Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my wife and I received our COVID vaccinations, and we were grateful to the scientists, the doctors, the nurses, and everyone else who made those miracle medicines possible. It is a relief to see vaccination numbers in this country picking up a little bit in the last few days after declining for months. It is a relief to hear some of the loudest anti-vax quacks change their tune about the importance of getting vaccinated. While many of these charlatans and blowhards were dreaming up bizarre theories about the vaccines, the virus was not idle. In fact, months of confusion and quackery have given the virus a chance to mutate and, sadly, to again regain the upper hand. This mutation, known as the Delta variant, is now in every State in the Union. COVID infections, hospitalizations, and deaths are on the rise again. Almost all--almost all--of those who are hospitalized and facing serious illness and even death are unvaccinated. We know that. But this is a virus the world has never seen before, and the science is still evolving. What scientists don't know yet is whether people who are vaccinated against COVID can spread the Delta variant even if they experience few symptoms. While unvaccinated people should wear a mask whenever out in public, the CDC is recommending that vaccinated people who live in high- transmission areas also wear masks in indoor public spaces for now. Further, vaccinated people who have vulnerable individuals in their households--young children or those who are immunocompromised--should wear masks in public places. And finally, the CDC is recommending universal masking for all teachers, staff members, and students in school, regardless of vaccination status. No one--no one--wants to wear a face mask. We all hoped that those days were all behind us. But I am bringing this mask with me in my pocket to be ready to use it when needed; others should do the same. If you want to protect yourself, your family, and your community, get the jab. It is free and safe. Until then, wear the mask when you must.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this week, the Senate will consider the nomination of Todd Kim to be Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, known as ENRD. This Division acts as our Nation's environmental law firm. It leads efforts to reduce pollution and protect our Nation's precious national resources by enforcing Federal, civil, and criminal environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and hazardous waste laws. At least that is what it is designed to do. Under the previous President, Donald Trump, ENRD took some troubling steps in the wrong direction. It prioritized protecting polluters over the environment. With more than 1\1/2\ million acres of the United States currently burning in a wildfire season that has been greatly exacerbated by climate change, we are mindful of the critical importance of vigorous enforcement of our Nation's environmental laws. What the Division needs now is a leader who will bring back integrity, expertise, and a renewed commitment to enforcing our Nation's environmental and natural resources law. Mr. Kim is that leader. In fact, his career in environmental law began at ENRD, where he worked as a trial attorney. During his time with the Division, he was awarded the Justice Department's Outstanding Performance Award on three separate occasions. As a trial lawyer there, he spent 8 years representing the United States zealously and apolitically under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Mr. Kim's principled leadership in that role has earned him praise across the ideological spectrum. He has the strong support of former ENRD officials from both parties. Over 80 environmental law experts and academics, who often don't agree on many things, all believe he is the right person. They wrote: ``ENRD deserves one of the nation's best lawyers at its helm. Todd Kim promises to be just such a leader.'' Mr. Kim also has experience leading a large legal department. He served as the District of Columbia's first solicitor general, a role he held for over a decade. Additionally, Mr. Kim has received support from Asian-American organizations, including Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. His nomination received strong, bipartisan support on our committee. Four of my Republican colleagues-- Senators Grassley, Graham, Cornyn, and Tillis--joined the Democratic members in advancing his nomination. With Mr. Kim leading the ENRD, the American people can trust our Nation's public lands and natural resources will be protected by a proven expert and an accomplished lawyer. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of his nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to back up what the majority leader said. The day was May 22, 2019. I remember it well. Two things happened that morning. First was the birth of my granddaughter, which was an exciting and happy event. The second was just the opposite. It was a meeting in the White House with President Donald Trump, and the purpose of the meeting was to discuss infrastructure. You see, we had an earlier meeting. Democrats met with the leaders of the Trump administration to discuss an infrastructure bill. When we suggested $1.5 trillion be spent on infrastructure. President Trump said: No, make it $2 trillion. Well, we were happy to hear that. Then when we suggested that President Trump's earlier suggestion of 80 percent of it being paid on a State and local basis rather than Federal, he reversed himself. He said it will be 80 percent Federal. More good news. Then came the suggestion: Well, it shouldn't just be horizontal infrastructure. It ought to be vertical infrastructure--broadband, school buildings, things that we desperately need in America. And he said: Include them; let's make that part of the package. It was one of the best meetings. Then came the subject of how we were going to pay for it, and President Donald Trump said: Stop. I am not going to get into that conversation. Well, we said: Mr. President, we have agreed on what we are going to do, but we have to pay for it. He said: No, you are not going to trap me with raising taxes or doing things that are politically unpopular. So we postponed this follow-up meeting to this May 22 date--May 22, 2019. We were anxious to get it done because, during his Presidency, there had been no infrastructure programs--none, nothing--despite his promises to the contrary during the campaign. We came back May 22. He walked in the room and he said to all of us assembled there: As long as you are investigating me for any reason, there will be no infrastructure bill. He wheeled around and walked out. That was the end of the conversation about infrastructure in the Trump administration. It was never seriously considered or debated after that. Now we are engaged in a new exercise. Some Republican Senators--and I thank them for their courage and initiative--want to sit down with Democrats and see if we can finally, after years and years, come up with an infrastructure bill to rebuild America. They are under pressure. They are under pressure from Senator McConnell. He didn't want them to engage in this kind of bipartisan negotiation. And now, today, former President Trump has joined the chorus, saying they shouldn't bargain at all with Democrats. Put it off another year, 2 years, whatever it has to be, until the Republicans control the whole process. That is a recipe for achieving little or nothing. We know that. So I sincerely hope that this week will be a breakthrough week. Senator Schumer, the Democratic majority leader, tried to get it started last week with a simple procedural vote that would move us to this conversation, but he was unlucky and was unable to get that done, but he has maintained the procedural option of reconsidering that vote. I certainly hope that will happen soon.