Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Timothy McCarthy has had an amazing career in law enforcement where he was at the right place when needed. Whether it was protecting Presidents or his hometown of Orland Park, Tim has been where people needed him most. After 48 years, he will be retiring, and today, I lend my voice to the many who honor him. Tim dared to try out for the University of Illinois' football team as a walk-on in 1967, even though he had not played the sport at Leo High School in Chicago. However, he was so impressive that he was given a full scholarship the next year, playing strong safety for the Fighting Illini. Injuries cut his football career short, but he found himself on another career path, the Secret Service. With a father who served in the Chicago Police Department as a sergeant, law enforcement was a natural draw for him. He started out as an investigator in the Chicago field office for the Secret Service in 1972. Tim moved to the Presidential protection division for President Jimmy Carter. On March 30, 1981, Tim was protecting President Ronald Reagan in Washington. A coin toss with a fellow agent put him into duty that fateful day. He remembers wearing a brandnew blue-gray suit when John Hinckley, Jr., stepped out from a crowd with a handgun and attempted to kill the President. In 1.7 seconds, John Hinckley, Jr., fired six bullets. The first bullet hit Press Secretary James Brady. The second hit Washington, DC, police officer Tom Delahanty. The third was set to hit President Reagan, but Tim, with that extraordinary courage, stepped in front of the President and took the bullet in the chest. Another bullet ricocheted, hitting the President under the arm. Hinckley might have killed President Reagan, but that day, we were lucky to have Tim McCarthy doing his duty to protect the Gipper. Tim spent 2 weeks in the hospital and was back on the job that June. He would never be able to do the 5 to 7-mile runs he used to do, but he continued in the Secret Service. Tim received the National Collegiate Athletic Association Award of Valor in 1982 for his heroic deed. He remained in touch with President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, for the rest of their lives. Tim also served in the Presidential protection division for President George H.W. Bush before returning to Chicago to run the Secret Service office there. In 1994, Tim accepted the position of the Orland Park police chief in Illinois. Often, police chiefs serve 3 to 5 years, but Tim stayed on for 26 years. He led the development of new policing strategies, including bike patrol officers, cookouts with police, and community meetings with beat officers. Under his leadership, the police department launched villagewide initiatives, addressing mental illness through a crisis intervention team that focuses on responses to mental health-related incidents. Tim was a hands-on leader, whether it was back up for a search warrant or reporting a crime scene at early hours of the morning or packing sandbags during a flood. In 2016, he received the very first Chief of Police of the Year Award from the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police. This month, Tim is retiring to be with the center of his life his wife, Carol, his three kids, and seven grandchildren. He has more than earned it. Tim McCarthy did more than make history in saving the life of President Reagan. He has dedicated his life to making America a safer nation. We were fortunate to be blessed with his courage and his amazing record of public service.

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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Heinrich), the Sentor from Vermont (Leahy), and the Senator from Vermont (Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am vice chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. It is an awesome responsibility and assignment. We end up dealing with over 50 percent of the discretionary domestic spending each year in the United States. I work with my chairman, Senator Shelby, and I have worked with others in the past trying to keep up with a changing environment in the world and a changing agenda in Washington. Many of the briefings I receive are open and public, and many are also classified. Last week, I met with the top U.S. commander in Europe, General Tod Wolters. General Wolters provided for me and Senator Shelby a classified briefing on the Trump administration's plans to remove almost 12,000 American troops from Germany. Yesterday, the Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made a similar briefing but publicly to the press. I am extremely concerned by both the classified and unclassified information I have been given about this plan and by the differences in the briefing I received compared to the public announcements from the Secretary of Defense yesterday. Let me start off by saying that this plan makes no sense. While some are framing this as an improvement of our military posture in Europe, I don't buy it. Nobody else should either. Germany now spends 1.3 percent of its gross domestic product on defense. Along with a majority of NATO members, Germany has agreed to reach a goal of 2 percent of GDP on defense. Germany ought to make good on its word; that is for sure. But to be clear, many, including President Trump, fail to appreciate that there is much more to NATO's importance than simply meeting a spending goal. In fact, there are many important ways to evaluate this historic NATO alliance and judge the commitment of each member, including the political will of its leaders, its shared vision and values, and the interoperability of our military through regular training. All of these things add to NATO's deterrence. But President Trump is clearly just using this argument about the percentage contribution and insufficient spending to drive a petty and personal grudge against Germany. How do we know this? Because--listen to this--the countries that would be receiving our troops transferred out of Germany also do not meet the 2 percent goal. President Trump was reportedly angry that German Chancellor Merkel declined an invitation for an in-person G7 summit in the United States in the middle of this global pandemic. Think of that: She was worried about the health consequences of such a meeting. We are canceling gatherings right and left in America because of a genuine concern we have for the well-being of one another. Chancellor Merkel's position is hardly unreasonable. It makes sense. Many of the statements and conduct from the President Trump do not. Amidst this snub to our NATO allies, President Trump continues to try to bring President Putin and Russia into the G7, even after reports about Russian bounties being put on American soldiers in Afghanistan and the President's failure time and again since this has been disclosed to raise the issue with Vladimir Putin. During the briefing last week, I understood there would be a distributive process for planning how these troops would be moved and when they would be moved. We would discuss the infrastructure that needs to be built in the United States as well as in Europe, and we would be in close consultation with our allies in the process. In contrast, the Vice Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, General Hyten, stated yesterday that there is a planning process occurring. He also went on to say that ``we'll start moving right away with forces moving right away.'' Really? Without the planning? It sounds like this general is snapping to the attention of the President, who is determined to poke the German Chancellor in the eye. Shouldn't our highest priority be the defense of America rather than a spite match? If I am confused about how quickly this plan has unfolded, I will bet the rest of our NATO allies are as well. I might also say that I received a preliminary cost estimate on how much American taxpayers will have to pay for this political adventure by President Trump. This figure is still classified. I am sorry that it is, but I can assure you the costs are substantial. Secretary Esper was dismissive yesterday of its cost; he should not be. It is substantial. Hiding the costs of this troop realignment plan brings to mind the President's campaign promise that Mexico was going to pay for our border wall. In reality, the Department of Defense paid for a large part of it because the President diverted funds appropriated for our national defense to this Captain Queeg venture of his on our southern border. The Defense Department should make cost estimates of this plan public today. Let the American people know what the President expects us to spend in order for him to get the last word with Angela Merkel. The American people ought to decide for themselves whether this is a cost worth bearing. Let me tell you what has been conspicuously absent from both public and private briefings, and that is whether our commitment to our real allies in Europe and NATO is really designed to address the frontline of potential Russian aggression and provocation. I know what that frontline is, and most people do as well--the Baltics and Poland. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland--here are four countries that have the most to lose if Putin chooses a path to war. Each of them meets and exceeds the spending goals for NATO. But this plan for the reallocation and reassignment of U.S. troops does not help these four countries. I went through the briefing. Those four countries weren't raised in the briefing. I raised them in a question afterward: Why are these countries being overlooked if we are moving troops to make Europe safer? Instead, the Department of Defense yesterday threw in as an aside a vague assurance--maybe just a possibility--that sometime, maybe in the future, more American troops might rotate through those countries for short periods of time. Major parts of the plan that I saw and part of the plan that was released yesterday actually move American troops and NATO allies further away from Russia. Vladimir Putin is getting the last laugh again when it comes to this President. Vladimir Putin fears a united NATO. Sadly, President Trump has done everything he can to divide and diminish that NATO alliance. President Putin believes that as long as that NATO alliance is divided, he is in a stronger bargaining position. Sadly, he is right. NATO is the most successful alliance in American history. Instead of strengthening it, the President of the United States is weakening it. Instead of leading it, he is undermining it. The best way to reassure our allies that we are with them is to scrap this plan now. If this administration is so confident about how good an idea this is, tell the American people how much it is going to cost and explain why we are not reallocating our forces in Europe to the real frontline in Poland and the Baltics. Instead of pulling back our troops, we should be withdrawing this half-baked plan and start over anew with a focus on stopping aggression from Vladimir Putin and standing behind our traditional allies. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you want to know what is wrong with Washington, take a snapshot of this day. Take a snapshot of where we stand at this moment. In the midst of the worst health crisis in American history in 100 years and in the midst of the worst economic setback in 75 years, we have reached the point in the U.S. Senate where we are going to adjourn until next week, leaving in doubt whether 30 million unemployed Americans will continue to receive support from the Federal Government. How have we reached this point? Well, in anticipation of this moment, 10 weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed a rescue package that not only addressed unemployment benefits but a score of other major concerns we have at this moment in our history and at this moment in our economy--10 weeks ago. Since then, the burden has been on the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate, Senator McConnell, of Kentucky, to pick up the challenge and to produce his own approach, whatever it may be, representing his caucus-- the Republican caucus--on what to do with the economy and what to do with the pandemic. We stand today, preparing to leave for 3 or 4 days, with nothing--nothing. The situation is so bad that an individual Republican Senator decided to come to the floor and see if he could fix it. I disagree with his approach completely, but I respect the fact that he is as frustrated as we all are waiting on Senator McConnell to come forward. Here is the reality of what we face and the reality that Senator McConnell should face. Any solution coming out of the Senate needs to be bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans need to agree, and we did on March 26. The vote was 96 to nothing for the CARES Act--96 to nothing. I went home to Illinois and people would come up to me and say: I can't believe you did that. I didn't think you agreed on anything in Washington, but you all agreed on one thing, the most significant economic rescue package in the history of the United States. Well, we were challenged to do it again, and we have failed miserably in the Senate. Under the current leadership with a Republican majority, they cannot produce a bill to bring to conference or at least to a conference table between the House and the Senate. I would like to address directly some of the arguments being made. Here is one that you have heard over and over. I think it is an urban legend, and I want to say a word about it. Here is how it goes: $600 a week? At $600 a week, at that level, individuals will not even take a job. They will sit home on the couch and watch another round of Netflix, binging, and they will not even want to go back to work. How many times have you heard that $600 is just too much money? I can tell you that $600 is the equivalent of $15 an hour, which many of us believe is at least a minimum living wage. It is certainly not a luxury salary for anyone. If you have lost your job, that $600 Federal check, together with whatever the State sends your way, has to pay for a lot of things: rent, mortgage, car payments, utilities--did I mention health insurance?--food, clothing for the kids, the debts you have already incurred leading into this, and your credit cards. All of a sudden, $600 a week tends to evaporate. What if you had health insurance where you worked, and they laid you off or fired you and said it was over, that they are closing down? If you tried to pick up the employer's share of your health insurance, the average cost is $1,700 a month. So $600 a week, $2,400 a month, and $1,700 of it is just going to keep the health insurance you had on the job? Then there is this abiding notion that people who are unemployed just aren't trying hard enough to get a job. They say: You know, the jobs are out there, and these folks are just saying: I would rather not. Let's take a look at the facts, and here are the facts. For every job that is available in America today, there are four unemployed people. So it isn't as if it is the other way around, one job for every four unemployed people. It is four unemployed people for each job that is available. And to the argument by some employers that, well, I just can't get them to come back to work, it turns out that employers are filling jobs faster now than at any time. There are people prepared to go back to work. I happen to believe that many of these people see returning to work as the right thing to do for them economically. Unemployment cannot last forever; they know that. Secondly, it may not be meeting their needs, as their family requires of them. Third, the job itself may be something they had invested part of their life into and want to continue. Fourth, there may be benefits in that workplace that aren't available, even through the unemployment system available today. So I reject the notion--this urban legend--that $600 a week is so much that people are turning down the opportunity to go back to work. It is not an urban legend; it is an urban lie. Yale University just came out with a report from their economics department this week. I put it into the Record yesterday. You can find it, if you wish. It