Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this weekend the United States of America passed a sad milestone--200,000 recorded deaths from COVID-19. We are a nation in mourning. In addition to 200,000 family, friends, and neighbors we have now lost to this brutal pandemic, America is also mourning the loss of a historic champion of equality, a woman who spent her entire life, every ounce of her strength and talent she was given, in pursuit of America's highest ideal: equal justice under the law. Jewish teaching says that those who die just before the Jewish New Year are those whom God has held back until the last moment because they were most needed on Earth. So it seems fitting that Ruth Bader Ginsburg left this world as the Sun was setting last Friday, marking the start of Rosh Hashanah. Years before, Ruth Bader Ginsburg made history as only the second woman ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Even at that time, she had already earned an enduring place in American history. She has been called the Thurgood Marshall of the gender equality movement. As a lawyer and law professor, she was the mastermind in the 1970s behind a legal strategy that finally began to dismantle an American legal system that treated women in many ways as second-class citizens. Law Professor David Cole called her strategy ``radical incrementalism.'' It is hard today for many Americans to imagine how deeply entrenched and how commonly accepted gender discrimination was in American law-- and American society--before Ruth Bader Ginsburg began her legal crusade to make real for women the words carved above the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' The legal challenges she brought changed the way the world is for women and for all Americans. Before she began her legal crusade, women were treated, by law, differently than men. Hundreds of State and Federal laws and programs restricted what women could do. Many jobs were legally closed to women. Many basic economic, social, and legal rights that we now take for granted were legally denied to women for no reason other than gender. Before the legal victories achieved by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a woman often could not--on her own--buy a car, open a checking account, get a credit card, sign a lease, obtain a mortgage, buy real estate, open a business, or obtain a business loan. She needed a man to co-sign. Before Ruth Bader Ginsburg, women could be--and were--barred from public institutions and excluded from whole professions. They could be demoted or fired if they became pregnant. In fact, Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself was forced to accept a lower paying job at the Social Security Administration when she became pregnant, at the age of 21, with her first child. Her legal strategy was cautious and strategic. Knowing that she needed to persuade mostly male judges--including an all-male Supreme Court--she chose cases that illustrated how gender discrimination can also harm men. She took up the case of a young widower whose wife died in childbirth. The man wanted to stay home to raise his son but was denied Social Security survivor benefits because such benefits by law could only go to widows. Decades later, when that little boy grew up, Justice Ginsberg officiated at his wedding at the Supreme Court Building. Her goal was simple but compelling: to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law covers women as well as men. As I said, it was not only women who benefited from her life's work. If you are a man who has been covered by your wife's medical benefits, thank Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If you are a man who has been able to claim Social Security survivor benefits or name a woman as executor of your estate, thank Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We have not erased all gender-based inequality, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg knew well. And some of the legal victories for equal justice are now threatened. Some have been diminished outright. She also knew that. Her concerns about these threats to hard-won rights was the basis for some of the most famous, fiery dissents--and why this often quiet, soft-spoken woman took the unusual step many times of reading her dissents from the bench. She wanted us to understand what was at stake so that we could join her in the fight. That is what she did in 2007, in the case of Lilly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that a woman who was paid less than her male coworkers for years, doing exactly the same work, could not sue her former employer for wage discrimination. The woman only learned about the pay gap after she retired, but a conservative majority on the Court ruled that she had lost her chance at justice by failing to sue within 6 months of her first unequal paycheck. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg challenged Congress to correct this injustice, and we did. The very first law signed by President Barack Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. A framed copy of that signed law hung in Justice Ginsburg's Supreme Court chambers as a gift from President Obama. He signed it with the following inscription: ``Thanks for helping create a more equal and just society.'' In her dissent in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act, Justice Ginsburg pointed out the awful irony of the majority decision. She wrote that throwing out the need for jurisdictions with histories of voter suppression to clear changes in their voting laws before elections because the laws had already worked was ``like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' She was right. Our democracy would be stronger today had just one more Justice on the Supreme Court agreed with her. It is up to Congress now to heed her warning by passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act which languishes on the desk of Senator McConnell. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a champion of workers' rights, of disability rights, LGBTQ rights, and environmental justice. And she was a woman who believed deeply that part of America's greatness is the welcome and safety and opportunity that America has offered to immigrants and refugees for most of our history. Like me, Justice Ginsburg was a child of an immigrant who came to this country partly to flee religious persecution. My mother and her family left Russian-occupied Lithuania partly to escape anti-Catholic persecution. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's father left Odessa, Russia, for New York when he was 13 to escape anti-Jewish pogroms. Her mother was born in New York 4 months after her family moved from Austria--extended family members later died in the Holocaust. Justice Ginsburg's mother was like my mother in another way: They were both very intelligent women who were denied their full education because money was tight and because they lived during a time when expectations about what women could achieve were so low. Like my mother, Celia Ginsburg used to take her child to the public library where she would check out as many books as she could read. She saved her pennies so that her daughter could one day get the college education she was never able to get herself. Celia Ginsburg dreamed that her bright, young daughter might grow up, if she were lucky and worked very hard, to become a high school teacher. Instead, Ruth Bader Ginsburg grew up and changed history. She changed America for the better. America is fundamentally different and fairer as a nation because of the vision and work of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I recalled over the weekend, and repeated it to my wife, this amazing statistic; that Ruth Bader Ginsburg battled cancer five times over nearly 20 years and then, of course, lived through the death 10 years ago of her beloved husband Marty, but she almost never missed a day on the bench. She worked through chemo sickness, broken ribs, and terrible pain, but, nevertheless, she persisted. I want to read you something she said many times. I really liked this. What is the difference between a bookkeeper in New York's garment district and a Supreme Court Justice? One generation--my own life bears witness. The difference between the opportunities available to my mother and those afforded me.'' Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not simply take opportunities afforded to women. More than perhaps any American in history, she helped create those opportunities. Loretta and I offer our deepest condolences to her friends and to her family, especially her daughter Jane and her son James, who now calls Chicago home, and her grandchildren and her great-granddaughter. May her memory be a blessing and may her life be a guiding light for all of us.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote that has been scheduled for 11:45 begin immediately.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the package of four Illinois district court nominees who are scheduled to receive votes on the floor this week. In my State, Democrats and Republicans have long worked together in a respectful, bipartisan way to select Federal judges. For example, when two Illinois vacancies opened up on the 7th Circuit in 2017, back before Senate Republicans decided to abandon the circuit court blue slip, we were able to negotiate a package of two well- qualified nominees, Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder, who both were confirmed by the Senate unanimously. For district court vacancies, Illinois has a longstanding ``three to one'' system. Under this system, the President's party gets to select the candidates for three out of four district court vacancies, and the other party gets to select the candidate for the fourth. Then the parties negotiate until they reach agreement on packages of nominees that can move forward to confirmation. Under this system, Democrats and Republicans have to work together and compromise. Neither side gets everything they want, but for several decades, this bipartisan process has kept both parties at the table and has served Illinois well. During President Trump's tenure, there have been two packages of Illinois district court nominees that we have negotiated with the senior Member of the Republican congressional delegation-- Representative John Shimkus--and the White House. The first was a package of four Chicago nominees--now judges--that included Democratic pick Mary Rowland, a former Federal public defender and the first openly LGBT judge on the Chicago bench. The second package of Illinois nominees, which we negotiated throughout 2019 and agreed upon last December, includes Federal Magistrate Judge Iain Johnston of Rockford; Illinois 3rd Judicial Circuit Judge David Dugan of Madison County; Illinois 20th Judicial Circuit Judge Stephen McGlynn of St. Clair County; and the Democratic pick, Judge Franklin Valderrama of the Cook County Circuit Court. All of the nominees in the current Illinois package have