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this has been one of the most difficult years ever for the Capitol Police here in Washington. These are men and women who have worked in this building and nearby in our office buildings and protect us to make sure we can come safely to work every single day and our staff and our visitors and tourists who come to the Capitol Building. These men and women are amazing. We know that January 6, 2021, is a date that they will never forget. They were on the front lines of the violent January 6 insurrection that shocked this building, our Nation, and the world. Hundreds of Capitol Police literally fought for hours that day to protect this building and to protect me and other Members of the U.S. Senate. The attack left one Capitol officer, Brian Sicknick, dead and more than 140 total officers from the Capitol Police and DC Police injured. Some members said it was the most savage fighting they have ever witnessed or been part of. Many of them thought they would die that day, yet they were back at their post the very next day and the day after that, and the day after that, and this morning too. On April 2, the Capitol Police were still struggling to heal from the insurrection when their department suffered another devastating loss. A driver rammed his car into a barricade just outside the Capitol, a barricade I go through every morning. And one officer was injured and another officer, Billy Evans, was killed--killed. The memorial to him is still out at that barricade. Only once before in the 193-year history of the Capitol Police had the department lost two members in the line of duty in the same year. That was on July 24, 1998. This coming Saturday is the anniversary of that event, the 23rd anniversary of the murders of Capitol Police Officers Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. It happened on a Friday afternoon. I remember the day. Most Members of Congress had already gone home for the weekend, but the Capitol was still filled with staff and tourists. Officer Chestnut was at his post guarding an entrance on the east front of the building when a man with a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and a history of serious mental illness walked in and shot him point-blank in the back of the head. The shooter then ran to the nearest opened door, seeking to escape. On the other side of that door, Detective Gibson just warned congressional staffers to hide under their desks, and he was face-to- face with that shooter. For the first time in his career, Detective Gibson fired his weapon in the line of duty, hitting the man four times. The man shot back, hitting Detective Gibson twice. Both officers died. John Gibson had 18 years with the Capitol Police. J.J. Chestnut, a Vietnam veteran, had 20 years in the Air Force before joining the Capitol Police. He was ready for retirement. He thought he was going to be able to take time off with his family, but he lost his life that day. They became the first civilians ever to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda. Today, the Capitol Police headquarters is named after them. Their murders remained the darkest days in the history of the Capitol Police until January 6, 2021, until a defeated and bitter President Donald Trump incited an angry mob and sent them to this Capitol to try to overturn a Presidential election. The images from that day are sickening and we have seen them over and over. On February 3, Brian Sicknick became the third Capitol Police officer to lie in honor in the Rotunda. I had a chance after that to speak to his parents. They were so proud of him and they thought he had a safe job as a policeman. Working at the U.S. Capitol, that has to be a safe place to work. Among the mourners paying their respect in the Rotunda that day were President Biden and the widow of Officer Chestnut Mr. President, the men and women who safeguard this Capitol deserve more than words from us, more than speeches. They protect us with their courage and they stand up and fight for us whenever they are called on. Men and women in law enforcement are on the front lines when it comes to the Nation's gun violence epidemic. So far this year, at least 36 police officers in the city of Chicago have been shot or shot at. It is too easy for convicted felons and people with serious mental illness to get their hands on guns and use them. More than 90 percent of the American people--all political faiths-- believe we should have serious background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people who will misuse them: Convicted felons, mentally unstable people. The House passed a bill, H.R. 8, in March that would fortify this effort to keep guns out of those hands. Senators Murphy and Manchin have been leading the negotiations. They are not coming along very well. I wish they were. I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in supporting that. In the meantime, I hope that we don't allow the events of January 6 to just become a matter of history. There are still important questions we need to answer. And the Capitol Police have done something unusual, maybe the first time in memory. They have written us a letter and begged us to have a commission to really look into and investigate what happened on January 6. They had so much at stake that day. They risked their lives for us. And, sadly, Senator McConnell is not agreeing to move forward on a bipartisan commission. Speaker Pelosi is trying to put one together now and it is not easy. I commend her for her effort. It would be a shame for us to walk away from the events of January 6 because of worries about political consequences. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to the Capitol Police. We owe it to the families of those who were injured and those who died to do our part to get to the bottom of what led up to January 6. If we want this Capitol to be available for future generations to visit peacefully in a positive way, let's do our part to make sure we get to the bottom and answer that fundamental question. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, America is a nation of immigrants. But for the Native Americans, the first people over here, all of us have come to this country in various stages in our family life: personally, through our parents, grandparents, and beyond. We have built, within the confines of our Nation, an amazing story to tell the world of how such a diverse group of people can come together in one place and make a nation that has an impact on the world itself. That makes it very difficult to understand sometimes why we struggle so much with the issue of immigration. It is so central to who we are, what we have done, what we will become. Yet, when the conversation comes around about immigration policy, immigration law, we dissemble into warring factions and too often get little or nothing done. The Presiding Officer may be surprised to know that it has been almost 36 years--36 years--since this Congress has passed any meaningful or substantive immigration law. The last real effort was under President Ronald Reagan. That is not an indication that our immigration system is perfect. It is far from perfect. There are many problems with it, as we look at it in a critical and important way. I look at it from a perspective that maybe is different than some. I am the son of an immigrant. My mother was brought to this country at the age of 2 from Lithuania, became a naturalized citizen, and was very proud of that fact and raised her three boys to be proud of it as well. Just a few steps from this Chamber is my office that I have decorated with the naturalization certificate of my mother right next to my desk, a reminder of who I am, where I came from, and also a warning to anyone coming into the office that this Senator feels very strongly about the