partner at Power Rogers.

I have seen for myself how Larry Jr. has followed his Dad's example, especially in his commitment to uplifting other, young attorneys of color.

Altogether, there are now three generations of legal professionals in the Rogers family. Besides Larry Jr., there is his brother, Dom--an injury attorney--and his sister, Ann Marie--a court reporter. Additionally, Larry Sr.'s stepson Frederic is also a lawyer, along with his niece Carmen, his nephew, Sean, and his grandson, Trevor. And there is another star attorney on the way, too: Larry Sr.'s granddaughter, Erin, was recently accepted to several law schools.

For those of us who knew Larry outside the courtroom, we will always remember his love of Chicago sports as well as his intrepid spirit. He was season ticket holder for both the Bulls and the Bears.

And he was the captain of his very own Sea Ray sport boat. Larry would often invite friends and family to join him on vacations to Lake Michigan, Florida, and even the Bahamas--a testament to his generosity and eagerness to spread joy to those he loved.

In the musical ``Hamilton'', legacy is defined as ``planting seeds in a garden you never get to see.''

While Larry Rogers Sr. may no longer be with us, I am absolutely certain that the seeds he has planted--as a lawyer, mentor, father, and grandfather--will be blossoming for generations to come.

Chicago--and the entire legal profession--is better because of Larry Rogers Sr.'s lifetime of service.

Loretta and I join Larry's life partner Pam, his children and stepchildren--Larry, Jr., Dom, Anne Marie, and Frederic--along with all of his nieces, nephews, and grandchildren in mourning his loss. Thank you all for carrying his remarkable legacy forward.

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

Madam President, America must never become a safe haven for anyone who assaults the values for which this Nation stands--values like democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and the sanctity of free and fair elections.

We already deny visas to those who are human traffickers, drug traffickers, money launderers, corrupt kleptocrats, and those who commit serious violations of religious freedom. I agree with that policy. We have passed laws to allow for the prosecution in U.S. courts of anyone who has committed war crimes or used children as soldiers in deadly conflict. I have written some of those policies, and I certainly agree with them.

Today, I am introducing legislation to further align our immigration system with our values as a nation. The bill I am introducing would prevent foreign officials who interfere with democratic elections or prevent the democratic transfer of power of their country from taking refuge in the United States.

In recent years, autocrats around the world have used a toxic brew of nationalism, authoritarianism, corruption, and social media to weaken and attack the very foundations of democracy. Fortunately, democracy is winning this battle. Much of the world is unified in support of Ukraine, for example, against Putin's attempt to seize the sovereign democratic nation of Ukraine, and we have the allies in the NATO alliance and others who stand with us with strength and formidable determination to stop Putin.

In late October, the people of Brazil--the largest democracy in Latin America--chose a new President to replace the increasingly authoritarian Jair Bolsonaro. After years of baseless lies by Bolsonaro about the integrity of Brazil's elections, polls show that three- fourths of his supporters no longer trust the electoral process in Brazil.

Sound familiar?

After Bolsonaro lost in October's Presidential election, his supporters turned to violence. They blocked highways throughout Brazil. Many called openly for the military to overturn the election.

Sound familiar?

And, on January 8, as Mr. Bolsonaro took selfies with his supporters in the State of Florida, thousands of his far-right supporters violently stormed Brazil's Presidential palace, Congress, and Supreme Court--breaking windows and injuring dozens of police officers.

Sound familiar?

It was a disgrace. It was an assault on democracy--not only in Brazil but an assault on democracy everywhere.

Under the bill I am introducing, if the Secretary of State determines a foreign official has interfered with free and fair elections or has sought to prevent the peaceful, democratic transfer of power, that official cannot escape justice by fleeing to the United States.

I ask my colleagues to join in supporting this important measure to hold those who interfere with democratic elections accountable. America should never be a safe haven for enemies of democracy.

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

Madam President, America must never become a safe haven for anyone who assaults the values for which this Nation stands--values like democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and the sanctity of free and fair elections.

