Richard Durbin

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened to this debate very carefully because I have great respect for both of the Senators--the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from South Dakota. I have seen both of them operate as effective legislators on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I have seen both of them entertain amendments, both friendly and not so friendly, on the floor of the Senate and deal with them in a fair fashion. I have seen both of them use the U.S. Senate to achieve legislative goals, some that I shared and some that I didn't share. But I have to ask them, in all candor, as I listened to the speech about preserving the Senate as we know it, if they are really taking a look around at the Senate as we know it. Do you know how many amendments were debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the year 2019--in the entire year? America's greatest deliberative body considered 22 amendments in that year. Six of them were offered by one Senator--Senator Rand Paul, the junior Senator from Kentucky. You remember them, as I do. He basically said: Here is a gun to your head. If you want to go home, I get a vote. He got his vote. And as he reminded me, he lost every one of those amendments. So 6 of the 22 amendments were, frankly, one Senator's effort to have a recorded vote, and that is all it was. Sixteen substantive amendments in a year, and you are arguing that we cannot change the Senate, we cannot transform the Senate, we cannot consider changes to the rules of the Senate. I know better. I know that you are a good legislator, and you are as well, Senator. I know that you can take a bill through a committee, bring it to the floor, defend it on the floor, and go through the amendment process. We all know that that is how the Senate was designed to work. What happened? What happened to the Senate? Well, if you take a look at the number of cloture motions to end a filibuster that were filed some 13 years ago, they averaged about 68 a year. Do you know how many we now have? Over 250 a year. This is out of control. It is so much out of control that when you take a look at the ordinary business of the U.S. Senate and you take a look at the memories you may have of passing a budget resolution, we don't do that anymore, do we? You take a look at passing appropriation bills. You remember sitting on the Appropriations Committee and proud to be there, as I am too. I loved that committee. It was a great committee to serve on. We actually took agencies and went through hearings and drew up budgets and took them to Appropriations subcommittees and actually considered amendments in the committee and then brought them to the floor and had amendments on the floor. Yes, that happened in your political lifetime and in mine. It no longer occurs. Do you understand the Senate which you are defending is a Senate which no longer engages in that kind of debate? What does it boil down to? There were meetings of the Big 4 or the Big 8, or whatever number there happens to be. They decide all 12 appropriations bills, and we sit on the outside of the room holding our hands patiently, hoping that something we wanted is included. Is that the Senate that you ran for? Is that the Senate you do not want to change? Tell me seriously. It can't be. Those of us on this side of the aisle say to younger Members: You would have loved the Senate if you just could have seen it, but you have only been here 6 years. So you missed it. There was a time when we did debate on the floor. Do you remember when Dodd-Frank came to the floor? Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby were managing that bill. This was the most dramatic change in Wall Street policy in a generation or more. I remember it because I offered what I believe was the 25th amendment on the floor--25 amendments on this bill that had already come out of the Banking Committee. I offered the 25th amendment on debit cards, and they announced that it would be a 60-vote margin. All the others had been a simple majority to that point. I surprised everybody, including myself, and passed that amendment. And then more were offered. Do you remember the immigration reform bill? Do you recall what happened there? I can tell you because I was on the Gang of 8 that wrote the bill. We went through the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama was determined to derail the bill. He said: I have dozens of amendments, and I am going to offer them all. Well, he stopped at about 20 because he wasn't passing most of his amendments. Then it came to the floor, and we faced the same amendment process, amendment after amendment, and the bill was passed on the floor of the Senate. That was within my political lifetime and yours as well. It worked. Why is it not working now? Why is this such an empty Chamber? Why are there all of these empty desks when there are so many things that need to be done in America? Because we have stopped legislating. We have stopped debating. We have stopped amending. You say: Boy, we have to preserve this. We have to do everything we can to preserve this. We know better than that. This is not the Senate that we are witnessing. This is some aberration, some use of the filibuster. In the first 3 years, with Senator McConnell in charge, we had more filibusters and cloture votes than in the entire history of the U.S. Senate. It is out of control, my friends, my colleagues, fellow Senators. It is out of control, my friends, my colleagues, my fellow Senators. I don't know what the answer is in terms of rule changes, but I will tell you this.

Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the Senator from South Dakota, thank you. I said earlier, and I meant it--I think you are a good legislator, as are the Senator from Alaska and many others, and given a chance, you prove it. We just don't get the chance anymore. No budget resolution. No appropriations bills. One bill, really, of any substance comes to the floor of the Senate each year now. It is the Defense authorization bill, by tradition. Come hell or high water, we are going to bring up that bill. And I am glad we do, but that is it. End of story. The rest of the time, what do we spend our days doing? Watching the clock go by for 30 hours so we can have a vote on the next nomination. Is that the Senate you ran for? Is that why you went through the sacrifice and asked your family to join you in that sacrifice to be in public life? No. Not for me, it isn't. I am here to do something. I think we can do something. We have proven it in the past. The Affordable Care Act. Books will be written--they have already been written about what it took to finally pass it, but eventually it was enacted into law and signed by the President and changed the lives of millions of Americans. I am glad I voted for it. It was not a bipartisan effort at any stage. I wish it were. The point I am getting to is this: I don't know what the answer is in terms of changing the rules, but I am not going to stand in defense of the status quo. I do not believe the notion that we cannot touch the Senate and its traditions really is defensible in light of what we have seen on the Senate floor for the last several years--years. I just have to tell you, I am surprised now that the Republican position articulated by your leader and by the whip is status quo: Leave it as is. It is fine. It is just great. Don't you change the Senate. Well, I think the Senate needs to change.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank my colleague from New York for his comments this morning. He is right. We have seen this play before. We know how it ends. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, comes to the floor and proclaims that his latest creation is bipartisan; the Democrats have a choice to vote yes or no; take it or leave it; we are done. We have been through this over and over again. That is not how Congress or human activity works. We have a split government between Democrats and Republicans. When we sit down together and compromise, good things can happen. We proved it March 26. The vote was 96 to 0 for the CARES Act, a $3 trillion bill early on to address the coronavirus pandemic and to deal with the serious challenges to our economy. Thank goodness we did it. It gave $600 a week in additional Federal supplements and unemployment to families who were facing layoffs and closures of their businesses. We helped small businesses injecting billions of dollars back into protecting their payroll and keeping the lights on for the day when they can return. It worked, and it worked on a bipartisan basis, but where we are today reflects a failure and a repetition on the Republican side. Explain to me this: Why did the Republican Senate leader refuse to physically present himself at any stage of the negotiation since March 26 for relief from this coronavirus pandemic? That is right. Senator McConnell refuses to enter the room where representatives of the White House and Democratic congressional leaders were meeting to discuss a bipartisan compromise. We can't reach a compromise unless we clearly have all the parties at the table. When the Republican congressional leaders--McConnell, McCarthy of California on the House side--boycott these meetings for negotiations, nothing happens. I can't tell you how many times back in Illinois during the August recess I was asked, so are you going back to Washington? I said: Yes, we are planning on going back the first week in September. What are you going to go? I said: I don't know. At this point, there has been no negotiation and compromise. Today we have a vote. We have been through this before. It is a McConnell proposal that was not put to any kind of bipartisan negotiation. It is a one-sided offering. It fails in so many respects. Think if you are unemployed, trying to make your mortgage payments, car payments, medical bill payments, credit card payments, put food on the table, make sure the kids are ready to go back to school, and Senator McConnell announces, well, we are going to cut that check you have been receiving for unemployment benefits in half. It will not be $600 a week; it will be $300 a week. Why? For that family, their needs and their bills are still the same. The economy is still hurting, with 30 million-plus Americans out of work, 800,000 in Illinois receiving unemployment benefits, I am sure thousands in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. And yet the reality is, what is going to be proposed by Senator McConnell today will create a hardship on these families they never envisioned. Is there any money in there to protect these families from being evicted? No. Wait a minute. How about food stamps and SNAP? Many of these families are struggling to put food on the table. Any help in this bill for them? No. How about money for testing so that we can find out if people have positive results and should quarantine themselves and stay away from others? No, not the kind of investment that is needed at this moment in history. Time and again, what this Senator from Kentucky has