Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the news this morning about the actions taken by Facebook and Twitter in relation to statements made by President Trump is incredible. We now have a decision by these two major sources of social media to draw down and to remove statements made by the President of the United States on the issue of the national health emergency which we currently face. They believe--and certainly, on its face, it is clear--that these statements by President Trump misrepresented medical fact in terms of the immunity of children to COVID-19 and the state of play in America when it comes to this pandemic. The numbers 5 and 25 tell a real story. America has roughly 5 percent of the world's population and, sadly, 25 percent of the COVID infections in the world. How could a great and strong nation like ours have reached this point where this medical crisis has reached a point where many parts of America are facing recordbreaking infection levels? Part of it has to do with the lack of leadership: a President who has refused to acknowledge experts like Dr. Fauci and others, who, when they say things that disappoint him, are banished from appearing on television with him or making public statements in contradiction of his bizarre point of view. We also know, as well, that the President has downplayed, from the start, the threat of this COVID-19. One of the reasons Facebook and Twitter removed his statements is that the President continues to diminish the severity of this crisis. We know, as well, that he has failed to tell us the truth and has speculated on medical theories that are just pure quackery. Who can forget the President's famous press conference talking about ingesting disinfectants, his theories about ultraviolet lights, and this hydroxychloroquine fantasy that he continues to enjoy telling the American people? We know, as well, that he has failed to take action when it was needed Initially, Governors, including my own in the State of Illinois, were desperate for the equipment that they needed to protect healthcare workers and to save the lives of those who were infected with the coronavirus. At this moment in time, many people are asking me basic questions on my website. One of the questions from a lady this morning said: Why is it that the United Kingdom has a rapid test and we don't in the United States? I wish I could answer that, but I can't. The fact is, if you are taking a test to see if you are positive for the coronavirus and the results aren't available for 5 days or even 12 days, they are almost pointless. At that point in time, it is just a data point in history, not something that you could rely on in terms of your own conduct. How do the Republicans in the Senate explain the nonchalance many of them have displayed when it comes to the challenges we face? This is the worst national health crisis we have faced in 100 years. We know that people are dying. Over 150,000 have died already in this country, and we know that number is likely to grow. Despite that, when it comes to putting money into testing, Democrats have called for a dramatic investment to make that happen, and the Republicans--just $16 billion for a nation that needs so much more. When it comes to the economy, I can't understand the position of the Republicans. They refuse to come forward with their own plan to rescue our economy, to help unemployed families, and to put businesses back in business, and they seem to lack a sense of urgency as to the situation we currently face. The American people take this situation very, very seriously. We have recently done surveys and found that they overwhelmingly believe we still have major challenges ahead, and they start with the coronavirus. Why hasn't this President used the resources of this government to come up with a quick, rapid-results test so that people can learn whether they are positive for coronavirus in a quick fashion? We can't realistically expect to open the economy or open our schools until we have that available across the United States of America. Yet the President doesn't seem to want to take on that responsibility. For those who believe that we can say to the unemployed ``If you would just work a little harder, you would find a job,'' they ought to face the reality. The reality is we have four unemployed workers in America for every job opening. The reality, as well, is that employers who wish to fill their positions are doing it at a faster pace than at any time. And this notion that if you are receiving an unemployment check you are going to stay home and not go back to work--in the last few months, of the people who have returned to work in America, 70 percent of them were being paid more on unemployment than they were on the jobs that they returned to, but they wanted to get back to work. They believe in work. They know that unemployment is a temporary help and that they have to get back on their own feet as quickly as possible. Plus, there are benefits to working. One of them is health insurance, and many people returned to work to get back to the health insurance that they particularly think is right for their family. So why would the Republicans be suggesting a reduction in the weekly benefit by some $400? They ought to sit down and talk to the people who are receiving these unemployment checks, as I did last Friday in Chicago. Let them tell their stories. What are they spending these unemployment checks for? Overwhelmingly, the basics of life: food, paying utility bills, rent and mortgage payments. People aren't salting this money away. Almost half of the unemployed in America have exhausted all of their savings. Some of them have resorted to selling some piece of property they own, some goods or articles that might raise enough money to help them pay their bills. It is a desperate situation for the 30 million Americans who are unemployed. I don't understand why the Republicans don't engage with us in addressing this problem directly. How can we possibly explain that, in the negotiation over the next rescue package for America, we have the President's Chief of Staff; the Secretary of the Treasury; the Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi; Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate; and two empty chairs? Senator McConnell does not participate in this negotiation, nor does Leader McCarthy from the Republicans in the House. They should be there. That is their job. This notion that they can stand off on the sidelines and just criticize things that are being discussed is not productive. America needs more. America needs a better approach when it comes to this. Another issue that comes up every time I open any conference call to questioning from an audience is our Postal Service. In July, Postmaster General DeJoy eliminated overtime for postal employees even though parcel volumes were up almost 60 percent in June compared to last year. Usually, about 20 percent of all the work by mail handlers, city carriers, and postal drivers is done in overtime. In the July memo announcing these operational changes, the new Postmaster acknowledged that employees--listen to this quote--``may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks . . . which is not typical.'' Postmaster General DeJoy routinely compares the Postal Service, a 245-year-old government agency that performs a service, to U.S. Steel as an example of the need to adapt to the new market realities. Postmaster DeJoy does not seem to understand that the Postal Service is an essential service provided by the government, not a luxury and certainly not a routine business. Americans rely on the U.S. Postal Service to deliver needed packages, medications, Social Security checks, and other benefits. Many small businesses would absolutely fold if they couldn't use the U.S. Postal Service and its daily operations, and rural Americans especially know that many for-profit delivery services will not come to their addresses in smalltown America. The Postal Service will be there. We are less than 100 days from an election where mail-in ballots delivered by the Postal Service will be vital to ensuring people of all political persuasions that they can safely exercise their right to vote while following public health experts' recommendations to reduce the spread of COVID-19. When contacted to schedule a call with the Postmaster General, his office's response was this: ``Currently, he is not taking calls or meetings as he is focusing on understanding the organization.'' Understanding the organization? The Heroes Act that passed the House of Representatives 11 weeks ago included $25 billion in emergency funding to cover revenue losses over the next 2 years. I believe in the Postal Service, and I thank the employees. My own mail carrier in my neighborhood back in Springfield, Greg, works late hours, usually delivers our mail at 7 p.m. He tells me he is delivering a lot of packages now. He said: Senator, I just delivered a package of duct tape to one of your neighbors. I want to make sure I deliver your mail every single day, as promised. He is a dedicated public servant. You can tell it in his manner and his gait and his attitude. He takes his job very, very seriously, and he does it well, as so many do. We need to support our Postal Service. This is not something we can afford to skimp on at this moment in American history. I hope the Republicans will join us in believing that the Postal Service is worth an investment today, and I hope that we can include that in anything that we move forward. There is another provision I would hope to include in any rescue package, and it addresses an issue that we all feel intensely. Across America, many communities routinely face the harsh reality of too few doctors or nurses, dentists, or behavioral health providers. It means delayed healthcare in many communities, gaps in accessing lifesaving services, and, ultimately, worse health outcomes, especially in low- income rural and urban areas. Our Nation is projected to face a shortage of up to 120,000 doctors within the next 10 years and a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of nurses for each of the next several years. If you ask the question, you will find that many hospitals and clinics in smalltown America resort to contract nurses. These are nurses who are available in an emergency, but they are expensive, sometimes charging two or three times what a nurse is usually paid at the same place--and that was before the coronavirus rampage across our Nation. This pandemic has magnified these shortages in our system. In my State of Illinois, Governor Pritzker had to call providers out of retirement from other States to deliver surge care while fourth-year medical students at the University of Illinois at Chicago were graduated early so that they could go to work. Over the past 6 months, America's healthcare workers have faced incredible strains on the frontlines in our fight against the coronavirus. Hundreds of healthcare workers have, tragically, died from COVID-19, tens of thousands have been infected, and countless more endured trauma and burnout from intense patient care. The crisis has also compounded alarming health disparities for Black and Latinx Americans, who are three times more likely to get sick and die from COVID-19 than White patients. A lack of minority physicians and health professionals of color contributes to this unconscionable inequity. In 2018, only 4 percent of incoming medical students in Illinois were Black men. A