significant judicial experience and were rated well-qualified by the American Bar Association. Each nominee also was reviewed by judicial screening committees that we established, including a Southern District judicial screening committee, chaired by former Federal judge Patrick Murphy, and a Northern District committee, chaired by former Federal judge David Coar. Each nominee received screening committee approval based on their qualifications and their record as judges. I want to say that I recognize and respect the opposition that has been expressed to two of the Republican picks in this package, Judges Dugan and McGlynn. These nominees have made statements and expressed views with which I disagree, particularly on matters involving reproductive rights. These nominees would not have been Democratic picks in our Illinois system, but under the system, Democrats and Republicans have to work together on bipartisan packages, and neither side gets everything their way. While I disagree with statements that Judges Dugan and McGlynn have made, I agreed to this package of nominees as part of our bipartisan State process, and I will support all four nominees in the package. I also want to briefly discuss the Democratic pick in this package, Judge Franklin Valderrama. For the past 14 years, he has served as an associate judge on the Circuit Court of Cook County. He has extensive experience both as a judge and as a practitioner and is highly respected. When a Chicago-based Federal judgeship became vacant last year, we put out a public call for applications. An extraordinary group of 50 candidates applied. Our screening committee vetted them all, and Judge Valderrama was at the top of the list. I believe he will be an outstanding addition to the Federal bench in Chicago.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has been exactly 90 days since the Supreme Court rejected President Trump's effort to end deportation protection for Dreamers. Dreamers, of course, are young immigrants who came to the United States as children, toddlers, or infants and who grew up in this country believing they were part of America, only to learn when they were old enough to be told, as teenagers, that they were undocumented through no fault of their own. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the President's attempt to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, was ``arbitrary and capricious.'' It was 10 years ago that I joined with then-Republican Senator Dick Lugar, of Indiana, on a bipartisan basis, to call on President Obama to use his legal authority to protect Dreamers from deportation. President Obama heard our call. He responded by creating the DACA Program. DACA provides temporary protection to Dreamers from deportation on a 2-year basis, which is renewable if they register with the government, pay a fee, and pass criminal and national security background checks. More than 800,000 Dreamers came forward to sign up for DACA. DACA unleashed their full potential, and they could see there might be a future. They began to contribute to our country as soldiers, teachers, and small business owners. More than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential critical infrastructure workers. That is not my choice of words. It is the definition of President Trump's Department of Homeland Security. More than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential critical infrastructure workers. Among these essential workers, 41,700 DACA recipients are in healthcare. They are doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, and respiratory therapists. Despite this incredible story of these innocent children coming to the United States while not having legal status in this country but having fear of deportation and still being determined to be part of America's future, as well as the fact that they would serve our country as essential workers and healthcare workers, on September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and being deported to countries they may not even remember. The Federal court stepped in and ordered the Trump administration to continue DACA for Dreamers who had already received this protection. However, Dreamers who had not already received DACA were blocked from applying from this protection for nearly 3 years while the case languished in court. The Center for American Progress estimates that approximately 300,000 Dreamers had been unable to apply for the program because the case was in court. On June 19, the day after the Supreme Court rejected President Trump's repeal of DACA, I led a letter from 43 Democratic Senators to the President. We called on the President to follow the law, to immediately comply with the Supreme Court's decision and reopen DACA for those who were eligible to apply. It has been 3 months now. We haven't received any response from President Trump, and the Trump administration refuses to reopen DACA. In July, a Federal judge issued an order for the Trump administration to begin receiving new applications for DACA. Instead, Acting--and let me underline ``Acting''--Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf has issued a memo saying that the DHS will ``reject all initial requests for DACA.'' Let's be clear. The Supreme Court of the United States rejected President Trump's repeal of DACA. That means DACA returns to its original status, and the Trump administration, under Court order, must reopen the program, and it must do it now. Instead, Mr. Wolf is saying the DHS will turn away 