Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is poised to confirm another outstanding judicial nominee, Maria Antongiorgi-Jordan, nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Ms. Antongiorgi-Jordan is a dedicated public servant and accomplished litigator who will be a tremendous asset to the District of Puerto Rico. After earning her B.A. from Seton Hill University, her J.D. from the Interamerican University School of Law, and her L.L.M. from Georgetown University Law Center, Ms. Antongiorgi-Jordan began her legal career at McConnell Valdes, a law firm based in San Juan, PR. For nearly 20 years, Ms. Antongiorgi-Jordan had a wide-ranging litigation practice within the firm. While she focused on complex civil matters, she also was active in criminal defense work through the local Criminal Justice Act--CJA--panel, representing indigent criminal defendants in Federal court. In total, Ms. Antongiorgi-Jordan participated in 42 trials, serving as chief or cochief counsel in 36 of the 42. Today, Ms. Antongiorgi-Jordan serves as clerk of the court for the District of Puerto Rico. In that role, she has helped the court navigate the COVID-19 pandemic and kept it functioning on a day-to-day basis. Ms. Antongiorgi-Jordan boasts widespread support from the Puerto Rico legal community and civic leaders, including Governor Pedro Pierluisi and Stephen Muldrow, the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney in Puerto Rico. I will support Ms. Antongiorgi-Jordan's confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, before I make any remarks in the Senate, I want to make remarks of a specific and personal nature to the Presiding Officer. The last time we were together was election night. And it was a wonderful night for you, for your family, and for the State of Illinois. Your victory was an amazing achievement, but your whole life has been an amazing achievement. And I particularly will remember when Brian brought the girls up to the stage, and they jumped all over their mom in her wheelchair. It was something that made the news and should have. It was a wonderful moment for you and your family. But it was a wonderful moment in American politics. Your re-election in the State of Illinois was my No. 1 priority. And I didn't have to work as hard as I thought I would because they love you, and it showed in the vote. So congratulations to the Presiding Officer. Madam President, in the fall of 1862, President Abraham Lincoln sent his second annual message to Congress. The Civil War was raging, and our Nation was really uncertain as to its future. In the midst of what Lincoln called this ``fiery trial,'' he called on Congress to do something that was remarkable: to assure the freedom of every American, including the nearly 4 million Black Americans living in bondage. President Lincoln said this was the only way to ``save . . . the last best hope of earth,'' American democracy. Last Tuesday, 160 years later, Americans across the country stood up, went to the polls, and did their part, in their time, to save the last best hope of earth. They voted to protect our fundamental freedoms and to preserve our democracy. One of those voters was a young woman in our State named Lauren. She is a student at the University of Illinois in Champaign. The students at the university once again had to wait for hours in line. People were bringing pizzas to sustain them during their trial of waiting to vote. It worked. They voted in big numbers. And Lauren was one of them. While she was waiting in line, a reporter with the Illinois Student Newsroom asked her, ``Why, why did you come out here and vote?'' She said: I was voting based on women's rights in terms of candidates who were supporting women's choice. . . . It's important--as a student--as a young person to come out and vote for issues that I care about. Thankfully, Lauren wasn't alone. In this year's election, young voters continued a trend that began in 2018 and 2020: They turned out in record numbers. They realized it is the responsibility of their generation to do a better job than our generation and to keep democracy alive. So let's start off by thanking the young people: the sons and daughters who were raised properly when it came to their civic duty, who voted for the first time last week--and, for some, it was a repeat performance--along with every other American. With their votes, they sent a message to us and to the rest of America that was loud and clear: It is time for the Big Lie to die. Last week, in State after State, voters rejected MAGA Republicans who ran on this Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. This outrageous assertion, with no proof, no evidence and nothing to back it up other than the big liar, has become rampant among some corners of this country. But thank the Lord that it did not prevail on election day. In fact, every single election denier who ran for Secretary of State in a swing State was defeated--every single one of them. So the takeaway here isn't all that complicated. I hope it is one that our Republican colleagues will finally take to heart: It is time to reject that extremist lie. The American people are sick and tired of false claims that the 2020 election was stolen--the same claims that generated the insurrectionist mob, which on one of the saddest days in the history of this building stormed this Capitol on January 6, 2021, injuring over 149 law enforcement officials who were doing their duty to protect this building and the people in it and, sadly, leading to six deaths. Now the threats of violence continue. After the election and the American people have spoken, can we finally join together in a bipartisan fashion to condemn all forms of violence, regardless of their political origin? It is inconsistent with the democracy that we can be proud of. And, yes, the American people are also sick and tired of rightwing assaults on our fundamental freedoms. That young voter in Champaign I mentioned, Lauren, she is just one of millions of Americans motivated to vote after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision earlier this year. By erasing the constitutional right to abortion--a right that millions of Americans have counted on for half a century--the Court's radical rightwing majority lit a fire in the hearts of voters across the country. And it wasn't just in the blue States. In the minority leader's home State of Kentucky--Kentucky-- voters rejected an anti-abortion ballot measure. The lesson here at this moment isn't that a Democratic or Republican issue is at stake. This is about a basic constitutional right taken away from the women of this country--the right to make their own decisions about their own reproductive health choices. People don't want politicians--Senators, Congressmen, you name it--sticking their nose into the business of doctors in the hospitals and clinics across America. We need to respect the will of the people and protect the right to choose once and for all. Let me also add something that happened over the weekend that bears comment. There has been a lot of loose talk as to whether or not this U.S. Supreme Court is too political. It has fallen in approval ratings to record lows. The American people think it has been dominated by political decisions and political choices. So what did four of the nine Supreme Court Justices do over the weekend? They attended the Federalist Society gala ball here in Washington. The Federalist Society is an obvious political force which chose many of them under President Trump and others, and they basically fed the story line that this Supreme Court is enthralled with the Federalist Society. You could not become a Federal judge--and I know this from serving on the Judiciary Committee--under Presidents of the Republican Party in recent times without the stamp of approval from the Federalist Society. In fact, their stamp of approval is even more important than being judged ``qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Nine Federal judges chosen by President Trump failed to be deemed qualified to serve on the Federal courts of our land, but they have been stamped ``approved'' by the Federalist Society. This powerful political force had a party, and they invited members of the Supreme Court. Four of the nine members of the Court came to that party: Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett. How can they dispel the belief many people have that they are too political when they attend such overtly political events? That wasn't the only thing we learned. One of the top issues the American people were concerned about was the state of the economy--and rightly so. My wife does most of the shopping, but I get around to grocery stores in Illinois, my hometown, once in a while and take a look at the price of things. It is clear they have gone up for almost anything. You