Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a famous chef once said that ``a plate of food was a plate of hope.'' At Yoshi's Cafe in Chicago, the meals were that--and so much more. Every meal--every bite--at Yoshi's was a celebration and a discovery of new tastes and new combinations of tastes. When Yoshi's Cafe opened 39 years ago, it was on the vanguard of ``fusion cuisine,'' cooking that combines the best of different cultures. In Yoshi's case, it was an exquisite mix of classical French and Japanese cooking traditions. Over the years, Yoshi's also incorporated bits of cuisines, such as hint of Mexican cooking, into their dishes. But the true signature ingredients of any meal at Yoshi's Cafe were pride and love. Every meal was a chance for founder Yoshi Katsumura to share his impeccable culinary skill and imagination. And every customer was treated like a friend. If you went often enough, as my wife Loretta and I have, you became part of the family. That combination of personal warmth and impeccable food has made Yoshi's Cafe one of Chicago's truly great neighborhood restaurants. This weekend, Yoshi's Cafe will serve its last meal--and Loretta and I plan to be there. We wouldn't miss the chance to eat one last time at one of our favorite restaurants. Chicagoans feared this day might come sooner. When founder Yoshi Katsumura died in 2015, we wondered if that might be the end of Yoshi's Cafe as well. But Yoshi asked his wife Nobuko to try to preserve his legacy and the business they had built together. And she did. With the help of her son, chef Ken Katsumura, Nobuko kept Yoshi's Cafe open, even through a lethal pandemic that devastated the restaurant industry. Her daughter, Mari, has made a name for herself as a top-ranked pastry chef in Chicago. After some soul-searching, however, Nobuko has decided that it's time for a new chapter--time to spend a little more time with her grandchildren and enjoying life. Like countless other Chicagoans, Loretta and I feel a touch of sadness about the closing of Yoshi's Cafe. But we also feel tremendously grateful for the memorable meals we have enjoyed there and for the gift of Yoshi and Nobuko's friendship over the years. I once showed up at the restaurant on a Monday evening, forgetting that it was closed. I stood for a moment on the sidewalk of North Halsted Street, stranded and hungry, trying to decide where to eat. Just as I was about to leave, I heard someone call my name. It was Yoshi, who lived above the restaurant, calling down to me and offering to fix me a meal on his day off. That was the moment I came to see the goodness of this man. And Nobuko is just as kind and giving. Yoshi's Cafe brought together the foods of Tokyo, Paris, Lyon, and Chicago. Yoshi was born in Japan. At the age of 20, he apprenticed under another legendary chef, Hiroyuki Sakai in Tokyo, where he first learned the intricacies of fine French cooking. In 1973, he moved to Chicago, where he studied under one of Chicago' first celebrity chefs, Jean Banchet, at Le Francais. Further study in Paris and Lyon added to his skills. He returned to Chicago as chef and partner in the city's premier French fusion restaurant, Jimmy's Place. In 1982, he and Nobuko opened their own place. For nearly 40 years, Yoshi's has earned the love and loyalty of generation of Chicagoans. It has been featured on the Food Network and listed among ``America's Top Tables'' by the Conde Nast Gourmet magazine. I want to thank Nobuko Katsumura and her gracious and loyal staff for the great gift Yoshi's has been to Chicago. Loretta and I will miss our friends at Yoshi's and the incredible meals we enjoyed there. We will treasure our memories of this Chicago icon and the great family that created it for years to come.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue of vital importance involving the U.S. attorneys. Each of the 93 U.S. attorneys serves as the chief Federal law enforcement officer within his or her jurisdiction. U.S. attorneys prosecute the full spectrum of criminal cases brought on behalf of the United States, from hate crimes to human trafficking, to gang violence, to cyber crime, to narcotics, to financial fraud, to terrorism. The list is long, and the violations of the law that are alleged are serious. The position of the U.S. attorney is nearly as old as the Nation itself. In fact, the position has existed since the First Congress. President George Washington signed into law the law that created these attorneys in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Given the critical role that these U.S. attorneys play in bringing justice to those who violate Federal criminal laws, it is hard to imagine that any Member of this body would obstruct efforts to confirm these law enforcement officials. Doing so could threaten public safety and puts at risk millions of Americans' security. It is also a stark departure from what has happened before. The last time the Senate required a rollcall vote on a U.S. attorney nominee was 1975. Forty-six years have passed without the request for a rollcall vote on a U.S. attorney. For decades, the Senate has confirmed U.S. attorneys by a voice vote or unanimous consent after they have been considered in the Judiciary Committee. Listen to this: During the Trump administration, 85 of President Trump's U.S. attorney nominees moved through the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. Of those 85, the Senate confirmed every single Trump nominee by unanimous consent without even requesting a record vote. I might add just for the record, I believe one nominee was held for 1 week so that a question could be answered about his background. That is the only thing that I can recall where they even slowed down the process during the Trump administration. Certainly, it was within our power as Democrats to stop and require a vote, but we didn't. Yet now there is a Republican objection