300,000 applicants who are Dreamers who are eligible for DACA but who have not had a chance to apply. It is important to note that the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has concluded that Acting Secretary Wolf is illegally serving. This calls into serious question any legal authority he claims in issuing a memo to refuse to reopen DACA. This administration, which is telling America it is dedicated to law and order, is in open defiance of the Supreme Court. The stakes are high both for the rule of law and, just as importantly, for the lives of Dreamers. To ignore this is to ignore a legitimate order of the highest Court in the land. Republicans and Democrats in Congress should come together to compel this President to follow the law and immediately comply with the Supreme Court's mandate. On June 4 of last year, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act. This legislation would give Dreamers a path to citizenship--my goal for years. It passed on a strong bipartisan vote. It has been pending in the Senate, sitting on the desk of Republican leader Mitch McConnell, for more than 12 months. After the Supreme Court decision, I sent a letter, signed by all 47 Democrats, calling on Senator McConnell to immediately give us a vote on the Dream and Promise Act. It has been 3 months. Still no reply. The Dream and Promise Act would also provide a path to citizenship for 400,000 immigrants who have been living in the United States on temporary protected status. More than 90 percent of them are originally from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti. Most of them have lived in the United States for over 20 years. As with DACA, TPS recipients must register with the government, pay a fee, and clear criminal and national security background checks. Like DACA recipients, TPS recipients are making important contributions to America. More than 130,000 TPS holders are essential critical infrastructure workers, and 11,600 are healthcare workers. My friend, the Senator from Arkansas, just came to the floor and lauded our healthcare heroes across America in the midst of this pandemic. I have given that same speech. I think we all have, and we mean it. Yet did you ever stop and think how many of those healthcare workers are the DACA recipients, Dreamers, TPS holders--the so-called immigrants--whom we want to reject and remove from this country? We praise them on one hand, and we tell them to get the heck out of the United States on the other. How can that be consistent? Two years ago, I negotiated bipartisan legislation with a path to citizenship for DACA and TPS recipients. President Trump profanely dismissed our bill in an Oval Office meeting that has now become infamous. Instead, the President is trying to rescind TPS protections and deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants from our country. A Federal judge concluded that the President broke the law and blocked his effort to end TPS. Earlier this week, in a divided decision, two Republican-appointed judges ruled the other way and lifted the injunctions. This decision makes it even more important that the Senate immediately consider the Dream and Promise Act. Over the years since I introduced the DREAM Act, I decided the only way to tell the story of this bill was to tell the story of the Dreamers. I have come to the floor 125 times to tell the stories. Today will be the 126th. I want to tell you the story of these two people. I will start with Esmeralda Tovar-Mora. In this photo, she is with her husband, whom I will talk about more in just a moment. Esmerelda is the 126th Dreamer's story I have told in the Senate, and it is a good one. She came to the United States from Mexico at the age of 2, so she obviously had no voice in that decision. She grew up in Hutchinson, KS. She sent me a letter, and here is what she said about growing up: Growing up in the United States has been the only thing that I've known. Pledging allegiance to the American flag and singing the national anthem on a daily basis made me believe that I was truly American. She was a good student--no, she was excellent. In high school, she was a member of the National Honor Society and president of the Key Club. She sang in her church choir and played on the tennis team. She graduated magna cum laude. Esmerelda's experiences in the Key Club visiting nursing homes convinced her she wanted a career in healthcare. Thanks to DACA--thanks to DACA--Esmerelda was able to work as a waitress to support herself through college. She is now a case manager at a mental health center and a medication aide in an Alzheimer's ward in Hutchinson, KS. She is married to Michael Mora, seen in this picture. Specialist Mora serves in the Kansas National Guard and recently returned from a 9- month tour in the Middle East--National Guardsman, 9 months in the Middle East--serving a country that will not recognize his wife as a citizen. Let me introduce you to someone else. This is special. This beautiful little girl is Esmerelda and Michael's daughter Rose. She just turned 4. Esmerelda is on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic, and here is what she said: We've been on lockdown since March 30. Since family members can't visit, my patients are scared and lonely. Many have started asking me to call them Grandma or Grandpa, a little crumb of comfort at a time when the world around them is going crazy. I'm happy to be their adopted granddaughter. It eases the pain of scrubbing my hands until they're raw and the anxiety