issues of immigration. Now I have the responsibility, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to actually deal with the laws surrounding immigration. It is not an easy assignment. If we have failed for 36 years to come up with a law, it is because there are strongly held views on both sides. Yesterday was a good illustration of that. I called for a hearing with my friend and colleague Senator Alex Padilla, a California Senator, on farm labor, farm workers. The reason we wanted to call this was because it was not untimely that we had received a bill from the House of Representatives, which they passed on a bipartisan basis, to rewrite the laws on farm workers. They did a great job. I want to commend them for the effort of sending this legislation our way, this bipartisan legislation with 30 Republicans joining most of the House Democrats to enact it in the House of Representatives. And now it is over on our side of the Rotunda. It is a timely and important question. We estimate that there are 2.4 million farmworkers in the United States who plant and pick our crops, milk the cows, process the food, and work in poultry and meat processing. And without them, these industries would struggle to survive. That is not my analysis; it is the analysis of the American Farm Bureau and many other organizations that represent agriculture in America. Of the 2.4 million farmworkers in the United States who pick these crops, half of them are undocumented. That means that, literally, they work in the fields picking the crops that reach our tables and they could be deported at any minute. The bill that came over from the House of Representatives addresses that. Here is what it says. It says: If you can prove that you have worked picking crops for at least 10 years--10 years--and you can pass a criminal background check, we will give you the opportunity to apply for citizenship. But it is not instantaneous. Ten years is just the starting point. You then have to give us 4 years more of working in the fields, and then we will give you a green card. And in 5 years more, you could be eligible for citizenship. You are going to go through all kinds of reviews and background checks on your path to that moment. So literally, we are saying to farm workers: If you will give us 19 years of your life picking our crops, we will give you a chance to be a citizen. I have just heard that process characterized as amnesty--amnesty. For people who are breaking their backs, in the sweltering heat of America, with the toughest jobs imaginable, spending 19 years of their life putting food on our table and then passing a criminal background check, some call amnesty. I won't. And if you had listened yesterday to the hearing, you would understand why even that process, as bipartisan as it was in the House, is in a tangle of politics here on the Senate side. Two speeches given by members of the Republican membership of the committee really told the story. They started talking not about farm workers picking crops or milking cows or processing our food, they started talking about terrorists, drug dealers, human traffickers, violent criminals coming across our border. And they rejected the notion that we should give any of them the opportunity for citizenship at any point. They didn't even read the bill. About 19 years of hard work in the field before you could possibly qualify, they just said ``reject it.'' And when I listened to that, I wondered what they had for dinner last night because it is quite likely that whatever they had--whether it was a vegan diet or one that included meat or other food products--it was on their plate because one of these people that they have just characterized as a potential terrorist is breaking his back, day in and day out, to make sure that there is food for every American. We heard stories. Linnea Kooistra was a dairy farmer in Woodstock, IL. She and her husband own a dairy farm. That may be one of the hardest assignments in the world. Those cows are going to get milked twice a day if you are going to make a living, and you better be prepared to give time to do it every single day, twice a day. She and her husband did it for years, won awards for their work. Now, they have just kind of semiretired into row crops, which are challenging, too, but not like a dairy farm. And she said: You know, the thought of our continuing our farm was impossible unless we had immigrant labor. The jobs on their dairy farm are tough, demanding jobs. People aren't lining up to apply for those jobs. They needed immigrants to make it work, and they couldn't get them. There was a fellow that was there yesterday--an extraordinary guy, person; I had just met him for the first time--and I ran across him by watching television. I said, yesterday in a hearing, that my appetite for television starts with the Chicago Bears and goes through baseball, a lot of politics and news, but I never miss, if I can help it, the CBS ``Sunday Morning'' show. Two weeks ago, this man named Shay Myers, whose home is in Idaho and who farms in Oregon growing asparagus, came on the show and did such a remarkable job, and I said to my wife: I would like to get him before our committee. Well, he was there yesterday, and he told his story again, and he told about that asparagus field. There aren't many left in the United States because it is tough work and it is unpredictable, and some people just can't make it and how tough it was for him when finally the entire asparagus crop is ready, but there are no pickers for the crop. And it is backbreaking, intensive work. He took his entire production of asparagus and basically said: Because I can't clear immigrant workers across the border, 90 of them, to pick my acreage on asparagus, I am just notifying the public in the area, It is free, come and take it; it is going to rot in the fields if you don't. He just gave up and made nothing as a result of it. He grew up, he said, in a community in Oregon or Idaho--I am not sure which--which was half and half, half Anglo, half Hispanic. And he said: I am a very conservative person politically, but how can you say that these people haven't earned their opportunity for citizenship? They work so damn hard, and nobody else wants to do this work, and we count on them. And, he said: I just happen to believe that growing these crops in the United States is a good thing. American consumers, more and more, are saying: We want some standards. We want to know about the chemicals you are going to use on these crops. We want to know about your farming practices. He said: I pay close attention to those in America. Other countries that send us those crops from other countries don't pay any attention to it. And he made a very, very valid point. When I think about those workers and how critical they were to him and his livelihood, it is hard for me to sit here--or stand here and ignore some of the criticism of this farm workers bill. I want to salute Michael Bennet, of Colorado, in particular. He is our colleague here. And he has, time and again, been able to mobilize the growers and the farm workers into an agreement on a bill. He did it again. He did it once before. I saw him do it, almost miraculously, with our Gang of 8 effort, a comprehensive immigration reform 7, 8 years ago. And now he has done it with this bill. It is amazing. Arturo Rodriguez was there, one of the founding members of the United Farm Workers--an organization, you will remember, from the days when Cesar Chavez was drawing our attention for the first time in America to who picks the crops. Rodriguez was there, and he was speaking for the workers again--bringing workers from Michigan and Georgia, who were young Hispanic women, who were working in the field just a few weeks ago and now are sitting in the Halls of Congress, begging for this legislation. When I think about all that and then hear that work