to holding a voice vote on five U.S. attorney nominees: Greg Harris for the Central District of Illinois, Clare Connors for Hawaii, Zachary Cunha for Rhode Island, Nikolas Kerest for Vermont, and Philip Sellinger for New Jersey. Several of these nominees have been held up for weeks--weeks--by this objection. Why, you ask, is there an objection to these five nominees? There must be something wrong with their records. Well, let's take a look. Greg Harris is a personal friend of mine. I practiced law with him in Springfield, IL. He spent nearly three decades as assistant U.S. attorney in the Central District of Illinois. That includes my hometown. He has tried over 50 cases to verdict and held a number of leadership positions in the U.S. Attorney's Office. He serves on the Central Illinois Human Trafficking Task Force and the Bankruptcy Fraud Working Group. His nomination is historic. He will be the first African-American U.S. attorney in the Central District of Illinois, which, of course, is located in Mr. Lincoln's hometown of Springfield--the first. Clare Connors is currently the attorney general of Hawaii. Ms. Connors previously served as criminal prosecutor in the Justice Department's Tax Division, special assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, and for nearly 7 years an assistant U.S. attorney in Hawaii. Zachary Cunha, currently an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Rhode Island in the same office he will lead upon confirmation--he has worked there for 8 years, following time as an assistant U.S. attorney in both the Eastern District of New York and the District of Massachusetts. Nikolas Kerest, also an assistant U.S. attorney, served in the District of Vermont since 2010, following time in private legal practice in Maine and Massachusetts and a clerkship on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Philip Sellinger has had a long and distinguished legal career in New Jersey. He began his legal career as a law clerk for Judge Anne Thompson of the District of New Jersey before joining the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark. For the past two decades, Mr. Sellinger has been a litigator in a prominent law firm and even served as the firm's cochair of global litigation. Listen to these biographies. All five of these nominees are eminently qualified to hold the office of U.S. attorney, to prosecute crimes and bring civil actions on behalf of the government, and to help safeguard our communities across America. There is one thing that all of these U.S. attorney nominees have in common, though. They are all from States with two Democratic Senators. That seems to be the only thing that they might have in common. The objections to these nominees are not that they aren't qualified or that the job is not important; the objection seems to be that they are from States with two Democratic Senators. So when it comes to critical issues we expect, in the Department of Justice, to be taken care of by U.S. attorneys--issues involving terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics, public corruption, gun violence, the safety of our communities--is the fact that they happen to hail from States with two Democratic Senators enough to disqualify them or to leave these positions vacant? It is time to end the Republican delay and get these well-qualified prosecutors confirmed and on the job. We never once during the Trump administration's 4 years held up a U.S. attorney when it came to a voice vote, a unanimous voice vote, to give them the opportunity to serve this country. It is unthinkable that we are going to do this to these fine men and women today. So, today, I will ask unanimous consent for a vote on these nominees. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 534, 535, 536, 581, and 582; that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been trying to understand the Republican objection to these well-qualified U.S. attorney nominees, and the Senator from Arkansas has made it clear. It has nothing to do with them; it is about me. He, obviously, doesn't approve of what happened one day in the committee. And the price to be paid is not by me but by the U.S. attorneys, well-qualified, who have important jobs to fill. One member of the Republican caucus is upset with the fact that back in March--this happened in March--the Judiciary Committee moved to vote on the nomination of Vanita Gupta to be Associate Attorney General when Republican members of the committee had not finished speaking on her nomination. He correctly remembers that he was speaking at approximately 10 minutes to 12 p.m., when I interrupted him, took a rollcall vote, and went back to him if he wished to speak again. I will be the first to acknowledge that I moved forward with the vote on Ms. Gupta's nomination over the objections of committee Republicans. But put simply, the Republicans forced my hand that day. The Senator from Arkansas talks about courtesy in this body. I will tell him I think that it should be a hallmark of what we all do at all times. I am fortunate, truly blessed, in my mind, to have, as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, a real friend in Chuck Grassley, the Republican Senator of Iowa. I asked him that day what was going on. I had informed the committee in writing that we would proceed with a vote on Ms. Gupta that day. I then allowed committee Republicans to speak for 94 minutes on Ms. Gupta's nomination, even though much of what was said was repetitive-- some false and some really unwarranted. I was, in fact, prepared to allow committee Republicans to speak for as long as they wished. I turned to Senator Grassley and said: ``What's the plan here?'' And he said: ``Well, Senator Tillis may return and speak, and we just have these members speaking.'' I had received assurances that the Republicans would not use an obscure Senate rule, the 2-hour rule, to