given us is just an effort to say we tried. But he didn't. He didn't present himself at one of the negotiations to make a bipartisan bill. There is one provision I just want to spend a minute on here that really is troubling. Senator McConnell has announced for months that nothing will move, nothing will help Americans unemployed or small businesses until he gets what he called his redline proposal on liability immunity. Basically, what they have done is to write a provision in this bill which absolves businesses from their responsibility to the public and to their employees when it comes to safety in the workplace and the marketplace. They have argued they have to do it because of the tsunami of frivolous lawsuits they anticipate because of COVID-19. It turns out that that so-called tsunami has never materialized. The lawsuits that are being filed are primarily by businesses against insurance companies to decide coverage under insurance policies and by inmates in prisons who are protesting what they consider to be inhumane conditions in the midst of a pandemic. It is only a handful of lawsuits that have been filed against businesses or malpractice suits related to COVID-19 infections Here is the bottom line: Conscientious businesspeople in Illinois and across America are prepared to make their business place safe for the people who work there in the marketplace. What they need is a rational, clear statement of public health experts as to what they must do. I heard this over and over again. They said to me: Senator, give me the standards on social distancing and labeling and sanitizers and masks, and we will live up to them. We can never guarantee that someone will not file a frivolous lawsuit, but we should be able to say to people, if you will follow the public health experts with a real standard of care, then your motion to dismiss is going to prevail in that lawsuit, and that will be the end of it. But Senator McConnell thinks there is a better way to really absolve them from meeting any standard when it comes to public health. In fact, what he proposes today basically says: If you try to comply with any local ordinance, good enough; enough said; it doesn't have to be any standard of public health that is credible. This doesn't keep America safe. What it is going to do is encourage the bad actors to do little or nothing. If we are going to deal with this pandemic, everyone has to be serious about it--from wearing these masks to social distancing, to putting up with what has become a tedious responsibility of staying away from friends and family when you want to be with them to get this behind us. When it comes to the business and marketplace, the same thing applies. They are going to have to pitch in, if they want to reopen-- and I wish they could today or tomorrow--but if I, they went to reopen, they have to pitch in with a good-faith effort to meet a good public standard. I will stand by them, and everyone else will too. Senator McConnell's approach absolves them from responsibility. It is liability immunity and an invitation for bad actors to do little or nothing in protecting innocent people, including their own employees. I am going to yield the floor at this point and say that we can do better than what Senator McConnell is offering the Senate today. We can gather on a bipartisan basis and reach a compromise if he will attend the negotiations. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in 1978, I was the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, running with Michael Bakalis, the Democratic nominee for governor. We squared off against a ticket headed by six-foot-six Governor Big Jim Thompson. Big Jim was 40 years old and a relatively new Governor, only elected 2 years earlier. Bakalis and I were underdogs, but we were hopeful. We shouldn't have been. Our fate was sealed when Jim and Jayne were joined by their beautiful daughter Samantha right after Labor Day. Election day came, and we were clobbered. We found out what many Democrats would learn over the years. Big Jim was hard as hell to beat. Why? He may have campaigned as a partisan, but he governed in bipartisanship. His talent for working to get things done helped make him the longest serving Governor in Illinois history. Last month, Jim passed away. I was honored to call him a friend and, today, I would like to pay tribute to his life. James Robert Thompson, Jr. was born on the West Side of Chicago in 1936. Jim was known to be shy but ambitious. He listed his ambition as ``President-Politician'' in his yearbook. In one classmate's yearbook, he wrote ``Jim Thompson, Pres. of U.S. 1984-1992.'' Jim attended the University of Illinois at its campus on Navy Pier in Chicago. He transferred to Washington University in St. Louis in his junior year and attended law school at Northwestern in 1959. In 1961, Jim worked for the Cook County State's attorney and argued two cases before the United States Supreme Court. He also joined Northwestern University Law School as an assistant professor. For 5 years, Jim taught at Northwestern, inspiring many students to pursue criminal law. In 1969, he became the head of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's office. As fate would have it, he was the lecturer on criminal procedure in my bar review course. In 1971, President Richard Nixon appointed him to be the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. At the age of 35, Jim was a crusader against corruption in both parties, leading investigations