that I could infect my beautiful family. It also makes me happy to know that I am appreciated here in Hutchinson, because right now I've got an added stress: The U.S. government wants to deport me. I want to thank Esmerelda for her service. She is truly a health hero--an immigrant health hero. She is a DACA health hero. She is putting herself and her family at risk every day to protect others-- Americans--loving members of families, and it may be their last day on Earth. She should not also have to worry about whether she is going to be deported and her family torn apart. Isn't it enough that her husband is serving our country to prove how much this family loves America? Would we be stronger as a country if we tell Esmerelda Tovar-Mora to leave or if she becomes an American citizen and continues to work on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic? I don't think the answer is even hard. I think it is clear. Esmerelda and hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers and TPS holders are counting on those of us in the Senate to solve this crisis that President Trump created. I am sorry that Senate Republicans are ignoring President Trump's defiance of the Supreme Court and refusing to bring the Dream and Promise Act to the floor. As long as I am a U.S. Senator, I will be coming to this floor to fight for Esmerelda Tovar-Mora and all immigrants. It would be an American tragedy to deport this brave and talented healthcare worker in the midst of this pandemic. We must ensure that Esmerelda and hundreds of others of our essential workforce are not forced to stop working when we need them more than ever, and we must give them a chance--just a chance--to earn their way to citizenship. Mr. President, it has been my honor to represent Esmerelda and the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers over the years. They have never disappointed me--never. Many times we brought to the floor of the Senate the Dream Act, bills containing the Dream Act. We have managed to pass them a few times but never at the same time as the House, so they have never become law. So for decades--literally for decades--these young people have waited for their chance. They have done everything they can possibly do to prove they love this country. What will it take to convince my colleagues? What will it take to convince them that losing this beautiful young woman, with this pretty little girl, Rose, and telling this man, who served our country in the Kansas National Guard in a 9-month tour of duty in the Middle East--what will it take to convince my Senate colleagues that these are worthy people to become American citizens? Some of us just lucked out; we were born here. There was never a moment where we made a decision; we were Americans from the start. But for others, they have had to prove their way into this country. Hasn't this wonderful young woman proved her way into America? Hasn't she told us why she should be given the right to become--a great honor--a citizen of the United States of America? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this year, Loyola University Chicago celebrates the 150th anniversary of its founding, which occurred on September 5, 1870. Loyola Chicago is a world-class institution with a storied history as a Roman Catholic Jesuit university, a strong track record of academic excellence, and the proud home of the Loyola Ramblers. Loyola University Chicago was founded under the name of St. Ignatius College by Arnold Damen, S.J., to serve Chicago's Catholic immigrants. In 1909, the school was granted a new charter by the State of Illinois and renamed ``Loyola University Chicago''. That same year, the newly- named Loyola Chicago granted its first professional graduate degrees and organized its first football, basketball, and indoor baseball teams. Today, Loyola Chicago is the only Jesuit Catholic university in Illinois. Throughout its history, Loyola Chicago has upheld its Jesuit values-- being an institution of rigorous liberal arts education and academic excellence, while also being a place of inclusion and acceptance for marginalized communities, including immigrants. Loyola Chicago's Stritch School of Medicine led the country as the first medical school to accept DACA recipients, many of whom have committed to working in a medically-underserved community in Illinois after graduation. In addition, under its previous president, Father Michael Garanzini, Loyola Chicago created Arrupe College. Arrupe is a 2-year degree program that brings Loyola Chicago's academic quality together with a focus on affordability and care for the whole person. Arrupe's low-cost and wrap-around services--including meals, chilcare, and transportation--bring a high-quality Loyola Chicago education to low- income and students of color in the Chicagoland area who otherwise may not have a chance to succeed in college. Loyola Chicago's focus on service is part of the fabric of the institution and its community. Loyola Chicago supports more than 300 community partner organizations in Chicago and the Chicagoland suburbs through student, staff, and faculty service and volunteer work. Loyola Chicago's impact can be found almost anywhere in the Chicagoland area. Illinois has been served well and enriched by the many contributions of Loyola University Chicago. I look forward to the school's many contributions in the years ahead and several more successful runs at the NCAA basketball tournament being led by their team chaplain, the now world famous Jean Dolores Schmidt, known to all as simply Sister Jean. I thank Loyola for its many contributions to our State and country. It is my distinct honor to congratulate President Jo Anne Rooney--the school's first female president--and the entire Loyola community of staff, faculty, students, and alumni on your 150th anniversary.