recent study found that there are fewer Black male medical students today than there were in 1978. That is 42 years ago. The simple economics of American medical education pose a barrier to our health workforce needs. We take our most promising students, put them through years of rigorous education and training, license them after a backbreaking residency on one condition: They have to be prepared to assume a student debt of, on average, more than $200,000 to be a doctor in America. The burden of paying off these loans steers some of our best and brightest minds into higher paying specialties and communities, leaving many areas with gaps and vulnerable to the challenges we are facing today. To address these health workforce challenges and medical disparities and to bolster surge capacity for future emergencies, I have partnered with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Together, we have introduced Strengthening America's Health Care Readiness Act, immediately restoring our pipeline of doctors, nurses, and other providers. How do we do it? We provide scholarships and loan repayment funding through the National Health Service Corps and Nurse Corps to those who commit to serve in needy areas. In 27 States, more than 70 percent of inpatient hospital beds are full. One of the major issues with this capacity strain is the lack of providers to actually staff these health units. Our bill would help to surge tens of thousands of clinicians into these communities. To narrow disparities that I mentioned earlier, our legislation would emphasize recruitment from populations historically underrepresented in healthcare, and our bill would enhance our emergency preparedness by providing loan repayment for clinicians who serve in a reserve capacity--similar to our National Guard--who could be deployed from the private practice to serve in disaster locations. Representative Schakowsky--Jan Schakowsky of Chicago--is our partner in the House. We are pleased to have the support of the American Medical Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the National Association of Community Health Centers, and many more. Senator Rubio and I are working to include this policy in the next coronavirus relief package. We urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in his powerful eulogy for Congressman John Lewis, President Barack Obama described John Lewis as a man who ``brought this country a little bit closer to our highest ideals.'' President Obama went on to say, ``And someday when we do finish that long journey towards freedom, when we do form a more perfect union-- whether it's years from now or decades or even if it takes another two centuries--John Lewis will be a founding father of that fuller, fairer, better America.'' Such a beautiful and fitting epitaph. Another founder of that ``fuller, fairer, better America'' was the Reverend Dr. C.T. Vivian. C.T. Vivian and John Lewis departed this life on the same day. The timing of their leaving is proof, perhaps, that Mark Twain was right when he said that history does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Who was C.T. Vivian? Martin Luther King called him ``the greatest preacher ever to live.'' The Reverend Gerald Durley, who met C.T. Vivian in 1960 when Durley was a member of the Nashville Student Movement and who delivered the eulogy at his home going, called Dr. Vivian ``the most patient impatient man'' he ever met. Patient with people but impatient with injustice. C.T. Vivian was mentor to John Lewis, Diane Nash, and many other brave young civil rights activists a half century ago. Before they sat at those segregated lunch counters or boarded those Freedom Rider buses, Dr. Vivian taught them about the tactics--and the transformative power--of nonviolent civil disobedience. He was as a Baptist minister, an early civil rights organizer, and a member of Martin Luther King's inner circle or advisers. As field general for Dr. King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Dr. Vivian was the national director of some 85 local affiliate chapters of the SCLC from 1963 to 1966, directing protest activities and training in nonviolence, and coordinating voter registration and community development projects. He led passive protests through angry mobs and was beaten viciously by segregationists, but he never once struck back. He received his first beating in 1961 on a Freedom Ride to Mississippi. In 1964, a white mob beat him with chains and nearly drowned him in the Atlantic Ocean in St. Augustine, FL. In Selma, AL, in 1965, 2 weeks before Bloody Sunday, Dr. Vivian was trying to register Africa-American residents to vote when Sheriff Jim Clark punched him in the mouth so hard that the blow sent the minister reeling down the courthouse steps. Sheriff Clark then ordered deputies to arrest him for ``criminal provocation.'' Television coverage of Dr. Vivian being dragged away, blood streaming down his face, helped galvanize the voting rights movement. C.T. Vivian was a hero to all Americans, but many in my State feel a special connection to him because of the formative years he spent among us. He was, like many great Illinoisans, an adopted son of the Land of Lincoln. He was born Cordy Tindell Vivian in Boonville, Missouri, on July 30, 1924, the only child of Robert and Euzetta Tindell Vivian. His father left the family when he was a baby. His mother lost the family farm in the Depression and the family home in town to arson. When C.T. was 6, he moved with this mother and maternal grandmother to Macomb, Illinois. The women chose Macomb because its public schools were integrated. They had great expectations for C.T. and they believed in the power of education. C.T. Vivian joined his first protest in Peoria, IL, in 1947, helping to desegregate a downtown cafeteria. In many parts of Illinois at the time, segregation of public facilities was not a law, but it was a custom rigidly enforced. He first heard Dr. King speak in 1957, while studying for the ministry at the American Baptist College in Nashville. In 1959, he met th Reverend James Lawson, who was teaching nonviolent strategies to members of the Nashville Student Movement, including a young John Lewis. After leaving the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1966, Dr. Vivian returned to Illinois--this time to Chicago--to direct the Urban Training Center for Christian Missions, where he trained clergy, community leaders and others to organize. He worked to advance civil rights and educational and economic opportunities for African Americans, and to reduce the gang violence that ensnared to many young Black men. He left Chicago in 1972 to become dean of the Shaw University Divinity School in Raleigh, NC. He moved to Atlanta later in the 1970s and founded the C.T. Vivian Leadership Institute, to continue to train the next generation of leaders in the principals and tactics of nonviolent change. In 2013, Dr. Vivian received the Presidential Medal of Freedom--our Nation's highest civilian honor, from President Barack Obama. It was a moving and historic moment and I was honored to be there. He died on July 17, 2 weeks shy of his 96th birthday. He is buried in Atlanta next to his fellow foot soldier for justice, Dr. King. In the last calendar year, we have lost Elijah Cummings, the Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowry, John Lewis and Dr. C.T. Vivian--all giants in the civil rights movement. This is the passing of a great generation, founders of the ``fuller, fairer, better America,'' as President Obama said. As we mourn their passing, let us also give thanks for their lives, and resolve to use the blueprints they left us to continue towards a more perfect union.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in 1971, a young doctor named Babu Prasad boarded a plane in his native India, headed for America. He was 24 years old and 1 year out of medical school. His first stop was Canton, OH where he worked for a short while before moving to Chicago to complete a residency in anesthesiology at the University of Illinois- Chicago. He spent the following decade practicing medicine in Alabama before returning to Illinois, this time to the Springfield area, where he spent the next 18 years practicing anesthesiology at HSHS St. John's Hospital before retiring in 2004. Two weeks ago, this doctor who arrived in America as a young man with no money announced that he was donating $1 million to HSHS St. John's to support a major expansion of the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit. An article in The State Journal-Register, Springfield's hometown newspaper, called Dr. Prasad's gift his ``love letter to the hospital and community.'' At a press conference announcing his donation, Dr. Prasad said simply: ``I want to give back to a country that has given so much to my family and me.'' ``Children are our future, so I wanted to direct by gift to the neonatal intensive care unit, to give the babies a healthy start in life,'' said Dr. Prasad. Dr. Prasad and his wife, Dr. Sudah Prasad, an immunologist, have been quiet and consistent donors to St. John's NICU over the years. Their latest gift of $1 million will support a major expansion of St. John's neonatal intensive care unit. The expansion, expected to be finished in February, will more than double the size of the current NICU and provide single-family patient rooms for premature and critically ill infants. As a father whose first baby came into this world with serious health challenges, I have a sense of what such supportive accommodations will mean to families of sick and fragile babies, and I am grateful to Dr. Prasad for his generous support of this worthy cause. St. John's was one of the first hospitals in Illinois to establish a NICU for premature and critically ill infants. Each year, about 2,00 babies are born at St. John's, and about 700 babies from 35 Illinois counties receive care in the hospital's NICU. In announcing Dr. Prasad's donation, Beverly Neisler, chief development officer for the HSHS St. John's Foundation said, ``Dr. Prasad's gift is a beautiful testament as to who he is as a person. He is a generous and kind man who has built a successful life through hard work, dedication and determination. He means so much to us.'' ``A golden opportunity'' is how Dr. Prasad remembers his chance to come to America nearly a half-century ago. ``It felt like heaven,'' he says, nothing like India in the 1970s. At 24, he had never before seen TV. Nearly 50 years later, Dr. Prasad is a father of three and grandfather of six. Two of his daughters have followed him into the medical profession. Dr. Prasad himself continues to practice anesthesiology and pain management 2 weeks each month at a private medical practice in the Springfield area. The current COVID crisis reminds us daily how much we depend on the skills and sacrifices of fronteline medical workers and how many of those medical workers are, like Dr. Prasad, immigrants. We are fortunate and we are safer and healthier because they have chosen to make America their home. On behalf of the families of Illinois, I want to thank Dr. Prasad again for keeping two generations of Illinoisans healthy and for his generous gift to future generations.