We already deny visas to those who are human traffickers, drug traffickers, money launderers, corrupt kleptocrats, and those who commit serious violations of religious freedom. I agree with that policy. We have passed laws to allow for the prosecution in U.S. courts of anyone who has committed war crimes or used children as soldiers in deadly conflict. I have written some of those policies, and I certainly agree with them.

Today, I am introducing legislation to further align our immigration system with our values as a nation. The bill I am introducing would prevent foreign officials who interfere with democratic elections or prevent the democratic transfer of power of their country from taking refuge in the United States.

In recent years, autocrats around the world have used a toxic brew of nationalism, authoritarianism, corruption, and social media to weaken and attack the very foundations of democracy. Fortunately, democracy is winning this battle. Much of the world is unified in support of Ukraine, for example, against Putin's attempt to seize the sovereign democratic nation of Ukraine, and we have the allies in the NATO alliance and others who stand with us with strength and formidable determination to stop Putin.

In late October, the people of Brazil--the largest democracy in Latin America--chose a new President to replace the increasingly authoritarian Jair Bolsonaro. After years of baseless lies by Bolsonaro about the integrity of Brazil's elections, polls show that three- fourths of his supporters no longer trust the electoral process in Brazil.

Sound familiar?

After Bolsonaro lost in October's Presidential election, his supporters turned to violence. They blocked highways throughout Brazil. Many called openly for the military to overturn the election.

Sound familiar?

And, on January 8, as Mr. Bolsonaro took selfies with his supporters in the State of Florida, thousands of his far-right supporters violently stormed Brazil's Presidential palace, Congress, and Supreme Court--breaking windows and injuring dozens of police officers.

Sound familiar?

It was a disgrace. It was an assault on democracy--not only in Brazil but an assault on democracy everywhere.

Under the bill I am introducing, if the Secretary of State determines a foreign official has interfered with free and fair elections or has sought to prevent the peaceful, democratic transfer of power, that official cannot escape justice by fleeing to the United States.

I ask my colleagues to join in supporting this important measure to hold those who interfere with democratic elections accountable. America should never be a safe haven for enemies of democracy.

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

Mr. President, the State of Illinois is my home, and it holds an important place in the history of the American labor movement. All of us learned the name Upton Sinclair in our early days in school, the author of the 1906 novel ``The Jungle,'' which told the story of the horrendous working conditions endured by, largely, immigrant workers in Chicago's meatpacking plants and led to Federal regulation.

A. Philip Randolph, founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, one of America's first unions for African-American workers, was a civil rights champion and a leader of the 1963 March on Washington.

There is also the story of Mary Harris ``Mother'' Jones, an Irish immigrant who survived the Great Famine in Ireland, the yellow fever epidemic of 1867, which took the lives of her husband and children, and after her own dress shop was destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, she went on to become a woman labor organizer and a fierce and beloved champion of coal miners. Before she died, she said she wanted to be buried in a place of honor among coal miners. She is buried in a town near my home called Mount

Olive, IL, in the Union Miners Cemetery, the only union-owned cemetery in America.

Aside from being legends of labor history, Upton Sinclair, A. Philip Randolph, and Mother Jones had something else in common. They are all members of the Illinois Labor History Society's Union Hall of Honor, which was founded in 1969 to make sure that important figures and defining chapters of America's labor history are not forgotten.

The society's highest honor is to be named to its Union Hall of Honor. Last month, a longtime friend of mine, John Penn, was inducted into the Illinois Labor History Society's Union Hall of Honor. After nearly 60 years of protecting workers' rights in Illinois, the Midwest, and our Nation, John has certainly earned that honor. He is one of 113 men and women who have been inducted into the Union Hall of Honor, but to me John is one in a million.

He got his first union card in 1965, when he was 16 years old, joining the Laborers' International Union of North America Local 362 in Bloomington, IL. He took a break by joining the United States Air Force, serving in Vietnam, Korea, Guam, and then returning back to Bloomington and Local 362.