cut off the markup before we voted on Ms. Gupta's nomination. But at 11:55 a.m., I was surprised, as was Senator Grassley, to be informed that despite their earlier assurances, a Republican Senator had, in fact, invoked the 2-hour rule in an effort to prevent Ms. Gupta's nomination from being considered that day and to close down the markup in the committee. My hand was forced by this action. It was a surprise move, a tactical move, surely within the rules for them to make, but I did exactly what previous Republican chairs of the Judiciary Committee did in similar situations. I ended the debate and called for the vote on the nomination. If you are listening to this and wondering what these arcane committee procedures have to do with U.S. attorney nominations, you are not alone. The Senator is pleading that we should stand by the traditions of the Senate. And by the traditions of the Senate, these U.S. attorney nominees would go through by unanimous consent. That is a tradition of the Senate as well. The simple answer is, what happened with the markup debate more than 8 months ago has nothing to do with these five fine individuals or with any other U.S. attorney nominee who may come before the Senate. If the Senator from Arkansas wants me to publicly express my regret for this occurrence, I express that regret. But I want to make it clear, I relied on my friend Senator Grassley. We were both surprised to know that someone had invoked the 2-hour rule. Caught by surprise, I did what other Republican chairs of the committee have done. I don't believe we should play politics with critical law enforcement nominations. They are putting our communities at risk and politicizing law enforcement in a way that threatens public safety. If we are going to truly stand up for law and order, let these men and women go to work across America representing the Department of Justice.

Mr. DURBIN. Responding through the Chair, as long as there is openness and honesty about what is happening in the procedure, I will assure you that I will do everything I can to extend that courtesy forward. That particular day, you may or may not be aware of the fact that while you were speaking, we learned--Senator Grassley and I both learned that someone had raised the 2-hour rule, and it came as a surprise to both of us. When we are open and honest about what we are trying to achieve in a committee, there is no reason why we can't abide by basic courtesy in the tradition of the Senate.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 534, No. 535, No. 536, No. 581, and No. 582; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I learned this morning about the passing of Senator Robert Dole. What an extraordinary person he was. It was not my good fortune to serve with him in the U.S. Senate, but as a Member of the House of Representatives, I knew his work. (Ms. DUCKWORTH assumed the Chair.) I can remember when we enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tom Harkin was our leader on the Democratic side. He had a member of his family who suffered a disability, and Tom was always sensitive to that. But Bob Dole's leadership on the other side, from the Republican side, made a remarkable difference because we knew that Bob Dole was not speaking about disability as some other person's experience but, frankly, his own. I don't know what measure of courage Bob Dole showed before he served the United States in World War II, but we all knew that experience led him to a battleground injury, which he carried the rest of his life. It was amazing to me that he kept his public life so active despite the limitations that he faced. His loss of use of one arm put him in a position where he was compromised in many ways every single day. Yet he soldiered on, literally, to serve his Nation, not only in the Armed Forces but also in the U.S. Senate to pass legislation, major legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is remarkable that he lived as long as he did and faced the injuries that he did. I would say, Madam President, you know better than most what we are speaking of with Senator Dole's contribution to his country and the battle he continued to wager the rest of his life. I respect him so much and hope the Senate will just pause for a moment to not only reflect on him, Elizabeth Dole, and his family but also on the fact that his bipartisanship made the difference in the lives of ordinary Americans. He was willing to sit down with the party on the other side of the aisle, compromise, and be determined to get things done. Shouldn't we do the same in his honor? I think we should.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it has been a great source of debate over the past couple of years over a very basic question: How was Jeffrey Epstein able to take his own life in Federal prison on August 10, 2019? Last week, we found some answers in the New York Times. It pointed out a series of stunning failures within the Bureau of Prisons. According to the Times: ``The newly obtained records offer no support to the explosion of conspiracy theories that Mr. Epstein's death was not a suicide. . . . But they do paint a picture of incompetence and sloppiness by some within the Bureau of Prisons.'' That incompetence and sloppiness was evident from the moment Jeffrey Epstein entered the Metropolitan Correctional Center. On his intake screening form, Mr. Epstein was described as ``a Black male,'' with no prior record of sex offense convictions. A 5-second Google search would tell you that not only was Jeffrey Epstein White, he was one of the most notorious sex traffickers in recent history. And what about the night he died? He had already attempted suicide in the weeks leading up to his death, so you would think that the officials in the Bureau of Prisons would keep close watch over this potentially suicidal inmate. In fact, the opposite happened. Jeffrey