can't miss the price of gasoline; it is right there in front of you every single day. It must create--it does create--a hardship for American families. It makes sense to understand historically why we are facing this. We are still recovering from a once-in-a-century pandemic. Like every nation, inflation has hit working families the hardest. But the American people also recognize that this Senate majority has made steady, meaningful progress in working against inflation. We can't will it away. We can't pass a law to ban it. We can't expect even the Federal Reserve, by their monetary policy, to dispense with inflation in a quick way. We have a large, complicated economy. It is part of the global economy. We have to work together--and we have--to help working families pay their bills and stay afloat. Just a few months ago, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act on the floor. I remember that well, and I am sure the Presiding Officer does too. We had 41 rollcalls--41 rollcalls. It went all through the night. I think it was at least 24 hours or more, maybe 36 hours. We went straight through to finish it and get it done, and we did. In the end, the bill passed with only Democratic support. Every Republican voted against it. I am sorry that was the case because there are things in there the Republicans should join us in supporting. Telling people on Medicare that they are never going to have to pay more than $2,000 out of pocket for prescription drugs is a great relief. You and I both know that the cost of prescription drugs in some cases ranges into the tens of thousands of dollars, breaking the backs of a lot of families finding that they are basically disbursing all of their savings for that purpose. Now we guarantee with that bill a maximum charge out of pocket of $2,000 a year. If you happen to be on Medicare and are diabetic, we capped the cost of insulin each month to $35. Insulin was discovered by Canadian researchers. When they discovered it, the doctors who came up with this wonderful drug said: We are going to surrender our patent rights for $1. We are finished. We don't believe any life-or-death drug should be bargained away to pharmaceutical companies. Unfortunately, it has been. This changed for Medicare. Capping the cost of insulin means that many people who are diabetic will be able to take their medicine and afford it. That is a great thing for our future. Do you recall, Madam President, when we had this on the floor and we tried to extend the same $35 insulin charge to all other diabetics in the United States, not just Medicare? We needed 10 of the 50 Republicans to join us--10 of 50--to cap the cost of insulin for all diabetics in America. We failed. Only 7 Republicans would join the 50 Democrats. We needed 60 votes; we got 57. I heard this President say--and I am sure you have too--he is going back to this issue, and he should. This is something that should be bipartisan and pass very quickly. In the Inflation Reduction Act, we started making changes when it comes to energy policy in America. I think the young people voting were really motivated by several things. They were motivated by the threats of losing protections against discrimination for sexual orientation. They were motivated by the Dobbs decision on choice. But they were motivated as well because we made it clear, at least on our side of the aisle, that we were going to move forward with an energy policy which is going to address global warming and give them an Earth they can live on. I think that is an important part of the future. I am not bragging, but I will tell you that several months ago, as you know, I put solar panels on my home in Springfield. My wife and I decided it was the right thing to do even if it didn't pencil out economically. Guess what. It is working great. The first bill we were able to compare with the previous year, we ended up generating more electricity than we purchased in the course of a month. I hope that continues. That dramatic reduction in my energy costs is also an investment in sustainable, renewable energy for the future. Those solar panels enhance the value of the home we live in. We estimate that 280,000 families in our home State of Illinois are going to install solar panels. I am encouraging them to do that as quickly as possible. They are going to find great savings, and they are going to join us in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our future. We also understand that we have to do much more in these fields, whether it is the cost of healthcare or whether it is the climate crisis in our country. We want to make sure as well that the burden of government's costs is fairly shared. How can we possibly explain or rationalize that many of the wealthiest corporations in America don't pay their fair share of taxes? Families across America know they have to face their civic responsibility and pay their taxes. Very few of those families are applauding, but they are hoping that the basic social contract holds and that every corporation as well as an individual will pay their fair share. We moved in that direction with that bill. These policies in terms of tax fairness are popular, and we saw that proof last Tuesday in the vote. The American people reelected a Democratic majority to the Senate because I believe they support the work we are doing. I want to just comment on the statements made earlier by the minority leader from Kentucky. He really generalized the midterm election as if it was something other than what I saw. A midterm election is tough on the President's party. Historically, every President has taken a beating. I can recall when my colleague from Illinois was President, Barack Obama. His midterm election he characterized as a shellacking, and he was right. I believe they lost 40 or 50 seats in that election. It happens, but it didn't happen last Tuesday. We have to ask ourselves a basic question: If the Senator from Kentucky is right and everybody rejects what this President has done and rejects what the Democratic majority did, why didn't he do better? Why didn't his party do better? There is much more to the story. We have the opportunity to build on the Senate's proud record of accomplishments starting again this week, and we should. Listen to what the American people told us. They told us: Roll up your sleeves, stop bickering, ignore the Big Lie because it is a big lie, and do something together. Show us cooperation. Can you do it? Well, I will tell you, I reached out already to two of my Republican colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asking them to think about whether we can achieve anything in the next 3 or 4 weeks. I am hoping that we can. It was a good-faith effort on my part to say: Yes, we might have prevailed and we continue in the majority, but we can't get anything done unless we work together. I think that is what the American people are begging us to do now. I will basically say that this bipartisanship is an easy task when you have Members on the other side who are willing to join with you. Our most basic duty, though, our most basic thing we can accomplish between now and the end of the year is make sure we don't face a government shutdown. Who can imagine that is good for the United States, our reputation in the world, our economy, or the people who are counting on us, to let the government shut down? I am hopeful that in the coming weeks, before the first of the year, we can negotiate and pass an Omnibus appropriations package with bipartisan support. I am also hopeful that we can address that sword of Damocles hanging over our heads called the debt ceiling. From where I am sitting, the debt ceiling should be eliminated. It basically is a promise that we are going to pay the bills we have already incurred. Well, we wouldn't have voted for the bills if we didn't think we had to pay for them. So this debt ceiling has to be renewed on a regular basis and has become a bargaining point for some extremists in Congress who argue that shutting down the government won't even be noticed by the American people. They are wrong. They have done it before, and we noticed. It was not good for our country, and we don't need it at this moment in history. This week, we will also continue rebalancing the Federal judiciary by confirming highly qualified, evenhanded judges who will bring diversity to the Federal bench and who will defend our basic rights. During this legislative session, we can do something Americans have been waiting on for decades: reform our broken immigration system. Everybody is talking about it. Now let's do something about it on a bipartisan basis. We can, and we should. For the people--and the exact number, I am not sure--but thousands, tens of thousands protected by DACA are waiting to see if one judge in Texas is going to force them into deportation. Think