It was the same path taken a generation earlier by his father, Paul Penn, a World War II veteran who rose to become president of the same local. But John's family connections didn't win any special treatment. He had to rise through the ranks, and rise he did--from business manager of Local 362 to business manager of the 36-county North Central Illinois Laborers' District Council, then business manager of the four- state Great Plains Laborers' District Council, and, in 2008, vice president and regional manager of LIUNA's 10-State Midwest region and a member of the international union's general executive board, positions to which he has been reelected three different times.

Under John Penn's leadership, LIUNA Local 362 grew, giving a voice to scores of workers who previously had never benefited from union representation.

Some years ago, in response to several tragic accidents, John made himself known to many by stopping all highway construction in McLean County to force the State of Illinois to improve protections for vulnerable construction workers and others on the State's roadways. That action culminated in the creation of the Illinois State's Work Zone Safety Committee and implementation of numerous policies that saved lives.

Somehow, John also found time to resurrect Bloomington's Labor Day parade, to serve on several community and State boards, including the United Way of McLean County, the Children's Christmas Party for Unemployed Families, Illinois Special Olympics, the McLean County Promise Council, and the Bloomington-Normal Advancement and Economic Development Council.

He was honored by his hometown newspaper, the Bloomington Pantagraph, as its 2003 Person of the Year. He received a Thousand Points of Light Foundation award from then-President Clinton in 1997 in recognition of his volunteer efforts and those of all Bloomington-Normal building tradespeople who he recruited over the years to take part in these organizations.

At the end of this month, John Penn is retiring from this position with the Laborers' union. As he begins this new chapter, Loretta and I wish John and Mary, his wife of 55 years, good health, good times with their daughter Shawn, their children and grandchildren.

John, you made a real difference for so many people. You are truly a hall of famer, and thanks for all that you have done.

Mr. President, in the last two centuries, Federal support for scientific research has helped to split the atom, defeat polio, explore space, create the internet, map the human genome, develop vaccines and treatments for COVID-19, and so much more.

No nation has made such significant investments in science, and no nation's scientists have done more to improve the quality of life.

But with the challenges we face today, from devastating diseases to climate change, there is more progress to be made.

So America is at a turning point, and unless we commit to providing strong and sustained funding increases for our Nation's premier medical and scientific researchers, our position as the world leader will be at risk.

That is exactly why, since 2014, I have continued to introduce legislation to keep our Nation on the cutting edge. It is entitled the American Cures Act.

This bill will provide our top medical research Agencies with 5 percent real funding growth every year. That is steady, predictable growth, pegged above the rate of inflation.

This money would support the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense Health Program, and the Veterans' Affairs Medical and Prosthetics Research Program.

This investment would be game-changing for the Agencies. Consider the National Institutes of Health. It is our Nation's--if not the world's-- premier medical research Agency. Their pioneering work at this single agency saves lives and fuels our economy, supporting nearly 20,000 jobs just in my home State of Illinois.

Today, the NIH budget is $47.5 billion. More than 95 percent of this funding is competitively awarded to scientists, research institutions, and small businesses in every State across the country.

Researchers supported by the NIH make tens of thousands of new discoveries every year--breakthroughs that could literally change the world.

In recognition of these remarkable feats, Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, increased the NIH annual budget by more than $17 billion since I first introduced the American Cures Act in 2014.

This chart is an indication of that growth. It has gone from $30 billion to $48 billion in that period of time since 2014--a 58-percent increase.

These increases would not have been possible without a bipartisan effort in the U.S. Senate.

I enlisted a willing participant and ally and really effective Member of the Senate, Patty Murray, to be part of this; former Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who, when the Republicans were in majority control of the Senate, kept up this promise to increase the spending; and retired Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, who shared our passion for medical research.

Luckily, we had a leader at the time, Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the NIH, who really did his part in enlisting support for these increases.