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to make a unanimous consent request in a moment, but I would like to preface it by saying what it is about so that as we explain it after the unanimous consent request is objected to, it will be clearer. In the nation of Venezuela, there exists today an incredible political situation. I have been there to see it. There is a dictator in charge, and life on the street is deadly--so deadly that millions of Venezuelans are fleeing the country as fast as possible. There is a limitation on food and medicine. There is so much suffering and starvation and deprivation that these people have given up everything, and they are just leaving. The United States knows that this is under the leader, Maduro. It reached a point where it is physically dangerous--so much so that we have a warning to American travelers not to go to Venezuela, to stay away because it is too dangerous. Yet thousands of Venezuelans now in the United States are facing the threat of being forced return to this deadly, dangerous situation. The same State Department that warns Americans not to travel to Venezuela is now trying to force those Venezuelans who are here as students and others to go back to this deadly situation. Senator Menendez and I and others think it just makes sense for us to give these people a shelter until it is safe for them to return to their home. That is what this request is about. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 549 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from South Dakota is making the objection on behalf of Senator Lee, and I have been called to do the same thing from time to time. I won't assign any political blame to him, but I will say this is a serious mistake and deadly mistake for these Venezuelans. This is an issue which in many parts of America is red hot. Those of Venezuelan ancestry or those who are here in a temporary status cannot understand what just happened. They want to stay here safely. They don't want to be forced to return to this nation that is such a dangerous place under this dictator. A number of times in the last year, Senator Menendez, who is on the floor with me here, has joined with me on behalf of the Venezuelan people. President Trump boasts that he supports these people. The idea is simple: While the country remains a dictatorial nightmare, grant Venezuelans in the United States temporary protected status or TPS. It is the kind of commonsense move a self-confident nation and one that really cares about humanity would do to demonstrate real leadership and accept. TPS is a temporary immigration status provided to foreign nationals if returning to their country poses a serious threat to their safety for any variety of reasons--natural disaster, environmental disaster, extraordinary conditions, armed conflicts. Certainly by every objective measure, the situation in Venezuela today is deadly and dangerous. It is not a permanent immigration status we are seeking for these Venezuelans, just a measure of American decency and solidarity with those who might be in the United States when a calamity occurs in their home country. Prior administrations of both political parties have granted it for people from countries facing these circumstances. The situation in Venezuela is dire. Currently, the United States is working with regional partners to foster an end to the disastrous dictatorship clinging to power in Venezuela. I was there before the sham 2018 election. What I saw was heartbreaking--people starving and fainting at work from malnutrition; hospitals without power or basic medicines. I visited a Catholic children's hospital in Caracas. They told me they didn't have the basics to treat these children. Antibiotics and cancer drugs were unavailable. Millions were fleeing this country and still are, as refugees into neighboring countries. There is brutal political repression. If you disagree with Maduro publicly, be prepared to go to prison. There is staggering government corruption and dismantling of the government's democracy. Now, the tragic impacts of coronavirus have made the situation worse as well. I supported this administration's efforts to work with other nations to support the interim Presidency of Juan Guaido. I had a chance to speak with President Guaido on the phone yesterday. I am deeply moved by his courage and concern for the Venezuelan people amid the suffering. Think about what he is up against. Here is a man who at any moment could face imprisonment or worse. It is remarkable that more than 2 years after an internationally discredited Presidential election, Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro is now planning another illegitimate election instead of finally holding a fair, credible Presidential contest. I asked President Guaido: Are there going to be any international observers of this international election coming up this December? Oh, yes. I said: Who? He said: The Russians. I said: What a coincidence. They are observing our election too. Venezuela has tragically fallen from President Trump's attention. One simple step he could take is grant TPS to Venezuelans here in the United States. He repeatedly refuses. There are travel