about that. Thousands and thousands of young people were brought to the United States by their parents, grew up here, went to our schools, pledged allegiance to that flag every day in their classroom, and want to be part of America, and we have been unable and unwilling to come to a bipartisan agreement as to how to give them that chance. I beg my Republican colleagues--particularly those who are leaving and told me privately that they have always wanted to vote for the Dream Act and this time they will--give us a chance to work together to come up with a good, sensible approach to our border; a good, sensible approach to the Dream Act; and to help bring in workers we desperately need for agriculture and for some specialties in healthcare where we are having severe shortages in this country. We can do this. There is no reason we can't do it. We have the basic legislation. Let's really do something we can be proud of in the closing days of this year. I can think of no better way to show the American people that we were listening on November 8. After years of obstruction, we need bipartisanship. I know that means compromises by me as well as by them, but that is the nature of the Senate. Millions of voters turned out across America last week. They challenged us in the Senate. They challenged us to continue making real progress for working families in this country. Let's show them we can get it done. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to remember a visionary business and civic leader who passed away on Saturday. John Rowe once said ``there are two ways to become a CEO: Succeed your boss--or find a company that's in a lot of trouble.'' John--never afraid of a challenge--took the harder of those two routes. He came to Chicago in 1998, arriving as CEO of Unicom Corporation, owner of Commonwealth Edison. Com Ed was in sorry shape back then. Things got so bad that the city was considering a move to buy its own electrical system. Over the next 14 years, John transformed Unicom into Exelon, the largest electric parent company America. He was a Republican who believed in the science behind climate change and staked his company's future on his belief that money could be made through ``clean, reliable and affordable energy.'' He was among the first CEOs in the industry to focus on climate change, first testifying before Congress on the potential effects of carbon emissions in 1992. Under his leadership, Exelon became the first utility to join the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of businesses advocating for Federal legislation that required significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. He believed that truly successful leaders should be active beyond their businesses. So he invested his time and personal wealth back into the community. Along with his wife Jeanne and their son Bill, he established the Rowe Family Charitable Trust. He and Jeanne also cofounded two public charter schools in Chicago--and visited them frequently. He worked with universities, especially the University of Wisconsin, his alma mater, and supported museums, including the Chicago History Museum and the Illinois Holocaust Museum. I especially admired John for his strong support of Dreamers and immigrants. He was conservative, but he was mystified by the opposition of many of his fellow conservatives to creating a pathway to citizenship for immigrants. ``When did it become conservative to say people can't work and can't pay taxes?'' he asked. He cofounded the American Business Immigration Council, a coalition of business leaders supporting comprehensive immigration reform. He said that creating a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who want to work and contribute to this country: ``economically important, politically smart, and morally right.'' When he mentored young immigrants, he found it difficult to explain why they should go to college in a country where they will not be able to work legally. So he supported the Dream Act. He also supported DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that has granted work permits and protection from deportation to more than 800,000 immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. In a speech he gave shortly after he stepped down as Exelon's CEO in 2012, John said there are just a few attributes of successful leadership, among them were an unflagging commitment to continuous learning, an ability to act despite uncertainty, and ``leading somewhere worth going.'' From helping to show the way to a future of cleaner American energy, to fixing our immigration system so that it supports our economy and honors our heritage, John Rowe spent his life leading. He was a visionary leader, and I am proud to have called him a friend. Loretta and I send our deepest condolences to John's wife Jeanne, their son Bill, and to the countless people whose lives he made better. He will be missed.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote to confirm another outstanding nominee to the Federal bench: Arianna Freeman, nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Freeman is an accomplished appellate attorney and a ground- breaking pick for the Third Circuit. Her perspective, experience, and legal acumen will greatly benefit the court. And once confirmed, she will be the first Black woman to serve on the Third Circuit. After earning her B.A. with honors from Swarthmore College and her J.D. from Yale Law School, Ms. Freeman clerked for three judges on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, based in Philadelphia. In 2009, following her clerkships, Ms. Freeman joined the Federal Community Defender's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, an office she has served with distinction. As a Federal public defender, Ms. Freeman has dedicated her career to representing indigent criminal defendants seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights-- to due process, effective assistance of counsel, and other constitutional guarantees. Unfortunately, some of my Republican colleagues have suggested that Ms. Freeman's public defense work disqualifies her from judicial service. In reality, Ms. Freeman has undertaken this work in support of the Constitution and the rule of law. Her zealous advocacy has helped to ensure that the protections of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are made real for criminal defendants. Throughout her career, she has advanced the cause of equal justice under law. Ms. Freeman received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association. She has the strong support of Senator Casey, as well as many leaders in the Pennsylvania legal community. This includes four former Federal prosecutors who sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee writing, ``We are impressed by Arianna's diligence, intelligence, dedication, and integrity. It is because of her ethics and compassion, grounded in sensibility, that we are confident she will provide sound and measured opinions, while approaching each case without bias and with respect for the rule of law.'' I will support Ms. Freeman's confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last month, Attorney General Garland made one of his most important decisions yet as head of the Justice Department: He appointed a new Director to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Now, why is that a big deal? Because for years, the Bureau of Prisons--which is charged with care of more than 140,000 adults in custody--has been plagued by corruption, chronic mismanagement, and misconduct reaching all the way to the top of the Agency. Under the former Director--Michael Carvajal--the Bureau of Prisons turned a blind eye to numerous allegations of sexual abuse, criminal conduct, and even torture and murder. Time and again, former Director Carvajal refused to hold his own employees accountable, and he repeatedly failed to implement much-needed reforms to our Federal prison system. These failures not only jeopardized the lives of adults being held in Federal custody--but also the lives of the nearly 35,000 Americans who work in BOP facilities every day. Fortunately, as of last month, the Bureau finally has a chance at a fresh start. Earlier today, the Judiciary Committee welcomed the Bureau's newly appointed Director, Colette Peters, who testified about her vision for America's Federal prison system. And based on her testimony, I am hopeful that her leadership will mark a critical turning point for the Bureau of Prisons. Director Peters shares my belief that the top priority for the Bureau can be summed up in one word: reform. She is a reform-minded leader who is committed to clearing out the bureaucratic rot that has festered for far too long. And unlike her predecessor, Director Peters has not spent her career climbing the rungs within the Bureau's