NIH is not the only Federal medical research Agency to see significant funding increases. We have also secured $2.4 billion in increased funding for the CDC over the last 9 years. That is a 35- percent increase since fiscal year 2014.

And while it is not reflected in the chart I just showed, both the CDC and NIH also received billions in supplemental funding from COVID rescue bills passed by the Senate in 2020 and 2021.

While this year's budget provided a 5.8-percent bump to the NIH, a $2.5 billion increase, I am sorry to say we fell short of the 5-percent real-growth target above inflation.

If we had met this target, NIH would have received $650 million, up to a level of more than $48 billion.

That said, I am still encouraged about how far we have come. We finally reversed a 22-percent decline in NIH purchasing power that took place after 12 years of flat funding, but we need to step up our efforts.

Diseases like cancer, stroke, opioid addiction, and mental illness will not wait on us. Half of all men and one-third of all women in the U.S. will develop cancer in their lifetime. Someone's mother, father, brother, sister, or spouse is diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease every 65 seconds.

And 1 in every 300 people will be diagnosed with ALS in their lifetime. Sadly, a number of my closest friends already have received this diagnosis.

Sustained and robust NIH funding will help cure, prevent, and treat these diseases. It will help the people that we all care about the most, and it already has.

Because of NIH funding--listen to this--the American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 3\1/2\ million lives were saved between 1991 and 2019 as a result of improvements in cancer treatment, detection, and prevention--a 32-

percent drop in the cancer death rate since 1991.

Thirty years ago, HIV was a death sentence, but because of NIH research, that is no longer the case.

And because of NIH funding, we are also on the verge of curing--yes, curing--sickle cell anemia, an inherited blood disorder that primarily affects African Americans.

Consider this: NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019.

Let me repeat that for emphasis. There are only two countries in the world that allow general advertising of prescription drugs--the United States and New Zealand. You can't turn on the television without hearing the story of a new drug. Every single drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019 started off with government- funded, taxpayer-funded research at the National Institutes of Health.

So when you see these wonderful drugs, understand we, as Americans, put down the initial investment that made these drugs all possible.

However, there is a real threat to our Nation's investment in medical research. The new House Republican majority, after more than a dozen-- in fact, 15--painful and embarrassing failed votes to secure the Speaker, announced that Speaker McCarthy had finally won the day, he made some deals, agreements with MAGA Republicans for that to happen.

One of those agreements would literally devastate funding for medical research in the future. What a price to pay.

He reportedly agreed to hamstring government funding for 2024 at 2022 levels--a senseless move--senseless move--that would cut funding for scientific breakthroughs by roughly 7 percent and delay the delivery of new cures and treatments for those most in need.

So I would like to know, for the record, which diseases and conditions would Speaker McCarthy and the House Republicans like us to slash funding for? Cancer? Alzheimer's? Parkinson's? Diabetes? ALS? Heart disease? Which one?

Speak up, Mr. Speaker. This is supposed to be a new transparent House of Representatives. If you are going to cut funding in medical research, what can we put on the back of the burner, and how can we explain that to the families across America?

Now is not the time for political horse-trading that puts one person in power at the expense of everyone waiting for a cure.

We need to build on the bipartisan success which we have had to date and we have achieved over the past decade and continue to prioritize medical research funding that creates jobs but, most importantly, saves lives.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for permission to complete my remarks before the recess.

Mr. President, 50 years ago this last Sunday, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive healthcare in America is a constitutionally protected right and that Americans have the freedom to make the most personal decision imaginable: when--and whether--to start a family. The case was called Roe v. Wade.

For those who were alive when it was decided, we remember what it meant for millions of Americans: the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. Remember, at the time Roe was decided in 1973, our Nation had a long, long way to go in living up to the promise of equal justice under the law. As just one example, women were often required, at that time in history, to ask their husbands for permission to apply for credit cards. In many banks, widowers and divorced women had to bring along a man who would cosign for a credit card. Can you imagine that?