effort, that bill, being dismissed by the Republican leader this morning as mass amnesty--``mass amnesty,'' that was the phrase he used--it saddens me, and it angers me. It saddens me that many of the Senators who are saying these things aren't listening to these farm workers who are giving their lives so that we can have food for our families. Tom Vilsack was there yesterday, the Secretary of Agriculture. I like him. I voted for him twice to be that Secretary. I am glad he has the job. He told the story of going to the State of New York, meeting a man who had been a migrant worker, picking crops for 20 years. This man had heard about Vilsack's arrival and about this legislation that was pending, and he said to the Secretary of Agriculture: I hope this happens so I can see my family. And Vilsack said to him: Your family, where is your family? He said: In Mexico. He said: I have been here for 20 years picking crops in the United States of America, going from field to field and State to State--20 years--and I haven't been able to see my family in that time. And Vilsack said: Why? He said: Because I am undocumented. And if I cross that border to see my family, I may never get back here again to pick the crops and earn the money and send it back to my family so they can get by. We don't think about that very often, do we? We think, Well, these workers come in, and everything is just normal. Nothing is normal about being undocumented and picking someone's crops and not being able to see your family for 20 years. I am not going to give up on this issue of immigration. America shouldn't give up on immigration. There are a million reasons why the theory that helping to find good immigration laws is mistaken in some way when you consider the fact that each year we naturalize a million people in America. Those are people who went through the process I described many times, waiting for years for that opportunity. And we say a million new Americans, through this legal process, is normal and good for us. I think it is. There are some who say that if we said to farm workers, You have a path to citizenship, a 19-year path to citizenship, of backbreaking work in the fields, that we are sending a message to countries to turn them loose, come on into the United States, no questions asked. I couldn't disagree more. We should have a process in America in immigration which we are proud of, that reflects our heritage and our belief in immigration as part of our future as well. I think there are just some basic things that every Member of the Senate should consider and, I believe, should be the basis of our immigration policy. First, we need a secure border. In the age of COVID-19 and drug dealing, I want to know who is coming into this country and what they are bringing. That is not an unreasonable question to ask at our borders. A secure border is important for those reasons. Second, we should never knowingly allow any person to come into this country who will do us harm, nor allow anyone into this country who threatens us. And third, we need an orderly process, one that respects the law because the United States cannot absorb all of the people who want to come here right now. We have to have an orderly process, knowing who is coming into the border and what impact they are going to have on our Nation. And then we ought to sit down and, instead of throwing around all the labels of mass amnesty and terrorism and human trafficking, acknowledge who these people are. One of the things that the Senator from Kentucky referred to, I am sure, is a decision last week in Texas by a Federal court. That judge, Hanen, again, ruled in a way that troubles me--I think troubles many people--that the DACA Program, created by President Obama that has given up to 850,000 young people a chance to become at least legal in America temporarily, was unconstitutional and wrong. I think his decision is terrible, and I hope that the Biden administration appeals it and we win the appeal. But the people who are affected by that decision, by the DACA decision, are young people, as I mentioned--infants and toddlers-- brought to this country, who grew up here and know no other country. They pledge allegiance to that flag in a classroom every morning. They believe that is their flag, this is their country. And most of them, when they were teenagers, finally realized for the first time they have a problem: They are undocumented. Should they be given a chance to become citizens of the United States? Overwhelmingly, the American people--Democrat, Republican, and Independents--say: Yes, that is only fair; give them a chance. They were brought here as kids. Give them a chance, those Dreamers, those DACA recipients. And to have them characterized as the beneficiaries of mass amnesty is unfair, and frankly, it doesn't reflect very well on us as a nation. If we cannot find in our values, in our hearts, an opportunity to give these young people a chance to prove themselves, it really disappoints me that my colleagues would take that position. These young people are remarkable. For 20 years of my public life, I have come to know them, and I am always amazed by the fact that I don't have to put a footnote at the end of that sentence and say ``except for a few here and there.'' By and large, I have never run into one who has run into problems. I know it happens occasionally, but it is so rare. These are remarkable young people, Dreamers, who just want a chance to be part of America's future. I have come to the floor over 120 times with color photographs telling their individual stories. Each one is an amazing testimony to who we are as Americans and why these young people want to be part of us and what they can bring to this country. Remarkable stories-- doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, members of our military, frontline workers--on COVID-19. They do remarkable things. One of them, yesterday, appeared in a video before our committee, Vicente Reyes. Vicente Reyes is a DACA recipient. His mom and dad are undocumented. He is studying robotic engineering at a university in California. Do we need him? I mean, can we do without Vicente Reyes? I assume we can do without him, but wouldn't we be better if he were part of us, part of the American family, and part of the American future? That is what DACA is about. That is what Dreamers are about. If we help him, is that mass amnesty to give that young man a chance? Incidentally, he told a story. He used to be out there picking those crops, and his mom and dad still are. Every morning, he said, before they go to the fields for a 10-hour day of back-breaking work picking crops, he said: Mom and dad hug me. They hug me and I hug them back because we know something. There is a secret in our family. My mom and dad are undocumented, he said. They may not come home tonight. That is what that family faces to go out and do this back-breaking work, and that is the reality. And to dismiss this as mass amnesty--to even talk about a path to citizenship for Vicente, to talk about some way to help his mom and dad from being frightened every single day of being deported, that is what I dedicated my work for in this Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee for many years. I hope we can find some Republicans who will step up and join us in that effort. We need at least 10 of them. That is hard to find. Maybe we can find them. I am hoping we can do it soon. We have a lot of work to do in this country for the Dreamers, for the farm workers, for the frontline workers who were there when we needed them so desperately during the COVID-19 pandemic and are still there today doing that work. We are a big, wonderful nation that has a great story to tell, and it is a story of success written by immigrants with their blood and their toil and their dedication to this great Nation. We need to renew that effort.