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 have come to the floor again today to speak about an obscure section of immigration law that has a direct impact on the lives of literally millions of people living and working in the United States. I am here to speak about the plight of immigrant workers who are suffering because of a serious problem in our immigration system, known as the green card backlog. Many of these immigrants are essential workers helping to lead the fight against COVID-19. We have just heard tributes on the floor to these healthcare heroes from Senators on the other side. This green card backlog, which I speak to, puts them and their families at risk of losing their immigration status and being deported from the United States. Under current law, there are not nearly enough immigrant visas--also known as green cards--available each year. As a result, many immigrants are stuck in crippling backlogs for years, waiting and praying for the moment when their number comes up. Close to 5 million future Americans are in line, waiting for these green cards, including 1 million immigrant workers and their families. Despite this number--5 million--there are only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards available each year. These backlogs are really hard on families. They are caught in immigration limbo. What happens to the children is particularly awful. Children in many of these families age out while the parents are waiting for the green cards. What does that mean? They reach the age of 21, and then these children, as adults, face deportation because they are no longer under the age of 21 by the time the green cards are available. The solution to the green card backlog is so clear: Increase the number of green cards. I have introduced legislation known as the RELIEF Act with Senator Pat Leahy and Senator Mazie Hirono. The RELIEF Act would increase the number of green cards to clear the backlogs for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 years. The RELIEF Act would protect aging out children who qualify for a green card based on the parents' immigration petition. This RELIEF Act is not new; it is based on the bipartisan 2013 Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. I know a little bit about it. That bill was written by eight Senators, and I was one of them--four Democrats, four Republicans. We worked for months. We took the bill through the Senate Judiciary Committee. We faced 200 amendments, I believe, and then brought it to the floor, subject to even more amendments. At the end of the day, that bill passed with a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32 on the floor of the Senate. But Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives, refused to even consider this comprehensive immigration bill. If they had, we wouldn't be here today. That bill and the provisions we added to it eliminated the green card backlog. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the Republican side are still unwilling to increase the number of immigrant visas even by one. They want to keep these immigrant workers on temporary visas where they are at risk of losing their immigration status and being deported. The senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, introduced a bill, S. 386, known as the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, to address the green card backlog. I have a basic concern with Senator Lee's bill. S. 386 includes no--no--additional green cards. Without additional green cards, S. 386 will not reduce the green card backlog. Don't take it from me; listen to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Here is what they say about Senator Lee's legislation: ``S. 386 would not reduce future backlogs compared to current law.'' This is not a partisan group; it is the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. S. 386 would not reduce future backlogs. Despite my concerns about Senator Lee's bill, I told him I was willing to sit down and work in good faith to see if there was something we could agree on. Last December, we reached an agreement--a good one. Republicans object to increasing the number of green cards, and, as a result, even our agreement--the amendment we agreed to--wouldn't reduce the green card backlog. But it was a good bill that we proposed. Let me highlight two key provisions of this agreement. We protect immigrants and their families stuck in the backlog. Immigrant workers and their immediate family members would be allowed to ``early file'' for their green cards. This was a proposal from Senator Lee that I thought was good and I was willing to support. That doesn't mean they would receive their green cards early, but they would be able to switch jobs and travel without losing their immigration status. That, to me, was only sensible. Early filing adds a critical protection that was not in Senator Lee's original bill. It prevents the children of immigrant workers from aging out of green card eligibility so they will not face deportation while they are waiting for a green card. Our agreement also would crack down on the abuse of H1-B temporary work visas. The amendment we agreed to would prohibit a company from hiring additional H1-B workers if the company's workforce were more than 50 employees and more than 50 percent of them were temporary workers. These shell companies were created for outsourcing Americans jobs and abusing the H1-B visa process. I know because Senator Grassley-- Republican of Iowa--and I introduced this reform years and years ago when this abuse became so obvious. It targets the top recipients of H1- B visas, which are outsourcing companies that use loopholes in the law to exploit immigrant workers and to offshore American workers' jobs. Two weeks ago, I came to the floor of the Senate to ask that we pass this agreement. Unfortunately, at that moment, Senator Lee objected. Instead, he offered a revised version of our December agreement, including changes that are required by the Trump administration. First, Senator Lee wants to remove a provision known as the hold harmless clause. That assured immigrants who are already waiting for a green card--sometimes for years--would not lose their place in line because Congress changed the rules in the middle of the game. Second, Senator Lee wanted to delay for 3 years the effective date of this 50-50 rule to crack down on outsourcing companies. I don't believe we should give these companies that are outsourcing American jobs and exploiting immigrant workers a free pass for 3 years. Third, Senator Lee wanted to delay for years early filing for people who are stuck in the green card backlog. Any children who would age out in the meantime would lose their chance for a green card and be subject to deportation. Those changes suggested by the Senator from Utah were unacceptable, but because there are so many lives at stake here, families at stake here--and I know the intensity of emotion behind this issue--I was determined to keep working to see if we could find some common ground. Last Tuesday, I sent Senator Lee another compromise offer. The Senate Republican leader is planning to recess the Senate in a few days, so I thought it was important to come to the floor today to try to pass this proposal before the Senate convenes. Let me be clear. This isn't how we are supposed to make laws in the Senate. Last year, I sent a letter--joined by every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee--to the senior Senator from Texas, John Cornyn, chair of the Immigration Subcommittee. We asked for the regular order of business in the Senate, which so seldom occurs now. We asked Senator Cornyn, as chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, to hold a hearing on this complicated legislation that addresses the green card backlog. We wanted them to include in the hearing consideration of Senator Lee's bill and my legislation, the RELIEF Act. We requested a hearing with witnesses, a markup, a bill, a vote in the committee, and a vote on the floor. It is almost like something called the U.S. Senate used to be. This would help the Senate to understand, during the course of this hearing and debate, the impact of each of these proposals and to pass legislation that would actually fix the backlog. That really is how the Senate used to work. I know it is hard for newer Members to believe it. The Immigration Subcommittee is certainly not too busy to take up this hearing. For this session of Congress, which began a year and a half ago, the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee has held one hearing--one. Unfortunately, Senator Cornyn rejected our request. This leaves me no other option but to bring this proposal directly to the Senate floor. Let me explain what my amendment would do. First, it would ensure that the children of immigrant workers do not age out while waiting for a green card. This provision would not increase the number of green cards. It would not provide any special benefits. It would simply allow children of immigrant workers to keep their place in line for a green card and to be protected from deportation until they can get their green card. Second, my amendment would delay the bill section that changes the distribution of green cards by 1 year. This provision, which Senator Lee actually proposed earlier this year, would not replace the hold- harmless provision; however, it would allow processing time for immigrants with pending applications to get their green cards. Third, my amendment would allow for immediate implementation of the 50-50 H-1B visa rule. I was told that the purpose of delaying it 3 years was to protect those currently working for these companies. So instead of the 3-year delay, my amendment would exempt renewals for current H-1B employees, which gives current employees the chance to apply for early filing without creating a loophole for outsourcing firms. What I offered Senator Lee after months and months of deliberation and negotiation was a good-faith effort to find common ground. There are so many lives at stake. So many families are following this debate because it literally will decide the fate of each of these individuals who are applying for the green cards and members of their family. It is heartbreaking to meet these families who have been waiting for years for a green card and to realize that the limitations of our system today make it so difficult. Many of these are good, hard-working people in America who are doing the right thing. In my hometown of Springfield, IL, there are physicians whom I have met and talked to personally who have driven hundreds of miles to plead their case with me. This one physician brought his young daughter; I think she was about 12 years old. I haven't forgotten her to this day. She traveled 200 miles to beg me to try to help. That is why I came in with this amendment in an effort to protect her and give her family a chance to be part of America's future. I will now request unanimous consent to pass my amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1044 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Durbin substitute amendment at the desk be considered agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Utah for his response to my proposal. My staff reviewed his amendment yesterday. We quickly reviewed the language, and I would like to share my reactions. Senator Lee does not include my language to protect children of immigrant workers from aging out during the delay in early filing because of objections on his side of the aisle. I am disappointed. Senator Lee's amendment would modify my proposal to allow immediate implementation of the 50-50 rule, so the rule would go into effect after 180 days. Senator Lee would also provide that current H-1B employees may continue to change employers. My purpose is to prevent outsourcing from continuing to exploit the H-1B visa program by hiring new H-1B employees. Senator Lee's language would not allow these companies to import new H-1B workers to exploit, so that is not objectionable to me. Senator Lee's amendment also accepts my proposal to delay by 1 year the bill section changing the distribution of green cards to allow processing time for pending applications. To sum up, this amendment currently being considered, for which unanimous consent has been asked, includes several key provisions I have advocated for that were not in Senator Lee's original bill, including early filing to protect immigrant workers and their families who are stuck in the backlog; an annual green card set-aside for immigrant workers who are ineligible for early filing because they are overseas; a 1-year delay in section 2 of the bill to protect immigrant workers with pending green card applications; and the 50-50 rule to protect American jobs and workers and to prevent the exploitation of immigrant workers, which helped to create the green card backlog. Therefore, I am prepared to accept this amendment in the spirit of bipartisan compromise. I will not object to Senator Lee's request.