bureaucracy. She has been putting in the work of building a better justice system in her home State of Oregon. Over the past decade, Director Peters served as the head of Oregon's Department of Corrections. In this role, she pioneered a new model for the State's correctional system--one that, I hope, she will bring to the Bureau of Prisons--she calls it ``The Oregon Way.'' The Oregon Way is centered around ``prioritizing employee health and well-being by normalizing the correctional environment and, in turn, improving the outcomes for incarcerated people.'' Director Peters was inspired to develop this model after she traveled to Norway, where she visited six of the country's prisons. She saw for herself how a rehabilitation-focused prison system can help prepare incarcerated people for successful reentry into society--and ultimately reduce recidivism rates. And as director of Oregon's Department of Corrections, she implemented some promising reforms to the State's prisons, like dismantling death row and rearranging housing areas to prevent correctional officers from spending long shifts alone. Director Peters' vision for a rehabilitative, humane correctional system is exactly what the Bureau of Prisons needs at this moment. But let's also be clear: The grave, systemic problems within the Agency won't end with the appointment of a new Director. This challenge is far too complex for any one person to solve--no matter how noble their intentions may be. And as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I give the American people my word: We will be watching the Bureau like a hawk. Our oversight role has never been more important. That is why yesterday--in anticipation of her appearance before the Judiciary Committee--Representative David Trone and I led a number of our colleagues in sending Director Peters a letter. In it, we urged her to take immediate action in reducing the use of restrictive housing, also known as solitary confinement. It should be one of the first steps she takes as Director. Appallingly, the Bureau of Prisons has made a habit of throwing prisoners into solitary confinement, an almost medieval practice that should be, in the words of the Justice Department, ``used rarely, applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints.'' But former Director Carvajal repeatedly ignored that recommendation, and right now, on any given day, more than 10,000 people within BOP-- nearly 8 percent of the entire Federal prison population--are being held in some form of solitary confinement. That is inhumane--and unconscionable. Ten years ago, I chaired the first-ever congressional hearing on solitary confinement. One of the witnesses was an exonerated formerly incarcerated person named Anthony Graves. He was wrongfully convicted for a murder he did not commit. During his time in prison, Mr. Graves-- an innocent man--spent 16 years in solitary confinement. Imagine that: being held in isolation, in a cage the fraction of the size of this Senate floor, for 16 years. Mr. Graves told the members of the committee, ``Solitary confinement does one thing, it breaks a man's will to live. . . . I have been free for almost two years and I still cry at night, because no one out here can relate to what I have gone through.'' ``I battle with feelings of loneliness. I've tried therapy but it didn't work.'' I know that Director Peters understands that solitary confinement can cause severe mental anguish for adults in custody. As director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, she made important progress in reducing the use of restrictive housing in facilities across the State. I trust that she will work to do the same at BOP. After that 2012 hearing, the Obama administration took some encouraging steps to reform and reduce the use of restricted housing in the Federal prison system. Unfortunately, under the Trump administration, that progress stalled, and the rate of individuals in solitary confinement steadily increased. The Biden administration has committed to addressing this, and Director Peters made clear today that it will be one of her priorities. But it is also the responsibility of lawmakers in Congress to improve our Nation's laws regarding the use of solitary confinement and ensure that a change in administrations will never again lead to an increase in this harmful practice. Today, I am reintroducing a piece of legislation--with my friend and fellow committee member Chris Coons--that does just that: the Solitary Confinement Reform Act. We first introduced this bill back in 2016, and we have reintroduced it in every Congress since. That is how important it is. It will require the Bureau of Prisons to limit the use of solitary to the briefest terms--under the least restrictive conditions possible. And it will improve access to mental health care services for individuals who have been held in solitary. As we turn a new page at the Bureau of Prisons with Director Peters, I can think of no better way to begin reforming the agency than by passing the Solitary Confinement Reform Act. Let's finally build a justice system that actually rehabilitates adults in custody and prepares them for successful reentry into society. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last month, Attorney General Garland made one of his most important decisions yet as head of the Justice Department: He appointed a new Director to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Now, why is that a big deal? Because for years, the Bureau of Prisons--which is charged with care of more than 140,000 adults in custody--has been plagued by corruption, chronic mismanagement, and misconduct reaching all the way to the top of the Agency. Under the former Director--Michael Carvajal--the Bureau of Prisons turned a blind eye to numerous allegations of sexual abuse, criminal conduct, and even torture and murder. Time and again, former Director Carvajal refused to hold his own employees accountable, and he repeatedly failed to implement much-needed reforms to our Federal prison system. These failures not only jeopardized the lives of adults being held in Federal custody--but also the lives of the nearly 35,000 Americans who work in BOP facilities every day. Fortunately, as of last month, the Bureau finally has a chance at a fresh start. Earlier today, the Judiciary Committee welcomed the Bureau's newly appointed Director, Colette Peters, who testified about her vision for America's Federal prison system. And based on her testimony, I am hopeful that her leadership will mark a critical turning point for the Bureau of Prisons. Director Peters shares my belief that the top priority for the Bureau can be summed up in one word: reform. She is a reform-minded leader who is committed to clearing out the bureaucratic rot that has festered for far too long. And unlike her predecessor, Director Peters has not spent her career climbing the rungs within the Bureau's bureaucracy. She has been putting in the work of building a better justice system in her home State of Oregon. Over the past decade, Director Peters served as the head of Oregon's Department of Corrections. In this role, she pioneered a new model for the State's correctional system--one that, I hope, she will bring to the Bureau of Prisons--she calls it ``The Oregon Way.'' The Oregon Way is centered around ``prioritizing employee health and well-being by normalizing the correctional environment and, in turn, improving the outcomes for incarcerated people.'' Director Peters was inspired to develop this model after she traveled to Norway, where she visited six of the country's prisons. She saw for herself how a rehabilitation-focused prison system can help prepare incarcerated people for successful reentry into society--and ultimately reduce recidivism rates. And as director of Oregon's Department of Corrections, she implemented some promising reforms to the State's prisons, like dismantling death row and rearranging housing areas to prevent correctional officers from spending long shifts alone. Director Peters' vision for a rehabilitative, humane correctional system is exactly what the Bureau of Prisons needs at this moment. But let's also be clear: The grave, systemic problems within the Agency won't end with the appointment of a new Director. This challenge is far too complex for any one person to solve--no matter how noble their intentions may be. And as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I give the American people my word: We will be watching the Bureau like a hawk. Our oversight role has never been more important. That is why yesterday--in anticipation of her appearance before the Judiciary Committee--Representative David Trone and I led a number of our colleagues in sending Director Peters a letter. In it, we urged her to take immediate action in reducing the use of restrictive housing, also