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 rise today to join Senator Leahy and a number of our colleagues to remember our friend, John Lewis, and reflect on his legacy. It was a little over a year ago when John shared his final message to the American people. He wrote, ``Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself.'' John devoted his entire life to building that ``Beloved Community.'' And in his final moments, he called on all of us to carry that mission forward. He told us it is now ``your turn to let freedom ring.'' We have an obligation to live up to John Lewis's legacy--and his call to action to protect our most fundamental freedom of all: the right to vote. And we can do that by restoring and revitalizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, it marked the beginning of a new era of American democracy. It ensured that our constitutional rights were not merely sketched onto a piece of paper, but enforced as well. It ensured that poll taxes, literacy tests, and other Jim Crow laws could no longer be used to deny Black, Brown, and indigenous voters access to the ballot box. In the words of John Lewis, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ``helped liberate not just a people but a nation.'' It brought America closer to our foundational ideals. But today, this monument to American freedom is under attack. At this very moment, Republican State officials are working to pass laws that make it harder for people, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, to vote. Nearly 400 of these bills have been introduced in 48 States. Some of these laws set new limits on voting by mail, others cut hours for polling locations, but the hundreds of restrictive voting provisions we have seen in recent years have achieved the same outcome: erecting new barriers to the ballot box. The proponents of these laws claim they are designed to help prevent so-called voter fraud. But the truth is, ``voter fraud'' is nothing more than a fabricated phenomenon. Nearly every investigation into the 2020 election, for instance, has found no meaningful evidence of voter fraud. The Department of Homeland Security called last year's election ``the most secure in American history.'' And more than 80 judges, including many conservative judges appointed by President Trump himself, have thrown out baseless challenges brought by the former President's lawyers. But even though the ``Big Lie'' of widespread voter fraud has been debunked, many Republican lawmakers are still standing by it. In fact, they are using the Big Lie to wage an assault on voting rights in America. You see, the laws I mentioned really aren't about securing our elections; they are about preventing eligible Americans from voting. Under section 5 of the original Voting Rights Act, many of these efforts to suppress voters would have been prohibited by the Department of Justice or Federal courts. But that authority has been greatly diminished. In 2013, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court essentially nullified section 5 of the Voting Rights Act with its decision in Shelby County v. Holder. And just this month, the Supreme Court weakened a remaining key section of the Voting Rights Act-- section 2--with its decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. This is the trend that has emerged over the past decade: State officials make it harder for Black, Brown, and indigenous Americans to vote, and the conservative majority on the Supreme Court upholds those laws by whittling away at the protections guaranteed under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In her dissent to the Court's ruling in Brnovich, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote ``in the last decade, this court has treated no statute worse'' than the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Those are unequivocal words. The Supreme Court has severely hobbled the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And only Congress has the power--and the constitutional obligation--to restore it to its full potential. You know, it really wasn't that long ago that reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act was a unifying cause. Just a few years before the Supreme Court's Shelby decision, the minority leader, Senator McConnell, joined his Republican colleagues in supporting its reauthorization. In expressing his support he said, ``This is a piece of legislation which has worked.'' To him, and to all of my Republican colleagues, I say: Let's make sure it can keep working. Let's honor John Lewis's legacy by joining together, on a bipartisan basis, to support a piece of legislation that will revitalize and strengthen the original Voting Rights Act: the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I am proud to be working with Senator Leahy and our counterparts on the House Judiciary Committee to update and reintroduce this bill soon. Last Congress, it received bipartisan support, and we hope that we will be able to expand that support this year. What remains to be seen is whether the bill will receive the votes necessary to overcome a potential filibuster. For those of my Republican colleagues who have yet to decide where they stand on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, let's show the American people that we can stand together. This Senate has the power--and the responsibility--to protect our most fundamental right as Americans. Let's heed John Lewis's call and defend it together.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I heard the Republican leader on the floor just moments ago talking about the dismissal of some individuals by the Biden administration and their replacement, and his complaint that this violated the norms and the precedents of the U.S. Senate. There are certainly two words I would offer in response to that assertion: Merrick Garland. I would offer those words to the Republican leader as a reminder of what he did when there was a vacancy on the highest Court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court. Antonin Scalia passed away, and a vacancy occurred. It was the last year of the Obama administration. Tradition suggested that that President of the United States, duly elected and in office, had the responsibility and the opportunity to fill the vacancy, and so he offered as his nominee Merrick Garland from the DC Circuit court. What happened to Merrick Garland's nomination? What was the norm and precedent? Well, there would be a hearing and a consideration of that nomination and a vote in the U.S. Senate. That process was stopped in its tracks by one leader, the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate from Kentucky. So when he talks about norms and precedents and creating and filling vacancies, he has forgotten that he made history in a very unusual way: by violating the most basic norm and precedent that the U.S. Senate had the responsibility to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. And the President of the United States, duly elected, was not a lameduck in the last year of his administration. The second issue which was raised by the Republican leader this morning dealt with the phrase ``defunding the police.'' I have rejected that phrase from the first time I heard it. I couldn't imagine anyone thinking that this was a sensible policy to follow when it came to the security of our homes and our communities. I can't speak for anybody else in the Senate, but in the awful circumstance when one is called on to dial 911, you certainly hope that the police will answer and that they will be there if they are needed. Defunding them lessens that possibility, and I am not a person who supports that. I want the very best police and law enforcement. I want them well trained, and I want them to follow norms and conduct that are respectful of American values. But defunding the police is not