against Chicago aldermen and Vice President Spiro Agnew. His efforts made him look like a political outsider--just what Illinois was looking for in a Governor. Jim decided to run for Governor in the 1976 election. During that campaign, he married his wife Jayne. He won the gubernatorial race as the first candidate in the State ever to garner 3 million votes. Though he would have a close election in 1982, Big Jim never lost a race. As Governor, he accomplished a lot of good for the State of Illinois. He spurred the construction of more highways than any other Governor. His ``Build Illinois'' plan launched a $2.3 billion infrastructure effort that helped turn the State into a national leader in economic development, historic preservation, and environmental protection. There are too many projects to name that Jim championed through the State legislature. He helped bring about Navy Pier's renovation, making it the State's top tourist destination. When the Chicago White Sox were on the verge of leaving Chicago for Florida, he fought hard to keep them. Jim was working the votes well into the night, and the White Sox got their new stadium. He supported the legislation that paved the way for the Chicago Bulls' arena, the United Center. When Republicans in the Illinois House sought to make Illinois a right-to-work State, Jim called local beer distributors in Springfield and had them set up on the lawn of the Governor's mansion, where he invited protesting labor members to have a drink. The right-to-work legislation never passed. In 1989, Jim decided against running for a fifth term. He had guided the State through a recession and helped rebuild it. He made countless deals with people of both parties. Jim could have coasted on the reputation he had built, but he didn't. He joined the law firm Winston & Strawn, and within 2 years, he was chairman and had made the firm a powerhouse. Jim also continued to serve his country as he was part of the 9/11 Commission, he chaired the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority, and he argued several cases before the Illinois Supreme Court. He retired in 2015. Jim Thompson never hesitated to work with the other side for a greater good. We were political adversaries, yet we also were personal friends. Sure, we disagreed on quite a bit, but we always worked together for the State of Illinois. Loretta and I send our thoughts and prayers to Jayne and their daughter Samantha.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague from New York. Many of the things he has said on the floor this morning reflect what I have seen back in Illinois in the last 5 or 6 weeks that we have been home, people I have spoken to who are genuinely suffering because of the coronavirus pandemic and the state of the American economy. There was a moment here on the floor of the Senate earlier this year when the gravity of the situation brought us together. It was March 26--almost 6 months ago--when we voted 96 to 0 to pass the CARES Act, the $3 trillion effort to try to keep America's economy alive and breathing during this pandemic and the impact it has had on all of our lives. That is $3 trillion--money for the unemployed, substantial sums for those who are about to see their lives transformed overnight. Laid off and fired from jobs that may never return, they tried to keep their families together with mortgage payments, rent payments, automobile loans, the credit responsibilities they faced, and just putting food on the table. It was a wrenching, disquieting situation for so many of those families, and we said that we should give them $600 a week--$600 a week--in Federal assistance to get through this period. What we did not only helped those families, but it helped the economy. The money those families received was spent almost instantaneously. That is understandable. They are struggling to survive. But we knew that the program we enacted on March 26 had a termination date of July 31. We hoped that by then the pandemic would be behind us, our economy would be recovering, and we wouldn't need any further relief. We were wrong--terribly wrong. We still face this coronavirus in a way that we never expected 6 months ago. It is still a challenge-- a terrible challenge that has claimed over 180,000 American lives to date. I could speak for a few minutes here about our response as a nation to this pandemic and talk about the lack of leadership from the very top in Washington when it came to dealing with this public health crisis, but suffice it to say for the moment that two numbers tell the story. The United States has 4 percent of the world's population. Sadly, we have 20 percent of the COVID-19 deaths in the world. The United States has not responded as expected. Innocent people have died. The situation was chaotic in the White House. The leadership we needed wasn't there. Where are we today? Here we are in the second week of September. Where are we now as we reflect on the situation? Many of us believe we still face a grievous, serious challenge and need to respond accordingly, but others see it differently. Senator McConnell, the leader on the Republican side, is going to offer a proposal tomorrow that is a fraction--a fraction--of what was offered on March 26 to deal with this crisis. Many people, obviously on the Republican side, feel that America is headed in the right direction and therefore we don't need to make a substantial investment in people, in businesses, and in the health and resources of this