proves the point I just made. They looked at the statistics. This is just not a viable complaint against the unemployment system. What Senator McConnell has led us to is this moment, where, when we return next week, there will be no Federal unemployment benefit--none. It will have expired. What do we say to these millions of family members who are struggling at this moment? Try harder. Go take anything. That is what the future is for you. I don't believe that. I think we are a better nation than that. Facing the worst public health crisis that we have seen in a century, realizing what it has done to each and every one of our lives and families, understanding how devastating it must be to lose a job in the midst of this, that sometimes people for the first time aren't working, realizing how desperate these families are to keep things together, are we really going to walk away from them? I think it is time for Senator McConnell to sit down with the Democratic leaders. There is no alternative to this. Steve Mnuchin, the wandering messenger on Capitol Hill, can do his job--and I wish him well--but it is no replacement for grown-ups to sit at the same table, to sit down and work out a compromise. We did on March 26. We can do it again. We need to do it for these families. I will tell you something else. When we get reports about the state of the economy--and I have heard numbers back and forth--that on an annualized basis it is contracting from 29 percent to 33 percent, that is a big amount. It is one out of three businesses. A third of the goods and services in this country--think about that--going away and disappearing. We have already seen evidence of that. What do you do to put life back into an economy? Don't take my word for it. Listen to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell. He said it again yesterday: We have to deal with this pandemic; that means more testing. The Republican proposal that is floating here and has not been offered, is $26 billion more in testing. We are at $100 billion. I think we need at least $100 billion. Why do we need it? So it is generally available, easily available to every person and family in America; so that it is affordable--and I hope that means free--and, most importantly, so that it is timely. To people who say, well, I took a test, I ask: How long did it take to get the results on your COVID-19 test? They say: Oh, 6 days, 7 days. That is not a timely test that you can use to make a plan. It is a piece of medical data. It is a piece of history. If we are going to hope to open this economy in a responsible way, to get to contact tracing that really works, if we hope to open our schools so they are safe for the kids and the teachers and the administrators and everyone else, we need testing available, and we need a system of testing that is timely. We have failed in addressing this pandemic. Why do I say that? It sounds like an outrageous political statement. Because the United States has 5 percent of the population in the world and 25 percent of the COVID infections. Twenty-five percent of the COVID infections in the world are in this country and 5 percent of the population. Other countries have handled this better. We know it. We should learn from them. This President has to get away from the medical quackery which he spreads around on his Twitter account and in his speeches. He has to stop looking at these medical gurus, which he discovers in the weird corners of the internet, and peddling their goods for the rest of America. He has to show some guts and wear a mask more often so people understand that even Trump Republicans need to take into consideration what they are doing to the people around them. That, to me, is the only way to get out of this mess and do it quickly. Otherwise, we are going to face this more. We should have done better. By this time, we should have had an alternative to what the House did 10 weeks ago. We do not. By next week, we have to do it. I will just say flat out that there is no point in considering going home at the end of next week unless we have solved this problem. There is no excuse. I yield the floor

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I believe there are pending requests by several Members, and I don't want to try to preempt it.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, to date, America has lost nearly 150,000 people who have died with diseases related to coronavirus. We are quickly approaching 5 million cases of infections in the United States of America. Consider this for a moment. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population. Yet we have almost 25 percent of all the COVID infections in the world. How did we reach this point that we have such a rampant rate of infection in what is considered one of the most developed nations on Earth? Part of the problem is the President, who peddles worthless medical advice, and part of the problem is that the Republican Senate has been unwilling to face the economic hardships which have been created by this pandemic on our economy. It was 10\1/2\ weeks ago that the House of Representatives, under Democratic control of Speaker Pelosi, passed the Heroes Act. That was 10\1/2\ weeks ago. They knew this day was coming--when the unemployment benefits that we put in the original legislation would expire, as they will this week, and the help for those who are renting to meet their obligations would expire, as it did last week. So 10\1/2\ weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi put on the table her proposal to deal with America after these things occurred. Today, on the floor of the Senate, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, called her efforts ``a looney ideological fantasy''--``a looney ideological fantasy.'' The obvious question to Senator McConnell, who is the leader of the majority here in the U.S. Senate, is, Where have you been for the last 10\1/2\ weeks? Where is the Republican alternative, the Republican substitute? Why have we not seen that come forward and a real negotiation take place between the House and the Senate? For the longest time, Senator McConnell told us that he just did not feel ``a sense of urgency'' to take up this matter. He did not feel a sense of urgency. Well, history was made in the Senate Chamber this last Monday, because Senator McConnell came to the floor and used the word ``urgent.'' Finally, urgency is stirring in his loins, and he announced this week a Republican alternative--but not quite. What he announced was a series of bills to be introduced by the Republican side--a series of bills. We are just days away from the situation where these issues are expiring, such as unemployment assistance, and yet, in this circumstance, we are dealing with the problem where we do not have alternatives from the Republican side. Well, we have some. One was addressed this morning, when it came to unemployment assistance. Understand what happened last March 26 when we passed the CARES Act. This bill passed 96 to nothing in the Senate Chamber--unanimous, bipartisan. But when we sat down to establish the amount of money to be given to unemployed workers in America, we ran into a problem--one we didn't anticipate. The Secretary of Labor in the Trump administration, Secretary Scalia, came to us and sat down at the table and said: You have a lot of interesting formulas when it comes to unemployment compensation, but just remember the reality. The reality is that 50 different States have 50 different computer systems, some of which are very modern and up to speed and others which are ancient and not up to speed. When you start coming up with complex Federal formulas for sending money to unemployed workers in these States, you are going to run into 50 different reactions. And that is exactly what we faced. So the alternative was simple. We either gave a flat-dollar amount in the unemployment benefit supplement or we just wondered what the States might do with any other formula. So the decision was made--with the White House, with the Republicans--for the $600 a week Federal supplement to unemployment. There was