something I have ever embraced or ever will. But it is interesting to hear that argument from the Senator from Kentucky. He said that, in a way, you would be insulting and attacking the police by taking that position. One could argue that, but I would suggest to him that, in his position, stopping the creation of a commission to investigate what happened in this Chamber on January 6 and what happened to 140 members of law enforcement in the Halls of the U.S. Capitol on the same day is not respectful of the police itself. We have had a plea--a direct plea from the men and women in uniform who guard us in this building to have an investigative commission determine what was behind that insurrectionist mob of January 6 and what we need to do to avoid it in the future. That commission and its prospects were stopped cold by the Republican leader from Kentucky. That is a fact. In terms of being respectful of law enforcement, allowing that commission to be created--a bipartisan commission--to get to the bottom of that horrible incident, that embarrassing incident in the history of the United States, is the least we can do to respond to what the police who guard us have asked for. I might add one other element while we are on the discussion of law enforcement and protecting America. We have a special security supplemental appropriation that was created by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, which appropriates the funds to pay the National Guard units who left their families and came here to protect us, and to pay the Capitol Police for the expenses they incurred on January 6 to fortify this Capitol against any future insurrectionist mob. That supplemental appropriations bill, which should have been passed routinely weeks ago, is still languishing for lack of agreement on the Republican side. If you want to be respectful of law enforcement, whether they are men and women in uniform, in police units, or the National Guard, wouldn't you pay them for the services they have rendered to protect this Capitol and to protect the United States of America? I call on the Republican leader: Instead of making a speech on the floor, call the Republican ranking member on the Senate Committee on Appropriations and ask him to waste no time in showing respect for law enforcement and to pass that security supplemental. Nomination of Kenneth Allen Polite, Jr. Mr. President, on another topic, this week, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Kenneth Polite. President Biden has nominated him to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Criminal Division. As an experienced prosecutor who has served his community throughout his career, Mr. Polite is certainly qualified for this important position. From 2013 to 2017, Mr. Polite served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana. While in this role, Mr. Polite's office prosecuted several large, violent, criminal organizations. He held local corrupt politicians accountable and stopped more human traffickers than during any prior U.S. attorney's term in office. Prior to serving the people of Louisiana, Mr. Polite served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, which is a very busy and important office. There, he took on organized crime, fought corruption, healthcare fraud, and identity theft. In addition to his extensive experience as a public servant, Mr. Polite also has a remarkable personal story. Born to teenage parents, he spent his youth in public housing projects in New Orleans before moving to the Lower Ninth Ward as a child. He graduated high school as the valedictorian of his class, and he went on to earn his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his law degree from the well- respected Georgetown University. After law school, Mr. Polite initially went into private practice, but he was inspired to become a prosecutor after his half brother was tragically killed by gun violence. Throughout his career, Mr. Polite has always given back to the community that raised him. He has served on the boards of numerous community organizations and schools in New Orleans, and Mr. Polite's track record as an even-handed public servant has earned him support from across the aisle. In 2011, he was appointed by a Republican Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, to serve on the Louisiana Civil Service Commission. Then, last month, the Republican Attorney General of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, publicly voiced his support for Mr. Polite's nomination to this position in the Department of Justice. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Landry wrote that, while serving as U.S. attorney, ``Mr. Polite was not only an effective crime fighter, but he was also an invaluable member of the community.'' Mr. Polite is an outstanding nominee for this critical role at the Justice Department. You should have been in the Judiciary Committee, which the Presiding Officer serves on, when his nomination came up. The praise that he won from the two Republican Senators of Louisiana is an indication of this man's popularity and of his value to Louisiana and to our country. I hope that he will receive the same broad bipartisan support in the full Senate, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Polite's nomination

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and the Senate begin consideration of H.R. 1652, under the previous order.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Toomey amendment be called up, as modified with the changes at the desk, and that it be reported by number.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 today the Senate vote on the Toomey amendment and on the passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when the pandemic began last year, Americans across the country were faced with more than one public health crisis. While we all feared contracting COVID-19 outside of our homes, the most vulnerable members of our community feared a danger lurking within the home or, certainly, in the neighborhood--violent crime. During the first several weeks of the pandemic, police departments across America reported a significant increase in arrests or calls related to domestic violence. And reports of hate incidents and crimes increased, as well, particularly those targeting Asian American and Pacific Islander, or what is known as the AAPI community. Nearly 4,000 of these hate incidents were reported during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. AAPI women comprised the majority of the victims. In my home State of Illinois, some of these victims of violent crimes have an indispensable resource they can turn to. It is known as KAN- WIN, a nonprofit that supports survivors of violence, particularly women and members of the immigrant community. KAN-WIN offers a 24-hour hotline, legal advocacy, transitional housing, sexual assault services, and many more resources to survivors of violent crimes. They also offer programming to support children who have grown up in a traumatic environment. During the pandemic, organizations like KAN-WIN have been a beacon of hope for some of the most vulnerable members of our community. But these beacons of hope are at the risk of growing dark, unless we in this Senate today take immediate action by passing the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act. This legislation, which I am proud to have introduced with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, will replenish the Crime Victims Fund, which Congress established in 1984 with the passage of the Victims of Crime Act, known as VOCA. The Crime Victims Fund helps abused children, survivors of domestic violence, and other victims of violent crime access the professional services they desperately need. It also assists victims with expenses like medical bills, counseling, funeral costs, loss of wages. And, importantly, the