known as solitary confinement. It should be one of the first steps she takes as Director. Appallingly, the Bureau of Prisons has made a habit of throwing prisoners into solitary confinement, an almost medieval practice that should be, in the words of the Justice Department, ``used rarely, applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints.'' But former Director Carvajal repeatedly ignored that recommendation, and right now, on any given day, more than 10,000 people within BOP-- nearly 8 percent of the entire Federal prison population--are being held in some form of solitary confinement. That is inhumane--and unconscionable. Ten years ago, I chaired the first-ever congressional hearing on solitary confinement. One of the witnesses was an exonerated formerly incarcerated person named Anthony Graves. He was wrongfully convicted for a murder he did not commit. During his time in prison, Mr. Graves-- an innocent man--spent 16 years in solitary confinement. Imagine that: being held in isolation, in a cage the fraction of the size of this Senate floor, for 16 years. Mr. Graves told the members of the committee, ``Solitary confinement does one thing, it breaks a man's will to live. . . . I have been free for almost two years and I still cry at night, because no one out here can relate to what I have gone through.'' ``I battle with feelings of loneliness. I've tried therapy but it didn't work.'' I know that Director Peters understands that solitary confinement can cause severe mental anguish for adults in custody. As director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, she made important progress in reducing the use of restrictive housing in facilities across the State. I trust that she will work to do the same at BOP. After that 2012 hearing, the Obama administration took some encouraging steps to reform and reduce the use of restricted housing in the Federal prison system. Unfortunately, under the Trump administration, that progress stalled, and the rate of individuals in solitary confinement steadily increased. The Biden administration has committed to addressing this, and Director Peters made clear today that it will be one of her priorities. But it is also the responsibility of lawmakers in Congress to improve our Nation's laws regarding the use of solitary confinement and ensure that a change in administrations will never again lead to an increase in this harmful practice. Today, I am reintroducing a piece of legislation--with my friend and fellow committee member Chris Coons--that does just that: the Solitary Confinement Reform Act. We first introduced this bill back in 2016, and we have reintroduced it in every Congress since. That is how important it is. It will require the Bureau of Prisons to limit the use of solitary to the briefest terms--under the least restrictive conditions possible. And it will improve access to mental health care services for individuals who have been held in solitary. As we turn a new page at the Bureau of Prisons with Director Peters, I can think of no better way to begin reforming the agency than by passing the Solitary Confinement Reform Act. Let's finally build a justice system that actually rehabilitates adults in custody and prepares them for successful reentry into society. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it has been a little more than 7 months since Russia launched its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the destruction that has followed is unbelievable. We have all had a chance to bear witness to the brutal reality of Russia's invasion as Ukrainian forces have recaptured territories like the city of Izyum. Soon after the city was liberated, Ukrainian forces discovered mass graves filled with hundreds of bodies, including children. Some of the bodies had their hands tied behind their backs and their skulls crushed, and many showed signs of torture. The images that have emerged from Izyum prove what we have suspected for some time: The mountain of evidence of Russian war crimes is sky high. These photos illustrate what the Ukrainians are finding in recaptured territory. They are sending out people to redig mass graves to find out just what happened to members of their family and neighbors and their friends. The same thing is illustrated by this photo as well. In the shadow of this beautiful church, they are finding mass graves left behind by the Russians. Today, I had the honor of presiding over a hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, focusing on the role we must play in the United States in holding Putin and his thugs accountable for these heinous war crimes. The message was clear: Our Nation must continue the legacy we began with the Nuremburg trials by ensuring that Russian war criminals are brought to justice. And a critical step in doing that is to make sure that the perpetrators of these atrocities find no safe haven anywhere in the world, let alone in the United States. That is why I have introduced the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act with the ranking Republican Member, Senator Grassley. It closes a shameful loophole in American law that has allowed war criminals to escape justice. Our legislation updates the War Crimes Act so foreign war criminals who try to flee to America can be prosecuted, even years after their crimes were committed. It is only a starting point, but I hope we can build on it to finally enact the law in this country prohibiting crimes against humanity. This is an opportunity to send a clear signal to war criminals, like those in Russia today who systemically attack civilians, that America is going to hold you accountable for your crimes. Immigration Madam President, on a related topic, at our brightest moments, America has not only held war criminals and tyrants accountable; we have also provided refuge to their victims. Many of us in Congress can attest to that fact. In fact, it is exactly how my family arrived in this country. Back in 1911, my grandmother left Lithuania in search of freedom. She boarded a ship carrying two things in her arms: a bag with her Catholic prayer book, published a year before the Czars outlawed its printing in Lithuania, and her 2-year-old daughter, my mother, Ona. The moment my grandmother stepped foot on American soil, her life changed. From that moment on, she and my mother were protected by an incredible shield: the U.S. Constitution, along with the rights and protections it guarantees. But for Lithuanians, securing those same rights has not been so easy. The country struggled under Soviet occupation for nearly 50 years. Even after the Lithuanian people proclaimed their independence in 1990, their liberty wasn't guaranteed. In January 1991, 9 months after Lithuania held its first free elections, Soviet tanks rolled into Vilnius in a ruthless, last-ditch effort to crush the country's new democracy. Thirteen Lithuanian martyrs were killed that day. I would like to think it was the sacrifice of those 13 Lithuanians, and millions who also suffered under communism, that inspired the current Governor of Florida to establish a new holiday earlier this year. It was entitled Victims of Communism Day. In his own words, Governor DeSantis created this holiday with the goal of ``honoring the people that have fallen victim to communist regimes.'' In announcing this holiday, he asserted that ``Florida will stand for truth and remain as a beachhead for freedom.'' That is an admirable aspiration, but, sadly, it is one that the Governor of Florida has failed to live up to because, when it comes to standing up to ruthless dictators of our time, like Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, Governor DeSantis and his allies are nowhere to be found. Instead of offering safe harbor to victims of Maduro's regime, these very same Governors have chosen to abandon and abuse their families. This is no way to honor the victims of communism and political repression. It is a cowardly failure of leadership that violates our Nation's basic values. When news first broke that Governors Abbott of Texas and DeSantis of Florida were using refugee families fleeing desperate conditions in Venezuela as political pawns, I couldn't help but wonder: What if it were my own family? The families fleeing Venezuela are seeking refuge from the same menace that the victims of communists faced decades ago: political persecution and state-sanctioned violence. Under Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela has been a failed criminal state awash in human misery. It is so dangerous that the State Department warns Americans to avoid traveling to that country, and the people of Venezuela suffer every day under rampant corruption, human rights violations, hunger, and criminal mismanagement. I saw it for myself when I visited Venezuela a few years ago, just before Maduro's latest sham election. Since