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed. After all of these months of negotiation and of the emotion, intensity, and feelings that we share for the people who are caught in this backlog, it is a real disappointment that, at the last moment, the Senator from Florida exercised his right as a Senator to object to our unanimous consent request--a request which I was prepared to accept. May I suggest that this is an illustration of the bottom line that I raised in my statement. In being stuck with a 140,000-limit on green cards for employment visas and country caps for that 140,000 limit, we will continue to run into the problem illustrated by the Senator from Florida. There will be those who will want to create an exception to the overall quota or the country caps, and there will be compelling, personal, and family reasons for them to ask for it. Time and again, they will find that, if they get a privilege, it will be at the expense of someone else, and there will be an objection. The only rational answer is to raise the cap on the green card quotas. These 140,000 employment-based visas a year might have made sense 30 or 40 years ago. They make no sense today in the world that we live in. We are talking about people in the United States who are working, who are trying to make lives here of a more permanent nature. They love this country enough to want to bring their families here--to relocate and live. They are working here and contributing in the computer industry, in healthcare, and in so many different areas. They are valuable and important to the future of America. I sincerely hope that we can resolve the issue that was brought up on the floor today. Equally important, if not more important, I hope that we will have the will on a bipartisan basis to tackle comprehensive immigration reform. We did it 7 years ago. We passed it 7 years ago. It can be done with Senators of good faith and good will who will work together. Yet it will mean you will have to accept the premise that there may be one additional, new immigrant coming to America. Some people cannot stomach that, and they object to any effort to change immigration laws that might result in an additional immigrant. This son of an immigrant, who happens to be a U.S. Senator, believes that immigration defines this country, that our diversity defines this country, and that bringing people here who are willing to sacrifice and risk everything to be part of America's future is part of the reason we have prospered as a nation. I hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will have the good sense to come to that conclusion and that, at another time, with another Congress and, perhaps, with another President, we will have a meaningful and fair-minded conversation. In the meantime, I will work with Senator Lee to resolve the differences that we have, which are now down to only a handful. As evidenced today, I believe we have made dramatic progress. We are disappointed by the result, but we are not giving up. 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 want to thank the Senator from New York and thank him for the negotiations he has engaged in. It is nothing short of amazing that the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate comes to the floor of the Senate every morning and criticizes Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi, who are sitting in a room day after day after day, trying to hammer out an agreement to help America in this time of need, while there are two empty chairs at that table. Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, does not attend the meetings, and sadly, the Republican leader of the Senate is also boycotting these meetings. I can't remember a time when this has occurred, ever--no time in history when there was a critical national decision to be hammered out between the parties and the leaders of the Republican Party in Congress refused to attend the meetings. Senator McConnell gives polished speeches on the floor criticizing Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi. They should be polished--he has time to practice them all day instead of going into the negotiations that can actually make a difference in the future of America. Americans are genuinely concerned, and they should be. We face a national health emergency with this pandemic, sadly, where the infections are spiking across America. It is still amazing to consider two numbers: the number 5--the United States has about 5 percent of the world's population; and the number 25--the United States has generated 25 percent of the COVID-19 infections in the world. Five percent of the population and 25 percent of the reported COVID infections in the world. How did we reach this point where this great developed, civilized, and strong Nation has been brought to its knees by this pandemic? We have reached this point by lack of leadership. The American people know that there have been leadership failures at the top. They know this President refuses to listen to experts. If the experts say something he doesn't like to hear, he banishes them, as Dr. Fauci has found. We also know that this President is downplaying the threat that sadly is taking American lives in the thousands by the day. Just yesterday or the day before, he branded this pandemic as all but over. Really? There is hardly anyone in America who would agree with that statement-- certainly no one who is paying any attention to the sad realities facing families. This President has failed to tell the truth. He has been engaged in medical quackery. This hydroxychloroquine that he clings to has been discredited by the sources that test it. It just isn't an answer. The President should know better. For goodness' sake, he doesn't have the competence to make a medical judgment along those lines, but that won't stop him. But many people across America are just fed up with it, whether it is Lysol cocktails or ultraviolet insertions. Lord only knows what he will come up with next. At a time when people are literally sick and dying, when our healthcare heroes are risking their lives every day, this President goes off on these flights of medical fantasy, and the American people are fed up with it. This President has failed to take the action that America desperately needs. We cannot reopen this economy, we cannot consider reopening schools until we dramatically invest in better, quicker testing. That is a reality. As Senator Schumer said earlier, Americans wonder how the President manages to test everyone who crosses the threshold of the White House over and over, every single day, and how Major League Baseball and the National Football League can get test results in a matter of hours while Americans are standing in line and waiting for results that are largely irrelevant when they are delivered 5 or 6 days after the test. What good is a test if it tells you that you are safe 6 days ago, when you want to see your grandchildren today? That is the reality of testing in America. And what has this President done about it? He has made statement after statement that there are all the tests we could possibly want available to every American. We know better. All across America, we know better. Testing has improved and increased, but it is not where we need it. That should be the highest priority of this administration, but they failed when it came to providing personal protective equipment, and they failed when it comes to providing testing. The biggest failure is the attitude of the Senate Republican leader and the President when it comes to the crises America faces--first, the coronavirus crisis and, second, the economic crisis. The biggest tragedy is the fact that they believe we should do little or nothing-- little or nothing when we are facing some the greatest challenges of our time, some of the greatest challenges in American history. The American people expects us to take it seriously and to aggressively go after this coronavirus and its spread and aggressively help this economy back to its feet. We have come up with a plan, which Senator McConnell has come to the floor and mocked every single day. It passed the House of Representatives 11 weeks ago. Eleven weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi passed it and sent it to the Senate. What has happened in that 11-week period? Speech after speech after speech, deriding the efforts of the House of Representatives and, literally, nothing on the other side to show for it. Finally, last week, they started trickling out a few ideas here and there, and they weren't very good. They refused to participate, will not even attend the negotiation sessions with the White House, and come to the floor each day and mock and criticize Democratic efforts to deal with the issues before us. As far as a recovery is concerned, it is essential that we dedicate ourselves to it, but, first, coronavirus--first, get the infections under control and save the lives of those who have already been infected. That is the first thing that needs to be done. The Republican approach is too little and too late. We have come up with a $3 trillion plan. They have come up with a $1 trillion plan and said: We may not even spend that much. Particularly troublesome for me is this attitude toward the unemployment compensation being paid to Americans. I couldn't believe the Senator from Kentucky when he came to the floor today and tried to pit our healthcare heroes against the unemployed, saying: They are going to work every day. Why should we give any money to those who don't go to work every day? Really? We have four unemployed Americans--four unemployed Americans--for every single job opening. I don't believe the doctors, nurses, and medical professionals who are fighting COVID every single day resent those who are unemployed. I think they understand full well the devastation of this pandemic, not only on the individuals they treat but on the economy at large. When it comes to these healthcare heroes, the Democrats have stepped up and called for hazard pay. Will the Republicans join us? We think these healthcare heroes deserve it--that and more, our gratitude and more, for all they have given to the United States. Let me say a word about those who are receiving unemployment benefits. I