Fifty years later, we still have a long way to go, of course, but Roe was a breakthrough. It was a vision of an America that could be looking to the future of opportunity.

Well, today, sadly, marks a very different anniversary. You see, it was 7 months ago today when six rightwing, judicial activists on the Supreme Court sent us back in time. Of course, I am referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--the crowning achievement of the Republican-led, decades- long campaign to overturn Roe and abolish reproductive rights in America.

The Dobbs ruling is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ripped away a constitutional right from individuals, handing it over to politicians in suits.

With the Dobbs decision, the ultraconservative majority not only overturned a nearly 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed many, many times, they twisted the facts to reach the outcome they wanted.

What do I mean by that? Well, in his majority opinion, Justice Alito claimed that abortion cannot be constitutionally protected because it is not ``deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.'' He is wrong because whatever you think about abortion, it has deep roots in our country. As the dissenting Justices in Dobbs wrote, ``embarrassingly for the majority--early law in fact does provide some support for abortion rights.''

The dissent noted that common law authorities did not treat abortion as a crime before the point of fetal movement in the womb--also known as quickening. And as Justice Alito himself conceded, historians dispute whether prequickening abortions were punished before the 19th century.

So there is no credibility to Justice Alito's argument for overturning Roe. It wasn't originalism by any stretch. It wasn't textualism. It was an ideologically motivated outcome based on historical cherry-picking.

Someone asked the question the other day: After this decision, should the Justices be asked to wear red and blue robes instead of black robes?

Over the past 7 months, Republican lawmakers picked up right where the Thomas-Alito Court left off. In State after State, they have ripped away reproductive rights from millions of Americans.

Overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a healthcare crisis in our country. In just 7 months, 24 States have banned or severely restricted access to abortion or are preparing to do so. Many of these bans provide no exceptions, even for rape and incest victims, and many are insufficient in protecting the health and lives of mothers. And all of these bans have added layers and layers of government bureaucracy for women seeking emergency care.

If these Republican lawmakers have actually listened to all of the medical professionals who sounded the alarm on overturning Roe, if these lawmakers had actually listened to all of the Americans who took to the streets in protest or the millions of voters who rejected their radical agenda, then maybe you would understand the simple, indisputable truth: You cannot ban abortion out of existence.

The only thing these laws have changed, if anything, is pushing women into dangerous and deadly situations. We have already seen the barbaric consequences in these Republican abortion bans. And they haven't just endangered the lives of women living in red States; they have put every woman in danger.

Christina Zielke is one of those women. She recently shared her story

on NPR. This past July, Christina and her husband were overjoyed when they discovered she was pregnant. It was their first pregnancy. But that joy turned to sorrow after the first ultrasound. The doctors couldn't detect a heartbeat, and they concluded it was a miscarriage.

When Christina asked the doctor, ``What do I do next,'' the doctor recommended giving her body time to pass the pregnancy tissue--a process that can take days or even weeks. So Christina and her husband decided to wait and move on with their lives.

Soon after that appointment, the two of them drove from their home in Washington, DC, to Ohio to attend a family wedding. But during the drive, Christina started bleeding. She assumed her body had finally passed the pregnancy tissue. But later, in the middle of the night, she started bleeding again. It was serious.

It was at that time that Christina and her husband, at the advice of a nurse, went to an emergency room in Painesville, OH. Now, remember, Christina's doctor had already told her that her pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. But when she arrived at that Ohio hospital, the medical staff refused to provide her any care because they were afraid of violating Ohio's new abortion ban.

So while Christina was still in danger, still bleeding, and carrying a fetus with no heartbeat, the hospital discharged her and refused to treat her. She objected, even showing them her records confirming the miscarriage. She was ignored and sent home.

Hours later, she returned to that same ER. By that point, she had lost so much blood she had lost consciousness. The paramedics had to use a sheet to pull her limp body out of a bathtub and onto a stretcher. Christina's family thought she was going to die. And let's be blunt: The only reason her life was in peril was because of Ohio's State law banning abortion.