Epstein was left alone, unmonitored, in his cell. The two officers on duty were allegedly dozing off and scrolling on their phones. And the next morning, Epstein was found dead with a bed sheet tied around his neck. Because of these failures, the survivors of Epstein's despicable crimes will never get to see him brought to justice. Six months after Epstein died, former Attorney General Bill Barr handpicked Michael Carvajal to lead the Bureau of Prisons. It could have been a new beginning for the Bureau, a chance to get to the bottom of widely publicized neglect and mismanagement--and to hold the appropriate parties accountable. But that fresh start never came because, since day one, Director Carvajal of the Bureau of Prisons has shown no intention of reforming that institution. Consider the case of the warden who ran the Metropolitan Correctional Center the night Jeffrey Epstein died. How did Director Carvajal respond to that warden's failure of leadership? Well, if you can imagine it, he actually rewarded him. Director Carvajal appointed the same warden to lead a different facility, the largest Federal prison in the United States: FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey. And it seems that warden hasn't learned any lessons in leadership since Mr. Epstein's death. Last month, an inmate in FCI Fort Dix was attacked from behind and stabbed in the eye. These are not isolated incidents. For years, the Bureau of Prisons has been plagued by corruption, chronic understaffing, and misconduct by high-ranking officials. And in the nearly 2 years since Director Carvajal took control of the Bureau, he has failed to address the mounting crises in our Nation's Federal prison system. It is far past time for new, reform-minded leadership in the Bureau of Prisons. A few weeks ago, the Associated Press published a breathtaking investigation into the Bureau. They concluded that it is a ``hotbed of abuse, graft and corruption, and has turned a blind eye to employees accused of misconduct.'' Since 2019, more than 100 Federal prison workers have been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of crimes, including sexual abuse, murder, and introducing contraband into the prison. Altogether, these crimes account for two-thirds of the criminal cases against all Department of Justice personnel, even though BOP employees comprise less than a third of the workforce. I want to share a few of the stories from the Associated Press report. At one Federal prison in Mississippi, an official responsible for investigating the misconduct of other staff members was arrested for his own misconduct. He was not only accused of stalking and harassing his fellow employees, but he was allowed to remain in his position. He was even authorized to continue investigating one of his accusers. In California, a warden of a Federal women's prison was arrested and indicted earlier this year for molesting an inmate. He even kept lewd photos of the victim on his government-issued cell phone. He allegedly told the woman that she shouldn't even try to report the assault because he was ``close friends'' with the official who would investigate it. The list goes on. It is a recurring pattern of misconduct by officials within the Bureau of Prisons who believe they can abuse inmates and break the law with impunity. In some cases, that is exactly what they have done. The details in the AP investigation are shocking. And for those of us who have been following Director Carvajal's tenure, they are the latest disturbing examples of failed leadership. Time and again, he has categorically failed to uphold his chief responsibility as Director. And what is that responsibility? Protecting the health and safety of inmates and correctional officers. Today, the Bureau suffers from chronic and significant understaffing. Director Carvajal has failed to contain outbreaks of COVID-19, which has led to tens of thousands of inmates and staff contracting the virus. And when it comes to reforming our Federal prison system, he has failed. In 2018, congressional Democrats and Republicans came together on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis to enact the FIRST STEP Act. It was a historic piece of reform legislation to create new pathways for prison inmates to better themselves while they serve their time, so they can return to society once released. Nearly 3 years later, the Bureau of Prisons still hasn't implemented most of these reforms. One example, under the FIRST STEP Act, low-risk inmates are eligible to earn time credits, reducing their sentences. They do this by completing programs designed to prevent them from committing another crime. Last month, the inspector general at the Department of Justice found that the Bureau of Prisons has not applied these earned time credits to any of the approximately 60,000 eligible inmates. Now the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, is charged with overseeing the Bureau of Prisons. We have tried to get answers from Director Carvajal and his team. We have repeatedly requested information. We have asked for details about the inmate banking system. Now, there is a heck of a story. It purportedly has little oversight by the Bureau of Prisons, has allowed inmates to avoid paying child support and restitution to crime victims and other obligations. The Bureau reportedly allowed Larry Nassar, the so-called doctor who abused hundreds of young gymnasts before he was sentence to life in prison, to spend thousands of dollars from his Bureau of Prisons account on himself but pay only $300 toward the debt he owes his victims. The Bureau has delayed responding to our questions--or just flatout ignored them. It is past time to replace Director Carvajal. This can't wait any longer. The Associated Press's investigation shows us that lives are literally at stake. I know Attorney General Garland understands the urgency. I am calling on him today to move immediately to dismiss Director Carvajal and to bring real reform to the Bureau of Prisons. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of my Connecticut colleagues in their effort to pass the bipartisan background check bill, H.R. 8. I want to thank my friends Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal for their leadership on this issue. I am sure, as Senator Blumenthal just recounted, that tragic experience at Sandy Hook Elementary School 9 years ago is still fresh in their minds and motivates them to stand up, time and again, and to speak out on behalf of the families who lost their children and those wonderful educators and administrators who gave their lives that day. What will it take? Is there a crime involving guns in America so horrific that finally we will say enough? Other countries have. Australia did. They had a terrible shooting. They came to the conclusion that this was just unacceptable in their nation. They wouldn't let it become normal. Some States have done that. Connecticut did after Sandy Hook. They said our State will be different. We are not going to stand just idly by. But when it comes here to Washington in this national legislature, in this Senate, it appears there is nothing sufficiently awful, so specifically outrageous that it will move us to act. This last week, it was Oakland County, MI, Oxford High School. Four children got up in the morning, blurry-eyed, brushed their teeth, grabbed their lunches, headed off to school--and never came home. That was the reality of this. Senator Murphy has said those other students, lucky enough to survive, will never forget that day as long as they live. They will be telling their grandchildren about the day they had to dive out of a window to escape this gunman who was going through their school. I have always thought, of the most terrible gun crimes that have happened--and there have been so many, so many--Sandy Hook is the worst. I can't imagine a classroom of 20 first graders and the teachers being gunned down at their desks. Oh, my God. For every parent and every grandparent, it is the worst nightmare in the world, and it happened there--20 of them. Certainly, many of us believed that would be the moment that America would come to its senses and say: Let's do something. If we can't do everything, let's do something to show we care. But as a national legislature, we failed. And the proposal that we brought to the floor that was objected to today is the most basic thing in the world. OK. You have second amendment rights, unless--unless--you have given those up by committing a felony crime and being convicted of it, unless you were so mentally unstable that you shouldn't own a gun. That is basically it. That is all we said. Are those unreasonable? I think not. Eighty-four percent of Americans happen to believe that is a pretty sensible thing to do-- 84 percent. But when it comes to the U.S. Senate, we can't get 51 percent to vote that way--at least not yet. So I thank my colleagues Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal for reminding us of the terrible tragedy in their lives and in their State just 9 years ago. But I will tell you that as horrible as Sandy Hook was, 900 people have died by gunfire in Cook County, IL, which I represent, just this year, and 40,000 Americans lost their lives to guns last year. We can't do anything about that. They are gone. But what about tomorrow's victims? What about next week's victims? What about the next high school? We can do something about that, and this bill would pass today if Republican Senators would allow it. Let's be very candid about this. This is a partisan issue. It shouldn't be. Those gunmen--I don't think anyone reports their political status, and certainly the victims are not identified that way. But in this Chamber, it is an article of faith, political faith, that Republicans won't touch anything related to gun safety--anything. The bill that was objected to, proposed by Senator Grassley, the protecting communities bill--first, let me say Chuck Grassley is my friend. I mean it. I don't just say that as political, idle talk. He is my ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We disagree on a lot of things. We sure do agree on a lot of things too. The bill that he described is a step in the wrong direction, as was mentioned by Senator Murphy. That bill doesn't fix the gaping holes in the background check system. It makes them worse. To say that people who have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital can leave that hospital, walk out the door, and buy a gun, that doesn't even make sense. You would certainly want to ask someone, some medical expert, what is their state of mind? Have they fully recovered? Are they ready? Can they make a basic decision that we can trust? That is not too much to ask for those who are involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. Unfortunately, the Grassley bill, which we objected to, would automatically restore a person's right to buy a gun the minute they walked out of the hospital. The bill also wipes away the NICS background check system for the records of--listen--175,000 people in this country who have been found, in the words of the statute, ``mentally incompetent.'' This bill would allow them--permit them to buy guns immediately. How can that make any sense at all? Surely, the definition may not be the best, but let's work on that instead of just saying, on a blanket basis, go out and buy a gun if you want to. The bill also weakens gun laws on the books. The bill would allow gun dealers to sell handguns directly to people from other States. How does that make us safer? And it would bar the ATF from requiring gun dealers to submit reports of multiple purchases of long guns--a key indicator of gun trafficking in many border States. We are a long way from where we should be, but Senator Grassley has challenged me as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing, mark up the bill. I accept the challenge. We may not get to first base on this, but we are not going to stay in the stands and in the bleachers as kids are being gunned down at Oxford High School, and we are ``celebrating''--if that is the word--all of the gun deaths of the past with anniversaries that bring back bitter memories and tragic occurrences. So, yes, the Senate Judiciary Committee will have a hearing. We are going to move forward as best we can. Maybe there is common ground out there. I pray, for the victims and their families--I pray that there is. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letters in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, while we were all home for the Thanksgiving recess, an American patriot passed away. His name was MAJ Ian Fishback. During his life, Major Fishback defended our Nation during four tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was an accomplished scholar, with degrees from both West Point and the University of Michigan, and a lifelong champion of justice. Tragically, like too many of our Nation's veterans, Major Fishback's life ended far too soon. He died at the age of 42. Though his time on Earth was short, he left behind a legacy. He changed our Nation for the better. He inspired the Members of the Senate to make a historic stand against injustice. You see, in 2005, while Major Fishback was serving as captain in the U.S. Army infantry, he spoke out against America's inhumane treatment of detainees after 9/11. In a letter to then-Senators John McCain and John Warner, Major Fishback wrote: ``I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.'' Major Fishback's courageous letter shed light on the atrocities that were being committed shamefully in the name of our Nation, and he felt that he had ``failed'' the servicemembers under his command. The reality is, our leaders failed Major Fishback. In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration tossed aside our constitutional principles as well as the Geneva Conventions. By condoning torture, they dishonored our Nation and actually endangered our servicemembers. After reports emerged about horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, I tried for a year and a half to pass legislation to make it clear that cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees was illegal. Two military heroes, my former colleague Senator John McCain and Major Fishback, turned the tide in this effort. In speaking out, Major Fishback rallied the Members of this Chamber to support a torture amendment authored by Senator McCain and myself, which was added to the defense spending package for that year over a veto threat from the George W. Bush administration. That provision explicitly banned inhumane treatment of any prisoner held by the American Government--on American soil or overseas. It set us on a course to restoring American values that were cast aside after 9/11-- work that is still ongoing 20 years later. We have a defense bill before us on the floor with many things in it that are positive, and I will vote for it. But it is a moment to also reflect that this bill does more than protect our Nation and help our troops; it also protects our values. That is why I have an amendment to this bill, which I hope we will have a chance to offer, that will close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay once and for all. Since the first group of detainees was brought to Guantanamo in January of 2002, four different Presidents have presided over the facility. In that time, the Iraq war has begun and ended, and the war in Afghanistan, our Nation's longest war, has come to a close. A generation of conflict has come and gone. Yet the Guantanamo detention facility is still open, and every day it remains open is an affront to our system of justice and the rule of law. It is where due process goes to die. That is precisely why military officials, national security experts, and leaders on both sides of the aisle have demanded its closure for years. The facility was virtually designed to be a legal black hole where detainees can be held incommunicado--beyond the reach of law--and subjected to unspeakable torture and abuse. In the words of a former senior official in the Bush administration, Guantanamo existed in ``the legal equivalent of outer space.'' It was created to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. What are those conventions? We know. They were the internationally accepted standard of humane treatment for detainees and prisoners. Guantanamo was designed to circumvent it and other longstanding treaties. This subversion of justice has harmed detainees, it has undermined our moral standing, and it has failed to deliver justice, which it promised. For two decades, the families of Americans who died on 9/11 have waited for the alleged conspirators, who are being detained in Guantanamo, to be brought to justice. For 20 years, they have been waiting, but the case still hasn't come to trial. Imagine. If justice delayed is justice denied, how can this be justice at Guantanamo? Instead, the facility has become a symbol for human rights abuse, lawlessness, and everything Major Fishback decried in his letter to Senator McCain. The stories out of Guantanamo and CIA black sites are shocking. Let me tell you one of them. Last month, Guantanamo detainee Majid Khan testified before a military jury about the abuse he suffered in the facility and in CIA black sites. It was the first time a detainee has described his torture at a CIA black site. Let's be clear. Majid Khan is a former member of al-Qaida who should be held accountable for his actions, but there is no justification for torture. Mr. Khan recounted being abused in unspeakable, unthinkable ways by our government, including being waterboarded and