met with five of them in Chicago last week, heard their stories, asked them a few questions, and learned a little bit about their lives. I wasn't surprised at the hardship they face. Many of them have been out of work for 4 or 5 months already. It is no surprise that almost half of the people out of work have exhausted all of their savings at this point, even with unemployment benefits. You ask those who are unemployed: Well, what do you do with these checks that are sent to you each week? It is pretty obvious to them what you do with it. You pay the mortgage, if you have one. You pay the rent, the car payment, so it is not repossessed and taken away from you. You try to keep food on the table. You try to keep the people issuing the credit cards at bay. These are the basics that people face every single day. But the Republicans don't seem to get that. They don't understand it because they don't get to know these people or even ask them what life is like. They are not on any bed of roses with $600 a week when you consider the debts they face, when you consider the expenses they face, and you consider the fact that many of them are struggling to pay for their own health insurance at this point. A family trying to pick up the cost of their health insurance, that their employer once provided half of, finds themselves spending $1,400 to $1,700 a month on that alone. That is the reality. For the record, of those who have returned to work in America, we are grateful that they are back to work. We are happy that they are back to work. Seventy percent of them were making more money on unemployment than they made returning to work. Well, why would they do that? Because they are not lazy people. They are people who take pride in work, believe there is dignity with work, and are prepared to return even if they made more on unemployment. They know that unemployment is a temporary help. They want to get back to work, a place where they can prove their worth as individuals and feel some satisfaction that they are going to work and doing their best. That is part of the reality

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me also address for a moment this issue of reopening of schools. There is a debate raging across the country right now about what this autumn will look like for our Nation's schools, the schoolchildren, teachers, and school staff. You have heard the President, who has literally threatened those who don't reopen their schools that they may lose Federal funding if they don't reopen schools. What is that funding spent for? Special education, school lunches, help for kids in poor schools. The message has been reiterated by the loyal Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos. She, too, has joined in the threats of schools that don't reopen. Now the Republicans in the Senate have taken that threat and turned it into legislation with their proposal in the next relief package. Let me be really clear. There is a concern about empty classrooms. Those who study childhood behavior worry that lack of socialization takes its toll on childhood development. Teachers are often sentinels for evidence of child abuse, which now may be going unreported. Remote learning works well for some but not for others. But that is not the concern of this President. He wants schools back so he that can claim some kind of false victory over the coronavirus. Last week, I led 24 of my colleagues in writing to the majority leader and the Democratic leader opposing putting children and teachers in any danger by conditioning funding of schools reopening in person. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Little Village Academy in Chicago with the Chicago Public Schools chief, Janice Jackson. Some wonderful people are there each day passing out lunches to the kids in the neighborhood who come around the school. They haven't reopened for classes. They hope they will, but that decision is still to be made. I can tell you that in Chicago and around my home State of Illinois, school boards, administrators, teachers, parents, and others are facing these decisions honestly. They have to provide a safe and effective learning environment for students and for teachers, whether that be in person, in school, or at home. Unlike President Trump, who is nicely insulated in the bubble of the White House with the multiple daily COVID-19 tests for everyone who just might come in contact with him, these education professionals in my home State of Illinois have to answer directly to the families in their communities. It is a decision that local officials are best suited to make without intimidation or threats from Washington, DC. But Washington does have a role to play. The best thing we can do to help local school districts through this difficult fall and beyond is to provide the Federal assistance and support they need to ensure the path they choose is one that keeps students and staff safe while allowing the learning and development to continue effectively. It is why, as we negotiate a fourth coronavirus response package, I will be pushing for the inclusion of the Coronavirus Childcare and Education Relief Act, being led in the Senate by Senator Patty Murray of Washington. In addition to supporting childcare, early education, and higher education, the bill provides $175 billion to elementary and secondary schools to help meet technology, cleaning, staffing, and other needs of schools. It provides funds to school districts based on their share of low-income children. In that way, it is similar to the CARES Act, which brought more than $200 million to the Chicago Public Schools and a total of $512 million across our State of Illinois. Compare that $175 billion to the $70 billion being offered on the Republican side-- another classic example. We believe this is a serious national issue, when it comes to education. The Republicans do not. The amount of money that they are proposing is a fraction of what we offer, and much of it is conditioned on the schools actually reopening in person, regardless of what is the safest thing for the schools, the teachers, and the students in any given area. Congress shouldn't put State and local officials in the position of choosing between desperately needed Federal assistance and the safety of students and the school personnel. Congress should not incentivize schools to reopen in person prematurely or penalize those where the public health situation makes it dangerous. The argument from the administration seems to go: ``Well, if schools don't reopen, they either don't deserve or don't need any help.'' That is just not the case. Even schools that are not able to reopen in person need assistance ensuring their students, especially those from low-income families, have the ability to participate in remote learning. They need help keeping staff on payroll, preparing the buildings so they can return in person in the future, and addressing any number of difficulties this pandemic has created. For school buses, if there is going to be social distancing of the kids on the buses, will there be a need for additional buses and busdrivers? In addition to funding, the Federal Government should also ensure that schools have science-based guidance to support safely opening, free from political influence and Presidential quackery. They also need the flexibility to continue serving critical meals to our students, regardless of what the school year looks like this fall. Chicago Public Schools have done an incredible job providing 18 million meals since March. We need to ensure the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides the range of alternative options needed to make sure that no kid in America goes hungry. Schools in Chicago and around our State don't need any more tweets or self-congratulatory briefings, Mr. President. They need Federal resources and guidance based on the best science our government has to offer. That is why I am fighting for this relief package to be at a level to meet the challenge we face across America

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me close by saying this. The majority leader comes to the floor regularly and talks about special interests. Perhaps he can explain to us why the Republican proposal for relief for the COVID-19 virus includes a $2 billion allocation for a new FBI building across the street from the Trump hotel. Perhaps he can explain the $30 billion wish list from the Department of Defense, trying to make up for cuts that were made when the President raided their accounts to build his almighty wall in the southern border. Perhaps the majority leader can explain to us the liability immunity which is being proposed by the Republican side as a ``redline, take it or leave it, we will walk away if you don't like it'' approach. It would be one thing if the Republican leader were in the room, actually negotiating, but he just makes a redline and walks away. That redline is a subsidy to the largest corporations in America, giving them liability immunity when it comes to possible court suits. Wouldn't we want a standard to make sure that all businesses and every individual or group or business is doing its best to keep America safe? When we say, don't worry about any liability in court if you ignore the public health reality, that is no guarantee that it is going to be a safe environment for America when we reopen this economy. 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. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the days since we lost our colleague Congressman John Lewis, many of us have come to the floor to talk about his extraordinary courage and tenacity. At the age of 25--25--he joined 600 civil rights activists to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, in pursuit of the right to vote. We have talked about how that day became known as Bloody Sunday, after John and the other courageous marchers were met with brutal beatings from Alabama State troopers, and how, in the days that followed, President Lyndon B. Johnson called on Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. It was 55 years ago this week that President Johnson sat at a desk in the President's Room right off this Chamber, a room that we walk by many times each week, and signed the Voting Rights Act into law. He noted at the signing ceremony: [L]ast March, with the outrage of Selma still fresh, I came down to this Capitol one evening and asked Congress and the people for swift and for sweeping action to guarantee to every man and woman the right to vote. In less than 48 hours, I sent the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Congress. In little more than 4 months the Congress, with overwhelming majorities, enacted one of the most monumental laws in the history of American freedom. Those were the words of Lyndon Johnson. He signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Well, we have made significant progress since that day, thanks to great men like John Lewis, who marched to enact the Voting Rights Act, and the advocates and litigators who battled for decades to enforce it. But there is a grim reality. Insidious voter suppression efforts still continue in America today. These efforts may not seem as obvious as the old-school poll taxes and literacy tests. But make no mistake. They are aimed at denying the fundamental right to vote, and all too often they are successful. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, I decided to travel to the States of Florida and Ohio for public hearings to speak to officials and experts on the ground and to determine why those States, through their legislatures, were passing laws--what I considered burdensome laws, such as reducing opportunities for early voting. Why were they making it harder to vote in Ohio and Florida? In both States I asked witnesses, under oath, what evidence of widespread voter fraud prompted these laws that made it more difficult for people to vote and limited the time when they could vote. The answer was simple. Under oath, what was the evidence of fraud? There was no evidence of fraud. It turned out that there were a handful of election fraud cases here and there, rarely prosecuted, and that is it. In contrast to the mere specter of widespread voter fraud, we learned that these voter suppression laws really had consequences. We heard over and over that restrictive voting laws have a disproportionate impact on whom? Low income voters, Black voters, Brown voters, young voters, elderly, vulnerable voting populations. When you make it harder to vote, it is tougher for these people to show up and vote. Someone knew that. After the hearings, we learned more about the real reason behind those laws. According to news reports, Republican consultants and former officials admitted after the 2012 election that the Florida law discussed at my hearing was literally designed to suppress the vote, particularly among those leaning toward the Democratic column. A year later, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Shelby County v. Holder. In a 5-to-4 vote, the divided Court struck down the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that required certain jurisdictions to preclear any changes in their voting laws with the Department of Justice. The decision effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in the aftermath, several State legislatures pushed through discriminatory restrictions on voting that previously would have required approval by the Justice Department ahead of time. As an example, in North Carolina the legislature enacted a massive voter suppression bill, including a strict photo ID requirement, early voting cutbacks, and the elimination of same-day registration, out-of- precinct voting, and preregistration for teenagers who were about to turn 18 before an election. What did a three-judge Federal panel have to say about this North Carolina law? They said ``it targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision'' and ``enacted the law with discriminatory intent.'' Those are unequivocal words. Despite all the press releases to the contrary, the Court knew exactly what was going on in North Carolina. They were trying to stop African-American voters in that State from being counted. Unfortunately, litigation targeting these voter suppression efforts has faced an increasingly uphill battle, as President Trump has packed the Federal courts with partisan, rightwing judges, including several with appalling records on voting rights. And though the Supreme Court continues to state that the right to vote is both ``fundamental'' and ``preservative of other basic civil and political rights,'' the Court has also continued to permit broad assaults on America's access to the ballot box. Let me give you an example. In April, the Court forced thousands of Wisconsin primary voters in April of this year to choose between their health and exercising their right to vote in the middle of a COVID-19 pandemic. The Court refused to extend the deadline for returning absentee ballots, despite the public health national emergency we face. A State official in Wisconsin recently said that at least 71 people were infected with COVID-19 after voting in person or working at the polls during that primary election. In June, the Supreme Court turned down a request to reinstate a Texas district court judge's order which would have ensured that all voters in the State could ask to vote by mail, in light of the pandemic. And just last month, the same Court refused to lift a stay in Florida that will prevent hundreds of thousands of otherwise eligible Floridians from voting in this month's primary election, simply because they can't pay the fines and fees imposed on them long ago as part of a criminal sentence. What did Justice Sotomayor say in her dissent about this Florida case? ``This court's inaction continues a trend of condoning disfranchisement.'' Well, it is time for this to end. I am introducing today a joint resolution. I don't do this lightly. In the time that I have served in Congress, I believe that this is only the second time that I have proposed an amendment to this Constitution. I believe, at least personally, that I am humbled by this document. I know it was far from perfect when written. We have learned that over the years with all the amendments and the history that has followed. But I have never thought myself worthy to add words to that document. One other time, on abolishing the electoral college, I had a bipartisan measure that I offered. But this is only the second time I have done it. This joint resolution would create and enshrine an explicit, individual right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, and protect all Americans who seek to exercise this fundamental right. Specifically, the amendment would provide an affirmative right to vote for every American citizen of legal voting age at any public election held in the jurisdiction in which they reside. It would also require that any efforts to limit the fundamental right to vote would be subject to the strictest level of review in the courts. Additionally, it would ensure that States could no longer rely on section 2 of the 14th Amendment to prevent Americans from voting due to an earlier criminal conviction. Finally, the amendment would provide that Congress has the irrefutable authority to protect the right to vote through legislation. If ratified, this constitutional amendment would protect against nefarious election administration changes that lead to long lines and people beating on doors, trying to get in to vote. These long lines have reduced voter turnout on election day. How in the world can we be a stronger nation if fewer people participate in the most important part of democracy? It would protect against photo identification requirements that disproportionately harm low-income voters and African Americans and Hispanics. Black lives matter. Brown lives matter. American lives matter. And when it comes to voting, this insidious effort to undermine the opportunity for these people to vote has to be called out for what it is. It would also provide a path to end discriminatory criminal disfranchisement laws that are a relic of the Jim Crow era and yet continue to strip millions of citizens of their fundamental right to participate in our democracy. Some may ask why we should pursue this amendment, when there are clearer, perhaps easier, steps that Congress can take right now to protect voting rights under its existing constitutional authority Let me give you an example. The Senate can quickly pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act amendment, which the House passed last year, but that would rely on the decision by Senator McConnell to actually let the Senate vote on a measure coming over from the House. There is little hope that is going to happen. Given the ongoing ruthless assault on voting rights in America, it is clear that additional tools are necessary to push back against widespread voter suppression. I recognize that amending the Constitution is no small matter. I am well aware that introducing this amendment today is not going to lead to any immediate change, but I also believe that this moment represents the next step in a movement--a movement in America that will ultimately lead to a ratification of this amendment. I am going to work with my colleagues and constituents to build support. I will ask opponents as to why they believe that fundamental right, preservative of all other rights in America, should not be affirmatively granted to the American people and literally enshrined in the United States Constitution--the right to vote. I plan to work with grassroots organizations who are fighting for their voting rights to be restored. I am going to work with Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, who has led this effort in the House, and I plan to work with civil rights leaders, including an old friend, Jessie Jackson, who for years has called for this amendment to be introduced in the Senate. I want to thank Reverend Jackson for his timeless leadership and advocacy. I am grateful to have the support of the Rainbow/Push Coalition as we introduce this amendment, along with the Advancement Project national office. Let me thank Senators Warren, Sanders, Merkley, Hirono, Markey, Van Hollen, and Blumenthal for cosponsoring, and I hope others will join us. By accident, I was given a book several years ago entitled ``White Rage,'' written by Carol Anderson. Carol Anderson is a professor at Emory University. The book was given to me by my brother-in-law, and I was skeptical that I would even read it, let alone like it. Well, I have to state that I have read it and recommended it over and over to my colleagues in the Senate, including giving a copy to then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He decided, after reading the book, that it was so good that he invited Professor Carol Anderson to come speak to our caucus. She is an amazing person and a great historian. She followed ``White Rage'' with this book, ``One Person, No Vote.'' In it she tells the history of voter suppression. It is an eye-opener. After the Civil War and all those deaths to end slavery, after the assassination of Lincoln and after the effort was made to finally give to Blacks in the South a chance to become full-fledged citizens, they ran into Jim Crow laws. She talks about something which I had heard of but knew little about. I would like to say a word from the book. The question is about the efforts made to suppress the Black vote in the South, and she writes: That became most apparent in 1890 when the Magnolia State passed the Mississippi Plan, a dizzying array of poll taxes, literacy tests, understanding clauses, newfangled voter registration rules, and ``good character'' clauses--all intentionally racially discriminatory but dressed up in the genteel garb of bringing ``integrity'' to the voting booth. This feigned legal innocence was legislative evil genius. Virginia representative Carter Glass, like so many others, swooned at the thought of bringing the Mississippi Plan to his own state [of Virginia], especially after he saw how well it had worked. He rushed to champion a bill in the legislature that would ``eliminate the darkey as a political factor . . . in less than five years.'' Glass, whom President Franklin Roosevelt would one day describe as an ``unreconstructed rebel,'' planned not to ``deprive a single white man of the ballot, but [to] inevitably cut from the existing electorate four-fifths of the Negro voters'' in Virginia. One delegate questioned him: ``Will it not be done by fraud and discrimination?'' ``By fraud, no. By discrimination, yes,'' Glass retorted. ``Discrimination! Why, that is precisely what we propose . . . to discriminate to the very extremity . . . permissible . . . under . . . the Federal Constitution, with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.'' Unapologetic, straight in his remarks, his racism was rampant, and so it was across the