country. For those who come to the floor and argue that America is headed in the right direction, three-fourths of the American people disagree with them. You see, in a survey taken just 2 weeks ago, 75 percent of the American people said America is headed in the wrong direction. So when the Republicans come up with a modest--almost immodest--proposal that they are going to bring to the floor tomorrow, they disagree with three-fourths of the American people. Many of them obviously believe that we don't have to make a massive investment in helping families who are fighting unemployment, helping businesses to survive. They must believe that the worst is behind us. Well, it turns out that two out of three of the American people disagree with them. That is right--two out of three in a recent survey in America said the worst is still ahead. Wrong direction, 75 percent; the worst is still ahead, two-thirds. What is the response on the Republican side? First, it was silence. You see, it has been almost 4 months now since the House of Representatives, under the Democratic leadership of Speaker Pelosi, passed the Heroes Act--a $3 trillion investment to make sure that we stood by the families who were unemployed, to make sure that we put money into the hands of businesses that needed to survive, to make certain that we had adequate testing across the United States, to give money to schools so that they could weather this crisis as they readjust to the challenges they face, and to put money in the hands of hospitals and providers that in some cases are just hanging by a thread because of the state of the economy and this medical challenge. That is what Speaker Pelosi did almost 4 months ago. In the meantime, in that 4-month period, the Republican leader of the Senate has done nothing--nothing. He didn't bring a bill to the floor. He didn't pass a bill and call for a conference committee. In fact, during this entire period of time, the Republican leader in the Senate has refused to personally attend the negotiations between the White House and congressional leaders. Both he and House Republican Leader McCarthy have boycotted any negotiation sessions. Any persuasion they want to bring to the issue, they bring to the floor of the Senate in speeches, not behind closed doors, where compromise is reached and where, in fact, we were successful last March, passing the CARES Act. So now we face a challenge as a nation. Which party will stand up for America to weather this crisis and come out strong? The Democrats have a proposal. We have had it for 4 months. The Republicans, tomorrow, will offer a skinny--some say emaciated-- version of that proposal. They want to take the assistance to unemployed Americans--800,000 of them in my home State, millions across the Nation--and cut it in half. Did Senator McConnell get a news flash that I missed that mortgage payments will be cut in half as of tomorrow, that rental payments will be cut in half as of tomorrow, that car payments will be cut in half, that the cost of food will be cut in half? Not at all. We know these families will face the same obligations and, under the Republican proposal, receive a fraction of what they were given and have received between March and the end of July. That is unfair to these families. I know what is happening in food banks across Illinois, and I am sure it is the same case in Kentucky, perhaps in Georgia, perhaps in New York. People are flooding these food banks asking for help. Some of them are embarrassed by their situation. They shouldn't be, but they are. Many people who used to volunteer at these same food banks are now standing in line, looking at their shoes, hoping to take enough food home to make it through a week. That is the reality, but it is not the reality that is reflected in the Senate action this week. What we have from Senator McConnell is a small effort at a time when America needs a substantial effort to deal with not only the situation facing our economy but also the coronavirus. I am troubled, too, because I represent a State that is so diverse, with the great city of Chicago but all the way downstate--my roots-- smalltown America, rural America. Many of the hospitals and healthcare providers in those areas are literally struggling to survive. They are looking to Washington for a helping hand. Do you know what it means to smalltown America to lose a hospital? It is devastating, not only from the viewpoint of healthcare and emergency care, which is unavailable on a timely basis in many places, but also because it is hard to keep a business or attract a business if you don't have quality healthcare nearby. Many of those hospitals are struggling to keep the lights on and survive, and they will not make it unless we step up. So what is included in the Republican proposal when it comes to these healthcare providers, to increasing Medicaid assistance to them, for example? Virtually nothing. I can't understand this. I have to believe that the Republican leadership representing States with small towns and rural populations are hearing exactly what I am hearing in downstate Illinois. Yet, when it comes to a proposal on the floor, they are doing nothing--nothing. Let me just add, in closing here, if we don't take testing seriously in America, we cannot be serious about reopening the economy, reopening schools, from colleges to kindergartens. That is the reality, to be able to test in an effective, cost-effective way people who are positive for this virus so that