warnings to Americans telling people not to go close to Venezuela, but for the Venezuelans here on visa or TPS status: You have to go home. The President has refused, I suspect, because the depth of his anti- immigrant cruelty really has no limits. Despite the chest-thumping to audiences in Florida about taking on Venezuelan dictators, President Trump has, in fact, turned his back on the Venezuelans in the United States who truly need his protection. Nobody should be surprised, as former National Security Advisor John Bolton wrote in his book, that the President praised Maduro as ``smart'' and ``tough'' and waffled on any kind of coherent policy in the region and told Bolton not to get too deeply involved. President Trump can't have it both ways. I have met many Venezuelans in my home State of Illinois. I can tell you that they are desperately worried about being forced to return to the chaos, violence, and hopelessness of the current Venezuela The Trump administration's travel advisory says it all: Do not travel due to COVID-19, crime, civil unrest, poor health infrastructure, kidnapping, arbitrary arrest and detention of U.S. citizens . . . . Violent crime, such as homicide, armed robbery, kidnapping, and carjacking, is common. Yet the Republicans come to the floor and object to our efforts to protect the Venezuelans who are doing their best to avoid what I just read as a warning to American travelers. Just today, U.N. investigators released findings saying that under Maduro, Venezuela has ``committed egregious violations'' amounting to crimes against humanity. How can this President and the State Department possibly force people to return to Venezuela under these conditions? And now, with Maduro detaining returning refugees and calling them ``bioterrorists,'' the idea of going back is even more dangerous. Since the White House wouldn't act more than a year ago, the House, under Democratic control, passed a bipartisan bill granting TPS to Venezuelans by a margin of 272 to 158. Senator Menendez, Senator Rubio, and I introduced a similar Senate bill, but the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, still refuses to bring up any bill that just might not please President Trump--even ones that supposedly he is publicly supporting. Senator Menendez and I have tried to call up the House bill for passage, only to face objections, just as we did today, from Senate Republicans who refuse to stand up to this President's failure on this and so many other foreign policies. When we brought this up last July, Senate Republicans objected because they said they wanted to debate it in the Judiciary Committee. Well, 12 months passed with plenty of opportunities. Our Venezuelan TPS bill was referred to the committee in February of 2019. Yet there has been no action, no hearing, no markup. The Immigration Subcommittee is not overloaded with work. Under Chairman Cornyn, we have had exactly one subcommittee meeting in the past 1\1/2\ years. It hasn't held a single hearing this year, and the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn't considered a single immigration bill. This administration could grant TPS without congressional action, but it refuses. Senate Republicans could pass the bipartisan House bill to grant Venezuelans TPS, but they refuse as well. Let it be clear that the real failure to help Venezuelans in the United States rests on their shoulders--the President and the Republican majority in the Senate. The Venezuelan policy, like so many others with this administration and the Senate, is only there to serve President Trump and no one else. I made my offer in the hope that we could bring this matter to the floor. I am sorry it met an objection. I thank my colleagues for joining me on this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. In just one moment. I will tell you this: To argue that we need to preserve this is to really discourage anyone from becoming a Member of this body if we are not going to legislate, if we are not going to tackle the real issues of our time. I look at the Presiding Officer. He stepped up on the last immigration debate that we had on a bipartisan measure. I thank him for doing it. It wasn't easy, politically. That was what the Senate once was not that long ago. I do yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would love the junior Senator from Massachusetts to address that question himself when he gets his chance on the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Happy to yield

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, with her permission, I will add a question mark to the end of that statement to the Senator from Alaska, to thank her and warn her that we are coming dangerously close to debating on the floor of the Senate. It almost never happens, and we are coming close to it. We are actually asking one another: Do we have to change the rules to finally make the Senate work, or is there another way? I am open to other ways. I am open to demonstrations of that. But I will tell you, it is a frustration. It is the determination to make certain that, for the people of Illinois who returned me to the Senate, we actually do something, achieve something; that we go home, win or lose, with the feeling that we have been engaged in a process that respected our rights as individual Senators and ended in a vote up or down and a measure passed or failed. That, to me, is why I ran for this job, and I think probably for yourself as well. We are not there, and we are not close to being there