country. Black lives matter. America matters. And our democracy matters. Once and for all, the right to vote should be enshrined in our Constitution. People died for it. It is time for us to work hard to show that we care Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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. Madam President, I have a recommendation for my colleagues in the Senate. I recommend, as the Senator from New York does, that they go home--literally, leave Washington, go home, and meet up with the people who sent them to Washington to work for them. I did last Friday, as I do every weekend. I asked specifically to meet with five individuals who are out of work. I wanted them to tell me their story and to share that story with the people of Chicago. It was quite a moving experience. We have 800,000 Illinoisans who are claiming unemployment. Now there is a possibility that the $600 a week Federal benefit that was coming to them to help pay their bills will disappear. Technically, it ended last Friday. So I asked these unemployed Illinoisans to tell me their story. Roushaunda Williams told me a story about being a bartender for 19 years at the Palmer House Hilton before being laid off in March. She earned significantly more while working than she is receiving in unemployment. She is literally worried she is going to lose her home and healthcare if she loses that $600 a week. Andres Moreno worked at a restaurant in downtown Chicago before the pandemic. He was pretty proud of his career, working in the restaurant business. He said: I did well. He and his husband have both lost their jobs and their health insurance. Without the additional $600 a week in unemployment compensation, they will not be able to even buy health coverage. Aileen Dimery is an interesting person. She is in lighting technology. Her job involves big events. They set up the lights for concerts and other gatherings for thousands of people. She said: Nobody knows I am there, but I do. I am one of the first women who has ever been in this profession. Well, those big concerts and crowded venues aren't there anymore. Aileen doesn't have anyplace to go back to. She said one thing that still sticks with me. She said: I started working when I was 15. I worked 36 years. You know how many weeks, Senator, that I have had on unemployment in my 36-year work experience? I said: No. She said: One. This notion that I would rather stay home and draw unemployment than go back to work, that isn't who I am. I have proven over a lifetime that I am not someone who really doesn't want to earn their pay. Her enhanced unemployment, if it expires, would mean that her bills-- including paying rent--just can't be paid. Jesus Morales worked at the Drake Hotel in Chicago for 33 years and made up to $1,700 a week. He reminds me that I met him 20 years ago when he was a bartender and a waiter at an event that I attended. Well, he has been laid off since March, and without the $600 payment, he is afraid he will not be able to make his mortgage payment, and the COBRA payment, which covers his health insurance for his family, would be impossible. Samantha Arce is a mother of three. She just gave birth a few weeks before the lockdown began. Her place of work is closed, and her fiance has lost his job. They quickly went from two working parents with three kids to no working parents. Enhanced unemployment payments help them pay hospital bills and care for their young kids. She brought her little boy. He is about 4 or 5 months old--cute little fellow. He smiled throughout the whole event. Little did he know what was going on in the minds of his mom and dad as they try to cope with the political decisions being made in Washington. Losing that $600-a-week payment, which the Republicans have proposed, would really create a devastating situation for these families and these individuals. I hear regularly and have heard it for a long time-- there is this notion that if you are unemployed, you are just not trying hard enough. There are jobs out there, they say. Well, that is not what the numbers tell us. There are four unemployed Americans for every available job--four for every available job. And employers who say: Well, if so-and-so would come back to work, but they are making too much on unemployment--of course, that is the case in some instances, but it is rare. Did you know that of the Americans who have gone back to work since we began this pandemic assault, of those who have gone back to work, 70 percent are making less than they made on unemployment? Well, why would they make that economic decision to go back to work and make less than unemployment? Well, it is just like Aileen. They are workers. At their heart, they are workers. No. 1, they believe in the dignity of work; they are proud of what they do; and they want to go back to doing it. No. 2, they know unemployment is not forever. No. 3, sometimes there are benefits when you go back to work that really count, like the health insurance policy that had the doctor and the hospital which you and your family need. In June, the Illinois unemployment rate dropped to 14.6 percent, and the State added 142,000 jobs, but that unemployment rate of 14.6 percent is the greatest we have faced since the great recession. Since the beginning of March, around 1.7 million unemployment claims had been filed in our State of a little less than 13 million people. That is nearly 10 times the number of claims processed during the same period a year ago. The same thing is true in neighboring States like Kentucky, where the unemployment claims are 10 times what they were a year ago. Nationwide, around 30 million Americans are relying on enhanced unemployment benefits just to keep things together. Trust me, they tell me. We are not saving this money. We are not investing this money. We are spending this money as fast as it is handed to us to pay for our home, our car, utilities, and food. The Republican approach would cut the unemployment benefit check from the Federal Government from $600 a week to $200 a week--a $400 cut. It would then require States to put in place a complex system of 70 percent wage replacement. It sounds so logical that if you are unemployed, you get 70 percent of your paycheck. That is an interesting formula. How do you make a formula like that work? Well, you have to gather a lot of data about what a person was earning when they were employed and then put that into a computer, in terms of the payout each State would make under this new formula. It is different than what States are already doing. What we found out is, States are very different when it comes to their computer technology. We were told that, incidentally, by the Trump administration when we established the $600-a-week payment. They told us back in March: Don't make this too complicated. Make it simple, a flat dollar amount because these 50 States have computers that range in sophistication from primitive to the most modern, and they are not going to change these computers in time to help the people who are currently unemployed. The Republicans seem to have forgotten what we were told by the Trump administration when we initially enacted the $600-a-week payment. This 70 percent payment for unemployment doesn't work if the computers can't make it work, and we are told it will take anywhere from 2 months to 5 months for these computer systems to even try. What are these families supposed to do, the ones I just described to you, while the computer systems are being retooled, and who is going to pay for the retooling? If the States can't implement this program, and, instead, the flat cash payment goes from $600 to $200 for month after month after month, trust me, the lines at the food pantries will be longer than ever. The Economic Policy Institute has estimated that cutting this benefit to $200 a week will reduce our gross domestic product by 2.5 percent and cost us 3.4 million jobs. Just what we need, more unemployment, thanks to the Republican formula. Research from the JPMorgan Chase Institute suggests the enhanced benefits have helped thousands of households to continue purchasing critical needs: food, diapers, and the basics. Allowing these benefits to expire will result in household spending cuts and a reduction in economic activity, which is exactly the opposite of what we need to do right now. This weekend, on television, there was a governor from the Federal Reserve in Minneapolis who basically said: This is exactly the wrong time to cut back on benefits to the unemployed And when the questioner said to him: Well, what about our deficit? He was very frank about it. Yes, for the time being, it will add to the debt of the United States, but if the economy recovers, which we all have to work to achieve, that recovered economy will be able to take care of that debt. That is something to keep in mind too. It isn't just for the benefit of the families who are unemployed; it is for the benefit of the overall economy to put money back into it now. We learned in basic economics that if you want to get out of a recession, the first dollar the government gives away should be to the unemployed. They will spend every penny of it, and they will spend it and then have it respent into the economy over and over again. That is how you create consumer demand. That is how you create demands for business activities, goods, and services. So, I want to make it clear from what I learned last Friday in Chicago. No one--no one is getting rich off of unemployment. They are using their unemployment benefits to survive. Average rent is about $1,400 a month in this country. COBRA health insurance, where you pick up the health insurance policy from the employer that just laid you off, runs about $1,700 a month for a family and $600 a month for an individual. The average cost of food for a male adult in America, between $200 and $400 a month. Add it all up. There isn't much left over. And if the Republican proposal of cutting $400 a week from each of these unemployed becomes the law of the land to try to make ends meet, workers of color have a disproportionate impact when it comes to this economic collapse. Overall unemployment was 11.1 percent in June. Unemployment among Black workers is 15.4 percent. It is 14.5 percent for Latinx workers. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, Black households cut their household consumption by 50 percent more and Latino households cut their consumption by 20 percent more than White households. That is the reality. Let me address two or three particulars raised by the Senator from Kentucky about the state of play as we try to negotiate a satisfactory conclusion and next step. The first point: This week marks the third month--the third month since Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats passed a rescue package. For 3 months, their effort, called the Heroes Act, has been sitting on the desk of Senator McConnell. Initially, he said: I don't feel a sense of urgency to address this issue. Then he went on to say: We haven't spent all the money we appropriated the first round. Whatever the reason, it wasn't until 7 days ago that the Senate Republicans kind of made a proposal. The only thing we have seen specific in writing was their proposal for liability immunity, which I will address in a moment. The rest of the things were oddly presented as potential legislation, which would be brought to the floor of the Senate. Imagine that? We have the White House and congressional leaders sitting down negotiating, and Senator McConnell said: Well, the Republicans will bring a bill to the floor. Well, if you follow the Senate, six or eight different bills to the floor, the first swipe is going through Republican majority committees. Second, how long is that going to take for us to debate and then negotiate between whatever we pass and what is pending in the Heroes Act? It makes no sense. But I will tell you what makes even less sense. In the negotiations, these delicate and important life-changing negotiations that are taking place on Capitol Hill--these negotiations to determine what is next now that the $600 Federal payment has expired under unemployment, for example--in these negotiations, there are six chairs. One chair is occupied by the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, Mark Meadows. Another chair is occupied by Secretary Mnuchin from the Department of the Treasury. The third chair is Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The fourth chair is Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate. But there are two empty chairs in this room for negotiations. Those two empty chairs should be occupied. One should be occupied by Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader of the House. He is not there. He doesn't attend these negotiations. And the other, of course, should be occupied by Senator McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate. He has enough time to come to the floor each day and criticize Speaker Pelosi's measure that she passed 3 months ago, but he apparently doesn't have time to attend negotiations which could resolve the differences between the House and Senate and finally bring to rest the concerns of millions of Americans about whether or not there will be enough money coming in next week to pay the bills. It is pretty tough to come to the floor each day and criticize the Democrats for not showing success in negotiations when the Republican leader in the Senate is boycotting the negotiation meetings. What is that all about? I have been around here for awhile. I have never seen that before where one leader is intentionally staying away from the negotiations. I don't see how that can end well. I see my colleague from Texas has come to the floor. I want to say a word about a proposal which he is promoting and is likely to speak to this morning before I turn the floor over to him. Remember when Senator McConnell came to the floor in the last several months and said: I am drawing a redline. When it comes to any negotiations, this redline is liability immunity for corporations, and if you don't accept my language on liability immunity, there will be no negotiations, and there will be no positive outcome--redline. He made that speech over and over again as he warned us about the flood, the tsunami--``tsunami'' was his word--the tsunami of lawsuits that are going to be filed by people, by trial lawyers, these mischievous, frivolous lawsuits, over the issue of COVID-19. So we kept wondering, when are we going to get to see Senator McConnell's liability immunity proposal? We waited week after week after week. Nothing. Just speeches on the floor. And then last Monday it was unveiled--a 65-page bill. We finally got to see what he was talking about. It is understandable why they held it back. It is the biggest giveaway to the biggest businesses in America in modern memory. This bill would literally override State laws that have been passed to deal with this issue of culpability and blame when it comes to the pandemic we face. Twenty-eight States have already enacted laws to deal with it. This McConnell-Cornyn proposal would override those State laws. Sadly, their proposal would give incentives to cut corners when businesses deal with health and safety in the midst of this pandemic. This bill would jeopardize frontline workers and families, and, sadly, it would risk further spread of the virus. Here is my top-10 list of what is wrong with this bill that is proposed on liability immunity: First, the bill does nothing to protect workers, improve safety standards, or give businesses any incentive to take the proper precautions. We had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. I believe the senior Senator from Texas was at this hearing. A fellow representing a convenience store chain in Texas--his last name was Smartt--was the Republican witness. He was a very good witness, I might add. He told us how, in the hundreds of convenience stores he had in Texas, his company was literally doing everything they could think of to make the work environment and the customer's environment safe. He talked about social distancing and masks and sanitizers. They were doing everything they could. But his plea to us was: Senators, what is my standard of care? What is the standard I am expected to achieve? If I know that, he said, I can move forward and meet that standard, and I am going to. I am committed to it. Do you know what? I believed him. I believed his was a good-faith position. He said he wanted to know the standard--the public health standard--expected of him, and he would meet it. I want to tell you, if somebody turned around and sued him afterwards because of that, I am convinced that there isn't a jury in America--let alone in Texas--who would find him to be liable for negligence or recklessness. He did what he was asked to do. He followed the standards he was given. But his plea to us was: ``Give me a standard. I don't know where to turn.'' That is what he told us. The second concern I have with this bill is that it would gut existing State law safety standards. It would federally preempt the right of workers and victims to bring cases under State law to seek accountability for coronavirus-related harms and would supplant State laws that require businesses to act with reasonable care. Under the bill, the only way a victim could hold a business liable is if the victim proves by clear and convincing evidence--a higher standard than most--both that the corporation didn't even try to comply with the weakest available safety guideline and also--also--that the corporation was grossly negligent. I can just tell you, having spent a few years making a living as a lawyer, that those are almost impossible standards to meet. Third, by setting an immunity threshold at ``gross negligence,'' the bill would immunize corporations from accountability for conduct that meets the standards to prove negligence or recklessness under current State law. So you can get away with negligence; you can even get away with recklessness; but, boy, you just better not show gross negligence. That is what the bill says. Fourth, the bill would enable corporations to be shielded from liability even if they make no effort--no effort--to comply with the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control, due to the way the bill treats nonmandatory guidelines. Why would Congress federally preempt State laws and then allow businesses to ignore the Federal CDC safety guidelines? Fifth, instead of establishing strong, clear, enforceable Federal safety standards by OSHA and CDC, the Republican bill would go the other direction and shield businesses from enforcement proceedings under Federal health and safety laws; in other words, specifically protecting businesses from being held accountable under existing health and safety laws, Federal bills, laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, OSHA, and many, many more. Sixth, my Republican colleagues say this bill is aimed only at frivolous coronavirus lawsuits, but the bill would wipe out legitimate claims by workers and victims. By forcing all COVID lawsuits to meet a higher standard of proof, heightened pleading requirements, limits on discovery, and other restrictive hurdles, the bill would make it nearly impossible for workers and victims to even file a claim, let alone prevail. Seventh, the bill would upend the medical liability laws of all 50 States and impose 5 years of sweeping Federal preemption for nearly all healthcare liability cases, including for claims that are not related to COVID. I went through this and read it over and over again because I used to deal with medical malpractice cases. I heard, on the floor, Senator McConnell and Senator Cornyn say: ``We have to protect the doctors. We have to protect the hospitals. We have to protect the nurses.'' That, of course, appeals to all of us because we feel such a debt of gratitude to the healthcare workers and what they are going through to protect us. So I took a look, and it turns out that they compiled the statistics on the number of medical malpractice cases filed in America, in the entire Nation, that mention coronavirus or COVID-19. Do you know how many medical malpractice cases have been filed during what they call a tsunami--a tsunami--of frivolous lawsuits against medical providers? How many do you think in the course of this year? Six. In the entire Nation of 50 States, 6 lawsuits--what a tsunami. The provision on medical malpractice goes further and says: You don't have to prove that you were dealing with coronavirus to get this special treatment. You can say that the coronavirus had some impact on you as a medical provider. Some impact. That is it? What does that mean? Coronavirus has had an impact on every single American. Some impact? It basically means that all medical malpractice suits are going to be put on hold for 4 or 5 years regardless of the circumstances, regardless of whether they had anything to do with COVID-19. Eighth, the bill aims to solve a problem that does not exist. We are months into this epidemic, and there has been no tidal wave of worker or victim lawsuits that justifies this massive Federal preemption of State laws and grants of broad immunity. Out of 4.7 million Americans-- and that is a low-ball number--4.7 million Americans who we think have been infected by COVID-19, there have been 6 COVID medical malpractice suits, 17 consumer personal injury suits, and 75 conditions-of- employment suits. Many of the lawsuits involving COVID-19 are between insurance companies: Does your policy cover, or does your policy cover? Ninth, the bill is entirely one-sided in favor of corporations. Under the bill, corporations get immunity as defendants but can still bring COVID-related cases as plaintiffs. Only workers and infected victims have their rights cut off by this bill. Finally, the bill even goes so far as to allow corporations and the Department of Justice to sue the workers for bringing claims for COVID infection. The liability immunity this bill would grant would last for 5--5 years. The fact that our Republican colleagues are proposing 5 years of immunity for corporations but only a handful of months of assistance for workers and families tells you their priorities. This Republican corporate immunity proposal is not credible, and there are serious questions as to whether it is even constitutional. This is an area traditionally governed by State law. Twenty-eight States have adjusted their laws to address it during this pandemic. The Federal Government has deferred to the States on nearly every aspect of COVID response--this President said: Leave it to your Governor; leave it to your mayor--from testing, to procuring PPE, to mask policies, to stay-at-home orders. There is no reason why the Federal Government now wants to step in at the expense of workers and at the expense of customers. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican corporate immunity bill I yield the floor.