argument on the floor that some workers may come out ahead if that happens. Well, undoubtedly that might be the case, because the Federal supplement was in addition to whatever a person qualified for in State unemployment, and each State has a different formula for State unemployment assistance, and each worker has a different work experience and salary experience. But we went forward, believing we needed to do something dramatic and significant for the economy and the first place to start was with unemployed workers. Economists will state that when you are facing a recession, when there is a lack of consumer demand, the first dollar you want to hand out as a government is to an unemployed worker. You know they are going to spend it. They have to spend it to pay the rent or the mortgage, to pay the utility bills, to put food on the table, clothes on the kids, and to pay for health insurance. So we put money into the economy, and it worked. We managed to slow the decline of the economy, even though we see more unemployment still coming around. It would have been much worse if we hadn't made this commitment and invested in unemployment benefits. So now, with the expiration of this Federal unemployment benefit program on July 31, just a few days away, the question is, What will we replace it with? Democrats proposed in the Heroes Act in the House that we extend the current program to the end of this year. That is certainly a direct way to deal with this and one that would provide continuing assistance to these families. The Republicans have come up with a much different approach. What they suggested is that we take the $600-a-week Federal supplement and reduce it to $200 a week, and then by October 1, we require the States to implement a program that would give the unemployed workers 70 percent of their last wage. They obviously ignored what Secretary Scalia told us just a few months ago, and that is that the States would run into a terrible challenge trying to meet this new Republican standard of 70 percent of your last paycheck. We were told we couldn't do that back in March. Has the landscape changed so much when it comes to State computer systems? I doubt it. I doubt it very much. In Illinois we have a good system, but it has been dramatically overwhelmed by the Federal supplemental payment and the new pandemic unemployment insurance and other provisions that we passed in Washington. So to think that we could move to a new formula in Illinois while meeting our current obligations is very difficult in our State, which is more modern than some. Having said that, though, Republicans have argued that if by October 1 you can't provide 70 percent by formula to the unemployed workers, I suppose they will go back to the $200 a week. So what is behind this? What is at the heart of this? Well, there are several things that I think need to be noted on the floor. Here is the assumption. Listen to this. You have heard it over and over, and we heard it again this morning--the assumption that has been made by the Republicans in their approach to unemployment insurance. They assume that if people are receiving $600 a week in a Federal supplement to unemployment, that they are going to refuse to go back to work, even when offered a job. They are making more money to stay home than they did on the job; at least, that is what has been repeated over and over again. This morning, I would like to put in the Record an article from the Yale News. This Yale study, which was just released this week, says: The Yale study finds expanded jobless benefits did not reduce employment. This is exactly the opposite of what we have heard over and over again from the Republican side. This report from Yale economists said as follows: [It found] that workers receiving larger increases in unemployment benefits experienced very similar gains in employment by early May relative to workers with less- generous benefit increases. People with more generously expanded benefits also resumed working at a similar or slightly quicker rate than others did, according to the report. The data do not show a relationship between benefit generosity and employment paths after the CARES Act, which could be due to the collapse of labor demand during the COVID-19 crisis. Put in simple terms, there aren't that many jobs out there looking for workers, and as it turns out, some unemployed workers have gone back to work, even though they might make slightly less than they did under unemployment. Why? The reason is obvious. Unemployment is a temporary benefit. Unemployment may not be as good and generous as what a person has in the workplace when you count the benefits that come with some jobs. Ultimately, many workers who are unemployed today want to get back to work. We should not assume, as some politicians do, that if a person is unemployed, they must be lazy. With 30 million unemployed Americans, that is hardly the case, and certainly when it comes to whether or not people have the incentive to go back to work, I believe most Americans do want to work. The notion that we have to change the whole system for fear that some might not is definitely unfair. Let me just say this, as we move forward with this. I see a colleague on the floor seeking recognition in a few minutes. As we move forward with this attempt to deal with the economy, we have to face the reality, and the reality is, as made clear by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that if we take our foot off the accelerator right now, we are going to plunge it over the cliff in a deeper economic mess than we are in today. They are trying, by every means in monetary policy and the interest rates, to enliven this economy and create an environment where it may reopen soon. I hope that happens. But if we take the Republican approach, a little bit of this and a little bit of that, it is not going to work. We are going to find ourselves with a recession that is even worse. And for those deficit hawks, how badly do you think our deficit will look if we face an even deeper recession? It is going to get worse and dramatically so. Shouldn't our first obligation be to the workers across America who have lost their jobs so they can keep their families together? This notion of cutting the Federal benefit from $600 a week to $200 a week, I can guarantee you, will mean much more traffic and activity at the food pantries around America as these unemployed families try to keep things together. Then there is a proposal from the Republican side for a three-martini lunch Federal tax break. A three-martini lunch--is that the way out of our economic morass? And at the same time they are encouraging the three-martini lunch Federal tax break, they will not give any additional assistance to those who are receiving SNAP benefits--those low-income Americans who are needing some help just to feed their families. It seems that things are upside down. The last point I will make is this. Senator McConnell has said repeatedly for months: Nothing is going to happen in the Senate-- nothing--to help anybody in America, unless he gets his wish to give immunity to American corporations from coronavirus lawsuits. Finally, we get to see his proposal. It was released this week. I want to tell you, it is the most dramatic tort reform proposal I have seen since I have served in the U.S. Senate. It basically takes away the rights of workers, as well as those who are customers of businesses, from recovering under a coronavirus lawsuit. It lowers the standard of care that is required of businesses to a level which basically will not protect Americans who face this pandemic across the country. At the same time, it is providing assistance and relief, it is, unfortunately, creating an environment where some businesses--some, unfortunately--will not be as careful as they should be in the way they conduct their businesses with customers and their employees. We know that we face a challenge here with this pandemic, but giving this kind of corporate break when it comes to immunity and liability only will make things more dangerous for customers and employees across the United