then, things have grown worse. Hospitals are devoid of basic medical supplies, kids and parents are too hungry to go to school or work, and Maduro's barbaric regime is being propped up by some of the most repressive powers of the world, like Russia and Cuba. A recent United Nations report found that Maduro and his cronies have been systemically repressing Venezuelans and gruesomely torturing their political opponents. These horrors have driven nearly 7 million Venezuelans to leave that country in desperation and fear. To put that in perspective, that is more than the number of Syrian refugees and nearly equal to the number of Ukrainian refugees fleeing active war in those countries. Despite what some Republicans have claimed, families fleeing Venezuela are not ``illegals'' or ``invaders.'' They are victims of the same ruthless tactics that once defined the Soviet Union. Instead of helping these families, Governor DeSantis and Governor Abbott declare holidays and have chosen to exploit their fear and confusion. I met with a few of the families who were unwittingly placed on migrant buses to Chicago by Governor Abbott of Texas a few weeks ago. One of the people I met was named Carlos. He and his wife and two little girls were sitting at a table, and we were able to talk to them for about a half hour and ask questions. Carlos was a hard worker in Venezuela, but the country's political and economic crisis was so severe that his job couldn't keep food on the table. His family was on the brink of starvation. So on May 15, Carlos and his wife, along with those two beautiful little girls, decided to literally flee for their lives. They embarked on a 5-month journey, much of it on foot, to the Texas-Mexico border. It was a nightmare of violence, theft, and exploitation. Carlos told me that, at one point, he thought he would die, while spending 9 nights in a Panamanian jungle. By the time they were rescued by a local military force, all of their money was gone, their cell phones had been stolen, and they were penniless. But they pressed on and eventually made it to America. They filed their claim for asylum. We are honored that they were brought to Chicago, though the circumstances were not good. To me, Carlos is living proof that we have more work to do in ridding the world of violent repression and totalitarianism. These evils didn't suddenly disappear with the fall of the Soviet Union. I actually share the Florida Governor's belief that America has the responsibility to stand in contrast to dictators like Maduro and Putin by actually defending truth and freedom. But that responsibility is far bigger than declaring a holiday, because it is one thing to speak out against the evils of communism or voice opposition to Maduro, but talk is cheap. The real test for our values begins when the victims of tyrants like Maduro arrive at our doorstep in search of freedom. I am sad to say that Governor Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott have literally failed that test. To add insult to injury, these Governors not only refused to help these families fleeing Venezuela; they wasted taxpayers' dollars on a political stunt that only made the problem worse and made us, as a nation, look weak and, to some of the world, look cruel. Here is the reality. The most powerful way to stand up against dictators like Maduro is by honoring America's legacy as a beacon of freedom. That means coming to the aid of families like Carlos's-- families who are applying for asylum the right way and seeking a fair shot in America, like our own families once did. In fact, we need workers. We have 11 million unfilled jobs in this Nation and 5 million unemployed Americans. Let's put young, able-bodied people like Carlos to work in jobs that Americans don't want. Let's get them on the books and give them their fair shot so they can finally enjoy the security and safety for their families that was denied to them in their home countries. They will contribute to a better America. Time and again, immigrants have shown us that they rise to the occasion, work harder than most, and achieve things unimaginable. They can do it again, and they will. Let's prove that America was and is better than the cold, iron fist of authoritarianism. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, I worried this morning that the Senator from Arkansas was going to offer this unanimous consent request on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. I was a little bit surprised. I wasn't aware of this bill. We have been members of the same committee, the Judiciary Committee, for 21 months, and the Senator from Arkansas has not raised the bill during that period of time. But it is his right to come to the floor today and ask that it be considered. I would like to tell you why I am going to object to this. If you serve in Congress for any period of time, you become a student of the terrible drug problems of America. I recall a period of time in the House of Representatives when we had crack cocaine appear in the United States for the first time. It scared us because it was cheap; it was deadly; addictive; and for the women who were pregnant who had taken it, it did harm to the babies they were carrying. So we decided to make sure that we were going to do the right thing in our War on Drugs. What we said was--listen closely--the penalty for crack cocaine would be 100 times the penalty for the use of ordinary cocaine--100 times. The penalty for using cocaine in general was already serious. One hundred times, we said, for the War on Drugs. I voted for it. I thought, finally, a message will come from the Congress that, if you touch crack cocaine, you are going to be in for it. We expected that fewer people would do it because of the fear of that criminal sentencing and that the price of crack cocaine would go up because the demand was limited. Guess what happened--exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite. More and more people used crack cocaine, and the price on the street went down to dirt level. The result was we started filling our prisons in a way that we had never seen before in the history of the United States: 500 percent of the prison population of just 20 or 30 years ago increased in that period of time. We learned the hard way that getting tough wasn't always the smart way to deal with drug addiction. We thought about it, and we changed the law several times. I have been party to changing it. I voted for the original version, and it failed. We had to do better. Then something happened that was dramatic--opioids. Out of nowhere came opioids, and what used to be a problem of drug addiction and death in the inner cities of America became a problem of drug addiction and death in the suburbs of America, in the farm towns of America--all over America. Interestingly enough, America started looking at our drug laws and our drug addiction and saying: What are we doing wrong here? What is wrong with this situation? As a consequence, a lot of attitudes changed. People got away from the old ``just say no'' routine and started asking serious questions: How do we deal with drug addiction? How do we stop this addiction? It is not easy to stop it, but God knows we need to. So we have seen a transformation with the arrival of opioids. Now, the Senator from Arkansas is correct. People are lacing these opioids with fentanyl, and fentanyl is deadly; there is no question about it. We should take it seriously, and we do. As a matter of fact, each judge, when imposing a sentence for crimes already involving fentanyl, is pretty serious about it. I just heard the Senator from Arkansas describe a situation in which someone in Minnesota got life in prison for the sale of a fentanyl product. So it is clear that it is not being ignored, nor should it be. Intentionally selling fentanyl is already a crime all over the United States. Representing that fentanyl is something else is exactly the kind of aggravated factor a judge takes into account in the sentencing. I don't believe this bill is a serious effort to deal with the problem in light of what we know today. Let's start with the fact that it creates a new Federal death penalty offense. Well, I have to tell you that I have watched a lifetime--a political lifetime--of death penalty cases and have seen the result. I have my serious doubts that that is the best way for America to go. I think the gentleman from Arkansas realizes it. I am the lead sponsor, along with 20 others, of the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act--to repeal it once and for all. So I am concerned about any legislation that imposes the death penalty. It also creates mandatory minimum sentences that don't allow judges to consider the individual circumstances in a case. That is straight out of the failed doctrine of the War on Drugs--a mandatory minimum. Tie