Crime Victims Fund supplies grants to thousands, literally thousands of victim service providers across the Nation, like KAN-WIN. In KAN-WIN's case, the Crime Victims Fund pays for the salary of their Children's Advocate. That advocate reached out to my office and wrote the following: ``The entire Children's Program at KAN-WIN will have to be eliminated'' if the VOCA Fix to sustain the Crime Victims Fund does not pass the Senate. Without this legislation, ``linguistically and culturally sensitive services and counseling, education assistance, economic assistance, medical assistance, art activities that help regulate children's emotions, parent-child relationship assistance, and other case management services'' will be cut. The kids who receive help from KAN-WIN are far from the only people who would be hurt if the Crime Victims Fund runs dry. Children's Advocacy Centers in Illinois report that a significant cut in VOCA funding would result in more than 1,500 children being deprived of services they need to overcome trauma. The Chicago Children's Advocacy Center writes: ``One of the most important uses of VOCA funds is for mental health therapy for sexually abused children.'' Without that funding, they will have to ``cut the number of children we provide therapy to and more children would go without life-changing treatment to heal from their abuse. Even a small cut in VOCA would mean up to 100 children would go without healing services.'' We have a serious problem across America--and I have seen in Illinois, particularly in the city of Chicago--of gun violence. There are so many guns. The city is awash in guns. Too many young people get their hands on them every day. The Fourth of July weekend, 104 people were shot in the city of Chicago. 104; 19 died. Last weekend, 50. The numbers are staggering. We have a mass shooting in the city of Chicago every weekend. It has become, sadly, expected. It breaks your heart. I went to the juvenile facility of Cook County several years ago and talked to the counselors who are meeting with the adolescents who have been charged in these gun crimes. Some of these adolescents spend a year or two in that facility waiting for trial. I asked these counselors: Who are these kids? What has happened to them to the point where they can take a gun and just shoot wantonly into a crowd, killing infants and children and grandmothers and innocent people? The counselor said to me: There are many things. There are hardly any serious mental illnesses that you can think of that we don't find in these kids. But the one thing we find, Senator, consistently is they are the victims of trauma. Now, by classic definition, trauma is some physical injury, but trauma today is viewed in a much larger context. It goes back to a template that was established by Kaiser Permanente and the CDC called adverse childhood experiences--ACEs for short. Most psychologists and child counselors know exactly what I am talking about. ACEs, these adverse childhood experiences, can be as simple as witnessing a violent crime or returning to a home where the parent is not a positive force--perhaps the only parent is drug-addicted or an alcoholic or not home at all--or having a situation in which you are never sure where home is. So many kids in school talk about moving back and forth from one relative to another. All of these things take their toll on little kids. It is part of the traumatic experience. These counselors of these gun-toting adolescents at the Cook County facility say that over 90 percent of them are victims of trauma. Stop and think: Is it possible that that simple thing that happened in a child's life could have that kind of impact? Well, I am afraid it is. For many of us, just to think back on your childhood, of the most memorable moment in your childhood--I hope it is a good memory, one that you smile with, but it could be a terrible memory, too, the loss of someone you love or some other tragic event. Well, that is what has happened to these kids. This trauma in their lives runs the risk of changing them and even making them potentially dangerous to the innocent people they live around. That is why, when we talk about the Victims of Crime Act and giving these kids counseling, a child who witnesses a domestic violence incident in the home, where their mother is being beaten or worse, how in the world do you erase that from your memory? You only hope that you can find someone--some mentor, some counselor--who can talk you through it. That is what the VOCA does. The victims of crime have an opportunity to access those professional services before they do the damage that they do. So how did we get to this point where we are even debating whether to fund this? Why is the Crime Victims Fund so dangerously close to running out of money when we know we need it so much? It comes down to how the fund is funded. See, the money for the victims of crime doesn't come from taxpayer dollars. Traditionally, it comes from criminal fines, penalties, forfeited bail bonds, and special assessments collected by the Federal Government. Historically, these criminal fines have accounted for the largest portion of the funding, but in recent years, deposits in the Crime Victims Fund have dropped significantly as the Justice Department has increasingly used deferred prosecution and nonprosecution agreements. Monetary penalties from these deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements are currently deposited into the General Treasury, not into the Crime Victims Fund. As a result, the shift in sentencing has resulted in a devastating impact on the fund. That is why the bipartisan, bicameral coalition of lawmakers has worked with advocacy organizations to write a fix to the VOCA law to sustain the Crime Victims Fund. Our bill would stabilize the Crime Victims Fund by redirecting monetary penalties from deferred prosecutions and nonprosecution agreements to the victims and service providers that desperately need the financial support. If you think that is an easy and obvious fix, you don't understand Congress. To have all of the different committees of jurisdiction take a look at it and all of the Members take a look at it and to come up with a solution, it doesn't happen every day. One of the reasons it happened here in the Senate is that one of my colleagues, whom I want to put in the Record as a major positive force, Senator Tammy Baldwin of the State of Wisconsin. She took a real personal interest in this, and I thank her for it. She brought us together and came up with a solution and worked out the details--and there were many--until we could all agree. I thank her personally and specifically during the course of this opening remark. The reduced deposits into the fund have had a devastating impact. She knew it. I knew it. Everyone does. As of this year, victim assistance grants have been reduced by more than $600 million nationwide, and even more catastrophic cuts are looming if we don't fix it today. So far in 2021, this Crime Victims Fund has already missed out on nearly $550 million in deposits. We are not even halfway through the year. Imagine how much more money this fund is going to lose if we don't pass this bill. There is no time to waste. Every day that goes by, we miss an opportunity to help replenish this fund. More importantly, we miss an opportunity to help a crime victim. It may be a medical bill. It could be a funeral cost. It could be counseling for that child whom I described earlier. Missing that opportunity may mean that the life of that child will never quite be the same. The Senate must immediately pass this bill. The House already did it in March--in March. It is time for us to get around to it. So, with broad bipartisan support in the House, we should be inspired in the Senate by our bipartisan coalition backing the bill. Sixty-three Senators--forty-two Dems, twenty-one Republicans--not