States of America. Let me say a word about what has been said on the floor over and over again by Senator Cornyn and Senator McConnell--the so-called tsunami of lawsuits, the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits, the trial lawyers on parade to the courthouse because of this pandemic. Well, we have checked every lawsuit filed in the United States this year that mentions the word ``coronavirus'' or ``COVID-19.'' Do you know how many COVID medical malpractice cases have been filed so far this calendar year with this so-called tsunami of lawsuits? Six. Six. And how many consumer personal injury cases have been filed this year mentioning ``COVID-19'' or ``coronavirus,'' this epidemic, this flood of lawsuits? There are 15 across the entire United States of America. It is an imaginary problem that they are creating at this point. We can deal with it, and 28 States have already by changing their State laws, but giving immunity to corporations from coronavirus lawsuits will not make us safer, will not make the workplace safer for workers, or the business safer for customers. If we are going to restore consumer confidence, everybody has to pull together. We ought to have standards established by the CDC based on public health and not politics. And businesses--conscientious businesses, I am sure, will follow those standards because they do care. Currently, we don't have these standards, and this effort will make it even less likely that we will. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Yale News article dated July 27, 2020 be printed in the Record

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me thank my colleague, the senior Senator from the State of Georgia, for joining me in this bipartisan effort. We now have some 36 sponsors and cosponsors of this legislation. Immigration can be a divisive issue, but this is an immigration measure that is not divisive. It has unified us on a bipartisan basis, as it should. We are talking about the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act. We are talking about men and women who, as we speak on the floor of the Senate in the safety of this Chamber, are literally risking their lives as healthcare professionals across the United States to deal with this pandemic, which we fight every single day. Last week, we sent a bipartisan letter urging congressional leaders to make this bill part of any COVID-19 relief legislation. Currently pending before the Senate is a negotiation with the White House, the House, the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--to make sure that we continue to move forward to fight this pandemic and to restore the vibrancy of our own economy. The letter we sent was cosigned by Senators Leahy, Young, and Coons, as well as Representatives Schneider, Cole, Finkenauer, and Bacon, who were the lead sponsors of the House version of the same bill. We are now up to, I understand, 37. They said 36 earlier. I am told we have 18 Republicans and 19 Democrats, and the window is open for those who want to join us in this bipartisan effort. They will not regret it. Our bill is a temporary stopgap measure, but it is designed to strengthen our healthcare workforce and improve healthcare access for Americans in the midst of this crisis. Consider this reality when it comes to fighting the COVID-19 virus: In the United States, 1 in 6 healthcare and social workers, 3.1 million--1 in 6--of the 18.7 million are immigrants. Yet our broken immigration laws prevent many of these immigrants from contributing more fully to the battle against this pandemic. Under current law, there are not enough immigrant visas, which we also call green cards, available each year. As a result, immigrants are stuck in crippling backlogs for many, many years. The green card backlog, which I have debated with Senator Lee on the floor many times--but this green card backlog includes thousands of medical doctors currently working in our country on temporary visas. This backlog puts them and their families at the risk of losing their immigration status and being deported. It hinders their ability to fight against COVID-19 because these doctors face many restrictions due to their temporary status. For example, many of these doctors cannot take shifts at hospitals in COVID-19 hotspots where they are desperately needed. The Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act, which we bring to the floor, would reallocate 25,000 unused immigrant visas for nurses and 15,000 unused immigrant visas for doctors. These are visas Congress has previously authorized but were never used. It is important to note that our bill requires employers to attest that immigrants overseas who receive these visas do not displace the employment of any American workers. We want to ensure that the beneficiaries of this bill complement, not replace, the American healthcare workforce. I am going to tell you the story of one of these doctors who is practicing in downstate Illinois in the Quad Cities area in Moline. I can tell you, as a downstater myself, there are many areas of downstate that are rural, small town, and cannot bring in the specialists who are needed. That is why these doctors become so important when they step in and provide their services. Let me tell you about this doctor. His name is Dr. Bhanu Vakkalanka. He sent me a letter and told me his story, and he asked me to help work to pass this piece of legislation. Dr. Vakkalanka and his wife, Dr. Sasi Royyuru--excuse me for mispronouncing--Royyuru--are both physicians. They met in medical school in India, and they came to the United States 15 years ago in 2005--15 years ago. At the time, their children--a young girl and boy-- were 5 and 3 years old. Before they came to the United States, they had trained and worked for 10 years in England. Both achieved great professional success, but they were drawn to move to the United States. They were drawn to our freedom, our equality, and the opportunity that really is our trademark in the world. This is what Dr. Vakkalanka told me about his family's move to the United States, and I want to quote his words: It was not an easy transition. We had to start all over again as residents. It was challenging to take care of two young children in the middle of our long working hours and paltry salaries with no one to fall back on. . . . But we had not come this far to give up on our dreams easily. Dr. Vakkalanka now works as a medical oncologist for the UnityPoint Health System in Moline, in my home State of Illinois, a well-respected institution. Dr. Royyuru is a family physician in Bloomington, IL. There is a long drive between the two, Moline and Bloomington. Here is what Dr. Vakkalanka told me about his life in America: Despite the initial hardship, we fell in love with the United States soon after we came here. People were welcoming and generous. We were made to feel like we were part of this society from day one and we felt that this is where we belonged. We felt blessed, happy and proud to be able to live here, raise our children and call it our home. Let me tell you, he tells me how fortunate he was. I believe we are the fortunate ones--fortunate to have two exceptional physicians and their children as residents of my home State. Unfortunately, Dr. Vakkalanka and Dr. Royyuru, his wife, are two of thousands of doctors who are stuck in a bureaucratic backlog called the green card backlog. They have lived in the United States for 15 years. Their green card petitions were approved nearly a decade ago. Yet, even today, after more than 10 years, they are not lawful residents. Why? Because the backlog of people seeking these green cards--these immigration visas--is so large. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the temporary immigration status of this family puts them at real risk. Why? If, God forbid, they would contract COVID-19 and become disabled or die, their family will instantly lose their immigration status and be forced to leave the United States. For 15 years they have waited, and for 10 years they have been on the actual queue, the waiting list for green cards, and if one of them takes ill and cannot work, they could all be deported. Now their children, who were 5 and 3 when they arrived in the United States, are 20 years old and 18 years old. This is significant. They grew up in this country, but they are at risk of aging out in this bureaucratic system. If they reach the age of 21, these two children, who have lived here virtually all of their teenage and adolescent life--if they reach the age of 21 and have not been able to apply for a green card, they are subject to deportation. Can you imagine how devastating it would be for this doctor and his wife to think that their children, after all these years, would be deported from the United States? It is a very real risk. Dr. Vakkalanka told me: Our children waited for 15 years or longer along with us for their turn. They laughed with us and cried with us for all these years. It is not fair to kick them out of the line for no fault of theirs. They have nowhere else to go. This country is their only home! Dr. Vakkalanka and Dr. Royyuru's family story makes clear why Congress needs to include the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act in the next coronavirus relief legislation. Under our bill, these two good doctors from India, and thousands of others like them, would finally receive their green cards. They and their families would get the permanent immigration status they deserve and be able to use their skills to serve on the frontlines of the pandemic wherever they are needed most. Let's face it. This pandemic is testing us as a nation, testing us as to whether we will have the endurance and the determination to get through this pandemic but equally testing us as to whether we care for one another. Certainly, we care for our families. We spend a lot of time with them. We worry about not being able to be next to our children or grandchildren because of fear of infection, and it is a real test. But it is also a test of our values of who we are. This man, after giving 15 years to the United States, practicing medicine in areas where he is desperately needed, is simply asking for a chance to become a legal, permanent resident of the United States. It is not too much to ask. For all he has given us, and his wife as well, we owe it to him and his family to give them the peace of mind that they have a future in the United States. They have proved that they are deserving. I hope, even in these divided political times, we can come together in Congress to quickly aid these immigrant health heroes. I commend my colleague from Georgia. I thank him. He had to step away from the floor at this moment, but I thank him for joining me in this bipartisan effort. Let's get this done. Let do the right thing for this doctor, for his family, and for so many others Racism Mr. President, the great writer, James Baldwin, told us: Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced. The national discussion on race and racism in the wake of the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis has really opened the eyes of many Americans and people around the world. Many people are seeing more clearly--some perhaps for the first time in their lives--the extent to which injustice has embedded itself in parts of America. We see how some of our laws and institutions don't match our stated and professed belief that all men and women are created equal and endowed with the same inalienable rights. Later today, John Lewis will make his last departure from the U.S. Capitol. He is going home after a long and noble life of service, a life that has helped us to live up to our ideals. How often did we hear John Lewis say: When young people tell me that nothing has changed, I tell them to come walk in my shoes. He was so right. America is different and America is better because of the enormous sacrifice and courage of men like John Lewis, Reverend C.T. Vivian, who passed away, as well, last week; Joseph Lowery; Mamie Till; Martin Luther King; Coretta Scott King; Rosa Parks; Daisy Bates; Julian Bond; Bayard Rustin; Elijah Cummings; and, of course, my friend and the current House Democratic Whip, James Clyburn, and so many other leaders of our modern civil rights movement--just too many to name. We are a more perfect union today because so many ordinary men and women and children whose names are mostly forgotten by history risked their lives for dignity and democracy in little towns like Selma and Birmingham, AL, and Chicago's Marquette Park neighborhood. Thank goodness we are better, but the work of true justice and equality is far from over. We know that. A month before he died, John Lewis spoke out about how he was moved to see so many people from different backgrounds marching together for racial justice and healing. Most Americans today are appalled--almost incredulous--that only decades ago young people like John Lewis and Diane Nash were accosted by angry mobs simply for having the audacity--the audacity--to sit at a Whites-only lunch counter or ride on a segregated bus. We reject racism as individuals, but many of us are only beginning to understand the existence of the corrosive consequences of the system of racial injustice. This national reckoning on race in which we are now engaged is helping us to see more clearly how old, discredited ideas about race, which have been rejected by most, still linger in the minds of many individuals, regardless of the laws that have been passed. I believe that most Americans believe very deeply in fairness. It is one of our defining values as a people. I also believe Maya Angelou was right when she said: Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better. How can we do better to reduce systemic racial injustice and heal the wounds and divisions that false notions of racial superiority have caused in our Nation and our fellow citizens? As John Lewis told us often, achieving great, genuine equality is the work of a lifetime. Let me suggest briefly a few ways that this Senate can begin that work. First--and this is so easy and obvious--let the Senate debate and vote on the Justice in Policing Act. The President can send unidentified Federal agents to as many cities as he likes, but the calls for justice in our streets will not end until we make a clear stand against policing tactics that killed George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Laquan McDonald, and too many other men, women, and children of color in America. Our Republican colleagues acknowledged the need for policing reforms when they brought up the bill that included certain changes, but the bill did not proceed, and it should. This Senate can--and must--do better. This belief is shared by an overwhelming majority of civil rights organizations in our Nation. The Justice in Policing Act is sponsored by Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. It has passed the House of Representatives, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. The House, in passing its version with a bipartisan vote, gave us an opportunity, I say to Senator McConnell, to debate the Justice in Policing Act, which passed the House, and here in the Senate we should. Second, let this Senate debate the Economic Justice Act that has been offered by Senator Schumer. Third, Martin Luther King called racial disparities in healthcare one of the most shocking of all racial injustices. It was more than 50 years ago when he said. Yet the disparities persist to this day and may be worse in many ways. This pandemic has laid them bare for us to see. Black and Brown Americans are three times more likely to become infected with coronavirus than White Americans and twice as likely to die from COVID- 19. The Affordable Care Act has done more to reduce racial disparities in healthcare than almost any act since the creation of Medicaid. It is hard to believe that there are many on the other side still trying to kill the Affordable Care Act in the midst of a pandemic that has already taken the lives of 145,000 Americans. Many more have been sickened, and it is still burning out of control in large parts of our Nation. Think about what it would be if we had no Affordable