the judge's hands. Put people in jail, and basically say there will be unlimited amounts of time that they will spend there. People were getting 20- and 30-year sentences for the sale of narcotics like crack cocaine, and we soon realized that it didn't make sense over the long haul. It was 20 years for a single drug sale, which goes up to mandatory life in prison if a defendant has any prior felony conviction, no matter if it has zero relationship to drugs or is based on a defendant's immigration status. I don't believe that is the right way to go. It wasn't with the War on Drugs. We learned the hard way. I want to get tough on the drug sales, and I am sure the Senator from Arkansas feels the same way. We approach it differently. I have the experience of trying to take the hard position on this issue and of seeing that it failed when it came to crack cocaine. For that reason, I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Arkansas' views on immigration are well- known. He has been consistent in opposing immigration, but it is interesting to me that people like him who oppose immigration always, at the end, seem to go after the same people: mothers and children. We saw it with the cages the kids were kept in. We saw it when kids were forcibly removed from their parents at the border during the Trump years. We have seen it time and again, and now we see it with the Governor of Florida and the Governor of Texas putting mothers and children on buses and busing them hundreds of miles away from where they were picked up, whether there is any contact there or not. Mothers and children are always a focal point of anti-immigration rhetoric, and, once again, this bill does that. I agree completely when it comes to stopping transnational criminal organizations, but to focus the bill on innocent spouses and children, including minor children, and make them the target of the bill seems to me going beyond any reasonable law enforcement. There is a narrow exception in the bill that allows a spouse or child to be admitted to the United States if they can somehow convince the consular officer that they did not know or could not reasonably have known of their spouse's or parent's membership in a criminal organization. But there is no exception for battered spouses or children who are often victims of these organizations themselves. And the bill gives what appears to be unreviewable discretion to these consular officers to decide whether an innocent spouse or child has renounced the organization. These transnational criminal organizations must be sanctioned and stopped, but this is not the way to do it, going after mothers and children. I want to make a point, since the Senator concluded after my last statement that I am somehow soft on crime. Can I go through a short list here of bills that I voted for to get tough on crime? Let's take a look at this bill, the American Rescue Plan. That American Rescue Plan passed in the U.S. Senate and provided billions-- billions--of dollars to State and local communities for police and crime protection--more money for police and crime protection from this Senate to those communities. I voted for it. The Senator from Arkansas voted against it. Then the Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In that bill was a $430 million investment in our ports of entry, helping DHS to screen vehicles for fentanyl. You see, these drugs come through ports of entry. This idea of a backpack full of drugs being hiked over the border by someone in the middle of the night, that is not where the bulk of these drugs come from. They come through the ports of entry. So we put a $430 million investment to make those ports of entry even stronger and tougher. I agree with that completely, helping the Department of Homeland Security to screen vehicles and stop fentanyl from coming in. I voted for that. The Senator from Arkansas voted no. Who is soft on crime? Then we passed the March Omnibus appropriations bill--tens of millions of dollars in increased funding for hiring police officers and technology upgrades at the border to detect and seize fentanyl and other illicit cargo. I voted for that. The Senator from Arkansas voted against it. Who is soft on crime? And when we passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most serious bipartisan step Congress has taken to end gun violence in 30 years, I voted for it. The Senator from Arkansas voted against it. Who is soft on crime? The American people can see which party is passing legislation and actually funds law enforcement, addresses crime and violence in a thoughtful way. And they can see, when the bills come up on the floor, one party gives the speeches; the other party gets the votes. I am going to continue to vote to support the police and put an end to this drug crisis in America in a thoughtful and sensible way. I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, passing legislation is difficult at any stage in American history. It is increasingly difficult when it is a 50-50 Senate. You have to work it. You have to be willing to sit down with someone from the other side of the aisle and find a cosponsor so that you have a bipartisan bill. I have seen that work. In fact, I was part of it. It was Senator Chuck Grassley and I who put together the FIRST STEP Act, which was part of prison reform--significant prison reform--in this country. Who signed the FIRST STEP Act? President Donald Trump. Soft on crime? What we did was work out something that was bipartisan, sensible, and really makes a difference, and makes certain that people currently serving in prison will one day be released--most will--and not return to crime when that happens. I think that was time well spent, but it took a bipartisan effort. I could have come to the floor every day of the week and offered my best idea on how to fight crime, but if you can't pass it on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, it doesn't work. It takes a lot of hard work and a lot of patience and compromise to make a real change in the law. Even if you think you have the best idea on Earth, you have to work at it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I took chemistry in high school. I wasn't very good at it, but I think I got a B, and I was glad to get rid of it because I didn't understand a lot of it, and that was not where I was headed in life. The question which the Senator from Wisconsin puts before us today is a complicated question. It seems he is--do we have a drug crisis in America? Yes. Is fentanyl dangerous? Yes. Is fentanyl deadly? Yes. Is fentanyl on schedule I, the highest possible narcotic rating under our Criminal Code? Yes. So what is this discussion about fentanyl? Why are we at this again? I don't know the Senator from Wisconsin's background in chemistry and the like, but here is how I understand it and why it is not as simple as paying tribute to this young man who lost his life to fentanyl. And I can come up with examples that I have run into as well. It is heartbreaking what is going on. There are certain elements that contain fentanyl that have other chemical structures, not simple fentanyl, which is already a prohibited narcotic under American law. And these so-called analogs of fentanyl have many chemical variations. It turns out that some of them are deadly dangerous, but some of them are not. It turns out that some are deadly dangerous, and others may have a promise to be the next Narcan for the researchers. So we have been struggling, literally, for years with a research community that says: When it comes to fentanyl analogs, don't sweep them all into category I. Some of them may be lifesaving, as odd as that sounds. It could happen. And I have been saying it is a reasonable argument, but how long is this investigation going to go on? How long will this research continue? We are told that it is sincere and real--it has happened under previous administrations and this administration--and that to sweep all these chemical analogs of fentanyl into this category would be, frankly, counterproductive. We may be walking away from something that is a lifesaver rather than a life-taker. And it is because of that that we have been temporarily extending the decision to put fentanyl and its analogs on category I so that this research can establish whether, in fact, there is a lifesaver, that there is something positive in a fentanyl analog. I have just given you the sum total of my understanding of this issue. As I said, I didn't major in chemistry and barely got through it in high school, but I think that is where we are. I don't think there is any disagreement between us that fentanyl is deadly and dangerous and belongs on that category I. When it comes to the analogs, they said to me: Durbin, you are a liberal arts lawyer. Don't act like you are a chemist. Give us the time to do this right.