This is America's post-Roe reality: women denied urgent care because doctors and nurses are afraid of breaking State laws. Ohio's abortion ban subjects healthcare providers who violate it to felony charges, up to a year in prison, loss of medical licenses, and fines up to $20,000. The law is so unclear in Ohio that even medical professionals struggle to navigate its narrow exceptions.

When you hear stories like that by Christina, imagine if it was a member of your family--your wife, the mother of your children, people who want to live desperately and simply need the healthcare to make it happen--it is really no surprise that Americans are fleeing red States to access essential healthcare in blue States.

My State of Illinois, for instance, has become a leader on reproductive freedom--a so-called oasis. Every single State that we border has either restricted abortion or abandoned it outright. For women living in the Midwest, our reproductive health facilities are indispensable. Look at the numbers. Before Roe was overturned, only 6 percent of women seeking abortions at Illinois Planned Parenthood facilities traveled from out of State--6 percent. Since the Dobbs decision, that number has jumped to 30 percent.

And I want to commend our State's leadership because they stepped in to provide care for women who have been betrayed by their own States. Earlier this month, Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law protecting women traveling to Illinois for reproductive care. Sadly, these efforts to protect reproductive freedom have also made Illinois providers a target. Just 2 days ago, after Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law, someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Peoria--a clinic that doesn't even perform surgical abortions.

In post-Roe America, the mere act of seeking reproductive advice and care--even for a procedure as simple as a Pap smear--has taken on new risks. Lawmakers on both sides need to condemn this and any form of politically motivated violence against any person or entity.

If there is any doubt that the Dobbs decision has unleashed chaos, consider the impact on maternal health outcomes. Even before Roe was overturned, our Nation had the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world--America, the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. And as of 2020, those death rates are more than 60 percent higher in States with abortion restrictions.

This is not a problem without a solution: Studies show that more than four in five pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. These mothers can be saved. And one way to prevent them is by expanding access to postpartum health coverage. That is why I have worked with Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly to pass a law that gives States the option to expand health coverage under Medicaid from 60 days postpartum to a full year. We led this effort because in our State, one-third of pregnancy- related deaths happen after 60 days postpartum.

So for States that have now outlawed abortion, you would imagine the first thing they would do is to take advantage of this new benefit and expand health coverage for its expecting mothers on Medicaid. That sounds like a no-brainer, right? Apparently not. Today, there are 15 States that have not extended Medicaid postpartum coverage, and 12 of these States have also passed laws restricting abortion. If they are truly dedicated to the new mother and her baby, why wouldn't they give them healthcare coverage for a full year after the baby is born to save their lives and the babies' lives?

So if you are a woman living in a State like Idaho or South Dakota, you can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but once you have had your baby, those States--Idaho and South Dakota--refuse to cover your healthcare during the most critical, dangerous postpartum period.

Let's get real. There is no world in which this position can be described as ``pro-life.''

We in the Senate can make a difference for all the women in America who have been abandoned by their States, and we can do it by restoring and codifying the right to reproductive freedom by passing pro-family policies, like the MOMMA's Act, which mandates Medicaid expansion and postpartum coverage.

Unfortunately, it seems the new MAGA majority in the House has other plans in mind. Just this past week, Majority Leader Steve Scalise pledged to a group of anti-choice activists that the overturning of Roe was ``only the first phase of this battle.'' Those are his words. His Republican colleagues have already made good on it. Less than 1 month into the new Congress, House Republicans have introduced a dozen anti- abortion bills.

Here is my promise: Every one of those bills is destined to fail if it comes to the Senate. They are going nowhere because this majority and President Biden understand that all Americans deserve reproductive rights. And until we have a Congress and Supreme Court willing to protect those rights, we need to do everything in our power to stand against this extremist, anti-choice agenda.

I yield the floor.