shackled to a ceiling until his ankles swelled with blood. In one part of his testimony, he described a CIA medic sexually violating him with a garden hose. As Mr. Khan shared the excruciating details of his torture, the members of the jury listened closely. But pay heed: These weren't average citizens sitting on the jury; they were Active-Duty, senior military U.S. officials on the jury. When the hearing concluded, these high-ranking military leaders did something unheard of. Seven of the eight jurors signed a handwritten letter recommending clemency for Majid Khan. This is what they concluded, and I want to quote it word for word: ``Mr. Khan has been held without the basic due process under the U.S. Constitution. . . . [He] was subjected to physical and psychological abuse well beyond approved enhanced interrogation techniques, instead being closer to torture performed by the most abusive regimes in modern history. . . . [T]his abuse was of no practical value in terms of intelligence or any other tangible benefits to U.S. interests.'' Remember, I have just quoted these senior U.S. military officials who sat on a jury where this man was being tried, and they, in a handwritten letter, wrote what I just read. Now, that last point is crucial. The human rights abuses committed in Guantanamo and CIA black sites are not merely inhumane; they don't work. They are ineffective. Khan testified: ``I lied just to make the abuse stop.'' Torturing him brought us no clarity, brought us no truth, and brought us no closer to eradicating terrorism. Instead, stories about the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo have only galvanized America's enemies. They have been packaged into propaganda and recruitment tools for terrorism, which in turn endangers our service men and women as well as our allies. These accounts of abuse have also diminished our international standing. How can we claim credibility as a nation? How can we hold authoritarian dictators accountable if they can point to our own legacy of cruelty and indefinite detention? The man was held for 20 years, and others are still being held without being brought to trial. Worse yet, the degrading conditions at Guantanamo are being funded by American taxpayers. How much is the cost of Guantanamo? Astronomic, that is how high it is. We spend more than $500 million a year to keep Guantanamo open--$500 million. Half a billion dollars a year American taxpayers are wasting to detain how many people for half a billion dollars? Thirty-nine. Thirty-nine prisoners, $500 million, and 13 have already been approved for transfer. That works out to nearly $14 million a year on each prisoner like Majid Khan--$14 million a year. Let me put that in perspective for a moment. That is enough money to expand Medicaid coverage to 1.5 million Americans over 10 years. Setting aside the cost, we have to acknowledge the larger truth. Guantanamo does not reflect who we are or should be. Indefinite detention without charge or trial is antithetical to America's values. Yet more than two-thirds of the people detained in Guantanamo today have never been charged with a crime. How can that be any form of justice? With or without the amendment I have introduced to this year's Defense authorization, we must accelerate the timeline to finally close Guantanamo. As I mentioned, 39 prisoners, $500 million a year? President Biden transferred his first detainee earlier this summer, but that pace--one every 6 months--is not going to set us on course to finally close Guantanamo. Like the war in Afghanistan, America's failures in Guantanamo must not be passed on to another administration or to another Congress. Can this Senate summon the courage to finally close this detention facility? I would like to test it on the floor of the Senate. As a matter of fact, isn't that why we are elected--to test a basic question like that? Next week, the Judiciary Committee is going to hold a hearing on how we can close Guantanamo once and for all. There are more steps the Biden administration can take to accelerate this closure. One is by appointing a special envoy to the State Department to negotiate transfer agreements for those inmates who are scheduled to be transferred--13 of the 39--to transfer them to other nations. We must also reach swift resolution in the remaining cases where charges have been brought, instead of moving forward with military commissions. Let's finally accept the obvious: Military commissions are not the answer in Guantanamo and have not been for 20 years. If there is one lesson we can learn from the shameful legacy of Guantanamo, it is that we need to trust our system of justice. The use of torture and military commissions that deny due process have hindered our ability to bring terrorists to justice. Going forward, we should adhere to the long-held values of humane treatment and the rule of law. Our Federal courts have proven more than capable of handling even the most serious, complex terrorism cases. Since 9/11, hundreds of terrorism suspects have been tried and convicted in our Federal courts, and many are now being safely held in Federal prisons. Compare that to the military commission case against the alleged conspirators behind 9/ 11. It still hasn't come to trial more than two decades after that horrendous attack. The families who lost loved ones on that day deserve better. America deserves better. And American patriots like Major Fishback deserve better as well. We all deserve better than these black holes that violate our national values and make true legal accountability impossible. As Major Fishback wrote to Senator McCain all those years ago, ``If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession.'' It is time to live up to those ideals that our troops have risked their lives to defend. It is time, at long last, to face reality and honestly say, Close the detention facility in Guantanamo. Let's put this dark chapter behind us once and for all. And in the memory of Major Fishback and the U.S. officials on that jury who spoke out, I thank them. I know it wasn't easy. It is far easier to remain silent and to avoid the obvious. But they showed courage in disclosing to the American people what occurred at Guantanamo. Now, do we even have the courage to even debate this issue and vote on it on the floor of the Senate? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was 158 years ago tomorrow that Abraham Lincoln delivered what I believe was the greatest speech ever uttered by an American. He had been asked to say ``a few words'' at the dedication at the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, PA. Four months had passed since the great armies of the North and South had clashed on that hallowed ground. They had fought for 3 days in the searing July heat. When the slaughter finally ended, the battlefield lay covered with the bodies of 50,000 dead and wounded soldiers and officers. It was the bloodiest battle in the hellish Civil War. What good could come from butchery and sorrow? What great purpose had been worth such staggering loss? Those were the questions which Abraham Lincoln pondered on his train ride to answer in Gettysburg. He spoke for less than 3 minutes--just 272 words. In those 3 minutes, he redefined the war as not a battle for territory or property, but for human dignity and human equality. He gave us a profound, simple, new definition of democracy: ``Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' He said the fallen soldiers had done all they could do. They had given their ``last full measure of devotion'' to ensure democracy did not perish from this Earth. Now, Lincoln said, it was left to us, the living, to ``advance their unfinished work''--in his words, to salvage from all of that death a new birth of freedom. He said that our Civil War was testing ``whether a nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal . . . can long endure.'' Can our democracy endure? It is a question that Lincoln pondered not just at Gettysburg but throughout his life. Twenty-five years before Gettysburg, he had considered that question in a speech at the Young Men's Lyceum in Springfield, IL. He was a young lawyer and a newly elected State legislator, just 29 years old. It was a challenging time in America, as it is today. Anxiety was high following a stock market panic the previous year. There was growing violence in America. Abolitionists were being killed by pro- slavery defenders. Blacks and others were being lynched with alarming frequency in the South. Lincoln feared that what he called ``the justice of the mob'' might replace the rule of law. Sound familiar? In a time of such anxiety, he questioned whether people might elect a despot who would use his power to tear down the institutions of our democracy, rather than preserve them. In his most famous passage, he warned that if American democracy were ever to perish, ``it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.'' I heard those words quoted by a thoughtful Member of the House of Representatives on the night of January 6, 2021, after the mob that attacked this Capitol had gone and Congress had returned to complete our duty to certify the electoral ballots and declare Joe Biden the President of the United States. The weapons and military programs that we will debate in the coming days are important. They are essential to protect America. But weapons alone cannot save us if we don't understand what we are fighting to defend. There is only one sure way to preserve American democracy, Lincoln told us. We must know our history. We should study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, he said, as if they were a Bible, so that we revere the principles upon which our democracy is built. Our democracy can't survive if we reject the great proposition for which so many died at Gettysburg: that all people are created equal. Our democracy cannot survive if we abide by the rule of law only when it suits us. And it will not endure if we see each other as enemies rather than as friends and citizens of one Nation that we all love. We have seen a demonstration of that particular issue this week in the House of Representatives. In his book, ``Lincoln at Gettysburg,'' Garry Wills wrote that ``Up to the Civil War, the United States was referred to as a plural noun. `The United States are a free country.' After Gettysburg, it became singular, `The United States is a free country.''' As it says above your head, Mr. President, ``e pluribus unum.'' As we look forward to celebrating our national holiday of Thanksgiving, perhaps we could try a little harder to hear the ``mystic chords of memory''--what a phrase--that unite us. I think about that Gettysburg Address, and I was asked to give a speech about the Gettysburg Address at Gettysburg many years ago. I tried to set out whatever I had to say in 272 words. I think I did a fair job, but I would give myself a passing grade, at best. But it was a complete shock to my audience when I stopped at 272 words, and Lincoln said that a speech doesn't have to be eternal to be immortal. In our lives as public servants, we are called on to speak very often. And I am reminded, time and again, the impact that Lincoln had with so few words, to capture the moment, to give people hope, and to craft phrases which still endure to this day as some of the most masterful uses of the English language one can imagine. Tomorrow, I hope we can take a moment to recall our childhood education, when we were taught the Gettysburg Address and perhaps recite what we can of it. And I hope we will remember, even in these dark times, that we have faced harder times than this and we were delivered and this Nation endured. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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