bad. We have all come together for the VOCA fix. Over the past few months, an objection has prevented us from moving forward on this legislation. We have been literally waiting for weeks to pass this bill. Today, we have a chance to do it and to send it to the President's desk. That is why, this afternoon, we are going to take two votes. The first is on an amendment from Senator Toomey. It doesn't address the substance of the programs that I mentioned; it addresses the budget process. There is mention, of course, in this bill, but his change would reach far beyond any single piece of legislation. We will consider it. I will be opposing it, and others will get their chance to vote. Then we will face final passage on the House-passed bill. A broad coalition of victims' rights advocates, service providers, and law enforcement organizations are urging the vote I just described against the Toomey amendment and for the final bill. They recently wrote to us, saying: ``The VOCA Fix Act is a narrowly tailored, carefully negotiated, technical fix bill to address the immediate needs of survivors, and the Senate must act now to pass this critical legislation without any amendments. . . . Every delay allows potential funds that should be deposited into the Crime Victims Fund to serve victims to instead be deposited into the General Treasury. The House passed the VOCA Fix Act more than four months ago with overwhelming bipartisan support; we urge the Senate to similarly pass the House- passed VOCA Fix Act, as is, immediately.'' More than 1,700 national, regional, State, Tribal, and local organizations are begging us to do this and do it today so we can send it to the President and ensure that the victims are able to maintain access to the services they desperately need. We owe it to the victims to get this done. I see my colleague on the floor who is the cosponsor of this bill with me. He was the Senate Judiciary Committee's chairman in the previous Congress, and I have that honor in this Congress. I am glad that we could get together, a Democrat and a Republican, again. We have cosponsored things before, and we will continue to. I want to thank Senator Graham for his leadership and in joining on this effort. I think it is a good one, and we need more of them I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there a scheduled vote?

Mr. DURBIN. The first vote is on the Toomey amendment followed by a vote on passage of the bill, amended or unamended?

Mr. DURBIN. I would just say in conclusion--and I thank the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Vermont for their comments on this measure. If you listen carefully to the Senator from Pennsylvania, there is one thing he did not say. He did not say that any surplus in this fund was spent for another purpose. He seems to worry about the allocation of the balance each year of the fund. I would think a fiscal conservative would want to make certain that the money spent is spent properly, not overspending in some years and underspending in others. That is exactly what the appropriators are asking for here, the ability to moderate and to regulate the amount of money as it is spent, as it is needed. That seems like a pretty fiscally conservative point of view and a responsible one. I urge my colleagues to follow the advice of the Senators from Vermont and New Hampshire and to oppose the Toomey amendment and support the passage of the bill.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am not going to read the lengthy statement from the coalition of victims' rights advocates and law enforcement organizations opposing the Toomey amendment and the many organizations that have asked us to vote no on the amendment and yes on the Victims of Crime Act. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire statement

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 2121

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the U.S. Postal Service always provides outstanding service during every election, but 2020 was something unseen in more than a century. Last year, USPS had to manage processing nearly 66 million ballots, countless safety concerns, and a hostile administration. And as expected, it met these challenges with incredible efforts and determination. A big part of that strength came from the National Association of Postal Supervisors, or NAPS. What started as 50 postal supervisors dedicating themselves to helping their fellow supervisors more than a century ago has become a critical force during our election. They have kept our Nation connected through the mail, and in 2020, they helped keep us connected to our democracy. With a membership of 27,000, NAPS local ballot ambassadors helped postal leadership process millions of ballots during this pivotal election. Leading the effort was NAPS national president Brian Wagner. I am grateful for his leadership and service. He has served in NAPS for more than 25 years, and in August, he will be retiring from his position. I would like to share his amazing story with you. Brian was a paperboy while growing up in Peoria, IL. Right out of high school, he joined the U.S. Postal Service as a letter carrier. It was a perfect fit; Brian just enjoys people. He loves connecting with his neighbors and naturally made friends all along his route. A lifelong lover of ice cream, Brian was happy to have The Spotted Cow ice cream shop on his route as well. Brian even met his wife Carol when he was a letter carrier. Carol ran the mailroom of a business on Brian's route. While working as a letter carrier, Brian worked hard on his formal education. He earned an associate's degree in business from Illinois Central Junior College, a bachelor's degree in finance from Illinois State University, and an MBA from Illinois State, all while still completing his route every day. Brian and Carol married after he graduated. In 1990, Brian joined NAPS. He joined NAPS because be knew that being a postal worker was a wonderful job with benefits that were worth fighting to keep. Others deserved to have the same opportunities he had. He began representing NAPS members in 1994 when members elected him president of the Heart of IL Branch 255. Throughout the years, he has served as NAPS secretary/treasurer, central region vice president, and NAPS Illinois State area vice president. In August 2016, Brian was elected NAPS national president and has been a consistent fighter for postal supervisors. His dedication to NAPS is incredible. Brian even celebrated his 30th wedding anniversary at a NAPS convention. He has been in their corner through these especially tough times in the last several years. This summer, Brian will retire from his role. He will have more time to travel, practice for his marathons, and watch his beloved St. Louis Cardinals play baseball. In addition, he will be able to spend time with his sons Justin and Ryan and dote on his new grandchild. I have heard Idaho and Hawaii are on the docket for travel plans. I hope he will also find time to enjoy his favorite mint chocolate chip ice cream at The Spotted Cow. Wishing our best to one of our best.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have 11 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to mee during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committe on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 2:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. Subcommittee on Airland The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Personnel The Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Seapower The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 5:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on State Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development The Subcommittee on State Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development of the Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.