they are notified and stop from circulating among those who are, at that point, healthy. The testing investment by this bill on the Republican side doesn't meet the challenge at all. They can't call for opening the economy on one hand and ignore the responsibility for testing on another. So where do we go from here? Well, tomorrow is a symbolic, partisan vote on the Republican side when it should be much more. After it is finished and we know the outcome, perhaps then the Republican leader in the Senate will be willing to sit down and negotiate. Will he be willing to occupy that empty chair in that negotiating room with the White House and Democratic congressional leaders? Will he be willing to sit down and actually work on a compromise comparable to the CARES Act that passed here in March, earlier this year? That is what it takes--not a speech on the floor, not a press release, not a symbolic vote but something much more significant: the willingness to sit down and acknowledge the obvious; that America is heading in the wrong direction, and we should be heading in the right direction. Many people worry that the worst is yet to come. We want them to be more hopeful and optimistic because we care, and if both parties do care to help the unemployed, to help businesses, to make sure that our healthcare providers have the resources that they need, then we can start to address this coronavirus, this pandemic, with the leadership that has been so lacking in the months that we have faced it this year. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset how proud I am to serve with my colleague, Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois. Her sacrifice for America is nothing short of amazing. Her life's story, her commitment to the men and women in uniform whom she served with and to the veterans and others, is now well established, not just in my State but across this Nation. Only a small minority of Americans have had the privilege and honor of serving in the military. Many, like myself, count themselves as those who respect the military and understand that they deserve that respect for their willingness to volunteer to serve and even to die for this Nation. What Senator Duckworth has done with her life is a clear indication of the spirit of the fighting women and men who keep this Nation democratic and safe. I am really disappointed. What a great moment it would have been in the history of the Senate if we had Republican support, as well as Democratic support, for the Duckworth resolution. I am sorry the Senator from Georgia objected. She took exception to The Atlantic magazine article, the one that said the President called those who died in war ``losers'' and ``suckers,'' but even that article has been accepted by FOX News as being a valid comment made by the President and reported. Even if you take The Atlantic magazine and set it aside, there is ample evidence of this President's attitude toward our military. We all heard Donald Trump say publicly, when he was running for President in 2015, about our friend and colleague, the late John McCain: ``He's not a war hero. . . . I like people who weren't captured.'' John McCain spent more than 5 years in a prisoner-of-war camp in Vietnam, and this President, Donald Trump, dismisses him as no war hero. John McCain suffered for his Nation. He deserves the respect of everyone, let alone the President. We also saw Donald Trump publicly attack a Gold Star family in 2016, the parents of the late Humayun Khan, an Army captain killed in Iraq in 2004. We have heard President Trump dismiss traumatic brain injury faced by servicemembers and veterans as just ``headaches.'' We have seen his silence in the face of reports that Russia offered bounties to kill American servicemembers in Afghanistan. We have witnessed his use of military officials for photo ops or as his own personal security forces. Recall the scene in ``A Very Stable Genius'' by Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonnig in which Trump called the service chiefs ``a bunch of dopes and babies'' and barked: ``You're all losers. You don't know how to win anymore.'' President Trump repeated those claims again in a news conference just this week. These are just a few examples of not fake news but real news about this President's attitude toward the American fighting men and women. It is no surprise that he would say vile things privately if he would say these things publicly. Instead of respecting our troops, President Trump ridicules them. Instead of bowing his head in humility, he barks insults and obscenities. No President in our history--none that I can even imagine--has been so juvenile, so abusive, and so cynical in speaking of our fallen heroes. What do we hear from Republican officeholders about these sickening comments? Very little, if anything, in objection. Their silence is deafening. I want to close by thanking my colleague, Senator Duckworth, for bringing this matter to the floor of the Senate. Every Member of the Senate--man, woman, Democrat, Republican--we all carry the flag and proudly march in parades and give those inspirational speeches on Memorial Day about the men and women who have served our Nation, but where are the voices in the Senate today to speak out against the outrages of this President? I yield the floor.

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. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Michigan (Mrs. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.