Mr. DURBIN. Sure. Yes.

Mr. DURBIN. There is an element that the Senator from Wisconsin may not be aware of. When a drug is on schedule I, it is prohibited to do research on it. That is the reason why we are running into problems with cannabis, now legal in my State and maybe in your State as well. And I raised the basic question: Are the health claims about cannabis true or false? And they said: We cannot research it because it is on the list of prohibited drugs in the United States. The problem is, if we put all of these analogs on the list, it is going to stop the research that we need to finish. It is a catch-22. What we have tried to do is a temporary extension saying: Give us the final word. We have got to make a decision. I do not quarrel with you in any way about the danger of fentanyl, but the people who do this for a living--and I can't keep up with their conversations, by and large--have explained to me: We are trying to find a good use of a fentanyl analog. Don't close the door, slam the door, by putting it on schedule I because research stops.

Mr. DURBIN. Yes, of course.

Mr. DURBIN. I would just say that my information is a little different. I respect the Senator from Wisconsin and his tribute to this poor young man who lost his life, but we are trying to do the sensible thing. Fentanyl itself is going to continue to be branded a dangerous drug, titled in category 1. But Federal analogs and a variation on that theme is what we are discussing, and for reasons--I am trying to bow to the experts in science and research--on a temporary basis. Believe me, if they have got something, we want to see it. If not, we are going to categorize them as schedule I. So for the reasons I have mentioned, I am going to object.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Iowa is sincere and accurate as he describes the fentanyl challenge we face in the United States. He tells the story of losing an Iowan. Sadly, I can tell a similar story in my home State of Illinois. We currently have a temporary answer to this situation that extends until December 31 of this year, and admittedly, it is coming on us, but it isn't tomorrow. It will be in just a few months. One of my colleagues on the committee, Senator Cory Booker, has a particular expertise and interest in this issue, but, unfortunately, he could not be here at this moment when the Senator from Iowa made his motion. On his behalf, so he has an opportunity to discuss this with the Senator from Iowa and perhaps find a path through our differences, I object.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, every year since 1988, we have honored the achievements of the Latino community in the United States through Hispanic Heritage Month. My friend and mentor, Senator Paul Simon, was part of the effort to establish this important time to honor the contributions of Hispanic and Latino communities throughout American history, filled with stories of inspiration and courage. Today, I continue Paul's work by taking the time to honor this rich history and celebrate the leaders paving the way for a brighter future of this Nation. Illinois is home to a large and vibrant Latino community. I have had the privilege of meeting Latino people from many walks of life, from Dreamers who grew up here, to newly arrived refugees fleeing tyranny. While their stories all differ, they share common themes of hope, resilience, and determination. In their stories, I see my family's story. My mother and her family escaped oppression to find freedom here in America. Many families have followed that same journey to provide a better life in Illinois and across the country. It is not easy to leave your home to travel to an unfamiliar place. But with their courage, they brought diverse cultures, sharing music, food, traditions, and history. The Latino community has made an indelible mark on Illinois through small businesses, top-performing Hispanic-serving institutions, and beautiful cultural centers and museums. Commitment to family is a core tenant of Latino culture and extends to care for the community at large, where Latino leaders use their talents to help others. Juan and Maria Pedroza emigrated from Mexico in 1989 to Little Village with their small children. Like the story of many families across the country, they, too, came to the United States in search of the American dream, doing whatever it took to ensure a brighter future for their children. Their children--Juan Manuel Jr., Maria Socorro, Gabriela, and Pedro--went on to attend prestigious colleges and universities, including Harvard, DePauw, Cornell, and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Pedro's courage and spirit of service led him to serve in then-Mayor Rahm Emmanuel's office--the first Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--DACA--recipient to serve in the mayor's office. Pedro recognized the needs of his community and answered the call to public service so others could grow and succeed. The Pedrozas' success has not come without great sacrifices, similar to those that many Latino families have had to make. But through extraordinary determination and resilience, they go above and beyond out of love of family and community. Chicago also is home to a vibrant Puerto Rican community that has displayed great resilience in the face of serious challenges. Tragically, more than 900,000 Puerto Ricans have lost power in the aftermath of Hurricane Fiona. Some areas received more than 30 inches of rain and, sadly, this devastation is a trend. Latinos in the United States are more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to experience heat waves, powerful hurricanes, sea level rises, and floods. It is estimated that Hispanic and Latino people are 43 percent more likely to live in an area expected to be too hot to work a full day outside due to climate change. And communities are responding. Across the United States, thousands of people have joined together to help Puerto Rico-- including in Illinois--where the Puerto Rican Agenda is working to provide immediate relief to those affected by natural disasters. I support their efforts and President Biden's approval of a major disaster declaration for Puerto Rico. Tackling environmental injustice doesn't end there. Earlier this year, activists and community leaders in southeast Chicago raised concerns with the development of a metal shredder facility. The Chicago Health Department and the Environmental Protection Agency conducted a health impact assessment, finding the metal recycling plant would have increased air pollution and negatively impacted the mental health of residents. As a result, the city blocked the development. This story is not unique to Chicago; Latino communities across the United States have mobilized to make their voices heard and protect our communities. We also saw this tenacity during the pandemic. Millions of Hispanic and Latino people served as frontline workers--treating patients, feeding communities, and working around the clock to disinfect schools, stores, and health centers at a grave personal cost. Today, Hispanic or Latino persons are twice as likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 and 1.8 times more likely to die from the virus, due to health disparities and continuous exposure. We must never forget the contributions they made, which have supported our Nation during one of its most difficult moments. Countless Latino leaders have overcome systemic injustices to succeed and inspire the next generation of leaders. As we celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, we recognize the value the Latino community brings to our country through its work and culture. Resilience and love shine through in all that the community does and will continue to make us a stronger country for years to come.