Care Act and doubled the number of uninsured people in this country. How could that bring us any consolation or confidence that we can continue to fight this battle? For the sake of African Americans, Latinx Americans, and all Americans who rely on the affordable coverage and patient protections, it is time to put an end to this endless assault on the Affordable Care Act. I hope my colleagues--especially my colleagues who speak passionately about protecting mothers and babies--will join me in passing a bill I have introduced to reduce the shocking high rate of maternal and infant mortality among African-American women and their babies. It is inexplicable that in the United States of America, we see so many Black women dying in childbirth and so many babies dying as well. It is unnecessary. It is time for us to focus the great resources, health resources, of America on this issue. In America, a woman of color is three to four times more likely than a White woman to die as a result of pregnancy. Why? The answers are very obvious. We need better, more focused, more understanding medical care. I am sad to say that in Illinois, the situation--the numbers--are that bad, if not even worse. The United States is 1 of only 13 nations in the world in which the maternal mortality rate is worse than it was 25 years ago. In the United States of America, we are 1 of only 13 nations in which the maternal death rate is worse today than what it was 25 years ago. How in the world can we explain that? I have introduced a bill called the MOMMA Act. My companion in this effort is my Congresswoman from Chicago, Robin Kelly. Let's get that debated, I say to Senator McConnell. It will not take long. I bet it passes easily. We owe it to many across America to show the initiative and to bring it to the floor. Fourth, because our friends across the aisle could not agree among themselves on what would be in the next coronavirus relief bill, critical protections included in the CARES Act have now or will soon expire without replacement. These protections include payments for the jobless for tens of millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in this pandemic--it wasn't because they were lazy; it was bad luck--as well as the Federal moratorium on evictions for families who have had difficulty paying their rent because of economic devastation brought on by COVID-19. Unless we extend this moratorium, as many as 28 million could lose their homes in the next 3 months. I can't imagine the devastation that would bring to a family--losing your home and perhaps having no place to turn. For the sake of those families and for our ability to fight this virus, we must extend the moratorium on evictions and help families who are struggling to pay rent. Senator Warren introduced a bill that I have cosponsored to extend this critical moratorium through March. It is called the Protecting Renters from Evictions and Fees Act. I am proud to cosponsor a bill with Senator Brown that provides $100 billion in emergency rental assistance to help families and individuals pay their rent. Let's keep these families in a safe, quality living environment The crisis of affordable housing didn't start with this pandemic. The shortage of safe, affordable public housing has been building for decades, and it disproportionately harms African-American families. Senator Harris of California has introduced a bill, which I am proud to cosponsor, called the Housing is Infrastructure Act. It would invest $100 billion to repair our current stock of public housing and to build new units of safe, affordable public housing. I could just walk you through a map of the State of Illinois and the public housing I have visited and witnessed that is in desperate need of repair. It is time, you think, to call the landlord and say: What are you going to do about this housing unit that you own that is falling down? Except, it turns out, we are the landlords. The Federal Government owns this property. The Federal Government has the responsibility to fix it. Last week, President Trump moved to repeal an Obama-era rule meant to ban discriminatory housing and zoning laws and policies. It is not pricing from this President, but it is wrong. We need to move forward and not backward. The housing infrastructure needs to move in the right direction. Finally, once again, in the name of John Lewis, I believe that the right to vote was ``almost sacred,'' in his words, and I share that feeling, but that right is now threatened by a series of misguided decisions in recent years by the Supreme Court and other courts. The House passed a bill last year to restore the Voting Rights Act to its original intent. That bill is being reintroduced in the Senate this week by Senator Leahy and in the House by Congressman Clyburn. The difference? They are naming it in honor of Congressman John Lewis. John Lewis did not risk his life in Selma and so many other places so people would praise him in speeches or name things after him. He did not risk his life for the right to have a bridge named after him-- although it is a fitting tribute. He risked his life over and over again to protect the right of every American to vote. Americans' faith in our electoral system--the cornerstone of our democracy--continues to be under attack by entities that wish us ill. For those who gathered in the Rotunda yesterday to honor his memory and to stand in silent respect for all the work of his life, I say to my fellow Senators who were there: Let us pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act in the name of Congressman John Lewis. Let us make it clear that his life was worth this and so much more. When you know better, you do better. Our eyes have been opened, and now it is time for us to act. It is my honor to serve in this Senate, but I am sorry to say that when it comes to production of important, meaningful legislation, this institution has fallen far behind. We seldom take up bills of great importance and magnitude. We just passed the Defense authorization bill--a very important piece of legislation, which I believe has passed for 59 straight years in Congress, and I am glad it passed again, but now you see an empty floor and an empty Chamber where we are not taking up the issues that we should. There is one person who controls the agenda and the schedule of this Chamber, and that is the Republican majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Let's not waste this opportunity to make America a better place. Let's do things that make a difference. America is counting on us in the midst of this massive health crisis with COVID-19--perhaps the worst health crisis our Nation has faced in over 100 years. With the state of our economy and so many--tens of millions of people out of work, shouldn't we be acting together on a bipartisan basis, as we did in March of this year, to pass legislation? The reports we have is that the other side of the aisle is in disarray. I might remind Senator McConnell that the best legislation that passes here is bipartisan. And this measure, COVID relief, moving forward, should be bipartisan as well. For it to be bipartisan, we need people of both parties to sit down together and negotiate. That has to continue, along with the participation of the White House, in order to achieve these goals. First and foremost, we need to restore unemployment assistance to the millions of families who will see it end in just a few days. I cannot imagine having lost your job, worried about whether there is another one waiting or whether one will be available, and then having to worry about whether you can make that rent payment, the mortgage payment, the utility bills, food, health insurance--the basics--and to be told that Congress just let unemployment assistance expire, which happens in just 3 days. What are these families going to do? I sincerely hope that every Member of the Senate will reach out to one of these unemployed families and listen quietly to their stories. I have seen them as they come to the food pantries. I have seen them come and ask for help, which they never dreamed they would have to do. It must be heartbreaking to go through that experience. Let's stand by them now. They need us now more than ever. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I could not have said it any better or more effectively than he just did. Like Oklahoma, downstate Illinois has an area of smaller cities and rural towns and smalltown communities. Many of them are lucky enough to have great hospitals, and they love their hospitals. They are not only important sources of medical care; they are a major part of the local economy and really are a rallying point for communities. Auxiliaries, volunteers, and so many people make these hospitals the focal point when you visit these communities. They are so proud of them. Of course, we are worried about what this current pandemic is going to do. I have had conference calls with leaders from almost 120 hospitals across Illinois. I invited Members of Congress in, so we had bipartisan exchanges about the current state of affairs. One hospital CEO from Crawford County, downstate along the Indiana border, told me that he used to pay 22 cents for a surgical gown, and now he pays between $11 and $20 for each one. Hospitals are facing limited access to reagents, swabs, and supplies that they need. The Heroes Act would direct the administration to utilize the Defense Production Act to help solve that problem, and I commend Senators Murphy and Baldwin for their legislation, which I am joining, to do the same. One of the most profound consequences of the pandemic is the impact on the solvency of these hospitals. Across Illinois, rural hospitals are the heart and soul of the community; otherwise, people drive literally for hours to get medical care, sometimes in emergency situations. They are important parts of the local economy. We think downstate hospitals generate $5 billion into our State economy each year, and I don't doubt that. This pandemic has pushed them to the brink. Even prior to this crisis, they were facing financial uncertainty. Half of rural hospitals were operating in the red. One in four were at risk of closure. As the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned, 120 have closed across the Nation in the past decade. We have fared a little better in Illinois, but we are worried about the future. When a rural hospital closes, not only do doctors disappear, but jobs disappear, and businesses struggle to stay. The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated and compounded the strains we face. We believe our Illinois hospitals are losing $1.4 billion each month. Many, like those near nursing homes and meat processing plants, have had to expand surge staffing to deal with COVID patients. All have been forced to cancel outpatient and elective services. In Illinois, 70 percent of rural hospital revenues are from outpatient services. The same is true in neighboring States like Kentucky. Nationwide, rural hospitals have on average only 33 days of cash on hand. There is an immediate need to stabilize, and that is why we have come up with this bipartisan plan. Senator James Lankford and I have introduced a bill called the Rural Hospital Closure Relief Act. It is supported by the American Hospital Association and the National Rural Health Association. It would update Medicare's ``critical access hospital'' designation to provide flexibility around the 35-mile distance requirement, so more rural hospitals would qualify for additional payments from the Federal Government. We project that six hospitals in Iowa and scores more in Illinois, New York, and Kentucky would qualify for this financial lifeline, securing their stability. We do it in a restrained, cost-effective manner by focusing on the hospitals that have faced financial losses and are located in areas with a shortage of healthcare providers. It is common sense. This bipartisan bill is a priority for us. We want to make it a priority for the Senate, and we hope to do so. We know that we have come to this discussion with a good, encouraging conversation with Senator Grassley today in support of the Iowa Rural Health Association. The CEO and leader of the Kentucky Rural Health Association projects that more than 18 rural hospitals in that State are at high risk of closure. We hope to make that point very clear to the majority leader. Several of them would be helped by our legislation. With a spike in COVID-19 cases across rural America, we have seen hospitals reaching capacity, and we need to make sure that our hospitals--the ones we are talking about in rural areas--survive. The health and economic toll of this crises demands it. I hope that Democrats and Republicans in the Senate include this in any bipartisan package. The cost of inaction will be disastrous. Senator Lankford and I were prepared to seek passage of this bill by unanimous consent today, but we have been encouraged to continue negotiating with our colleagues to see if we can make it part of the package--a timely part of the package--in the near future. I hope that is the case, and we will hold off from any unanimous consent request because of that hope

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague and leader on the Democratic side, Senator Schumer, for his specific, articulate, and direct analysis of where we stand today in the Senate. Faced with the worst public health crisis in 100 years, faced with the worst economic crisis in 75 to 80 years, the message from the Republican side of the aisle is ``Think small. Do as little as possible. Let's see how this works out.'' At a time when we have unemployment figures breaking all records, when we have 10 times the unemployment claims in Illinois that we did a year ago--I might add, 10 times the unemployment claims in the Commonwealth of Kentucky that they did a year ago--we, instead, are hearing from the Republican side of the aisle that the problem with our economy is not unemployment; it is the fact that the people who are unemployed are being given too much money. Right now we have a Federal benefit package worth $600 a week that was enacted in the CARES Act on March 26. That expires in 3 days. It is a $600-a-week Federal supplement over the State payment. What the Republicans have suggested is to cut that $600 Federal supplement to $200, and then they turn and say: Well, what we really want to do is to compensate the workers with 70 percent of what they were earning when they were laid off. There is a real serious problem here that they are not disclosing to the American people. Back in March, when we proposed a similar approach or one that took into consideration the previous wages of an unemployed worker, who told us to stop that consideration? President Trump's Secretary of Labor. Secretary Scalia came to us, and I was at the meeting when he said: You don't understand. You cannot make this kind of change in the States because there are 50 different computer systems in the employment security offices across each and every State in the Union. They cannot make this adjustment. They cannot make this change. The only way, they told us--Secretary Scalia told us in March--is a flat dollar amount to each unemployed worker, which is exactly what we did. Now the Republicans come to us and ignore that advice, ignore that guidance that led to $600 a week, and say: We will come up with an elaborate formula of 70 percent of what you were paid before. As Senator Schumer from New York said earlier, we surveyed a dozen States, and they all told us: Impossible to 5 or 6 months before we are ready to do something in that manner. And that means, for millions of Americans currently unemployed, the possibility of only receiving $200 a week until someday in the future when the State unemployment systems can possibly change. That is the Republican approach. They have made a big point, as Senator McConnell did this morning on the floor, of a $1,200 check, a cash payment such as we had back in March. I am not opposed to that. The President is desperate for it because he gets to sign the checks. He wants his signature on the checks that are going out to these individuals. Well, Mr. President, if that is what you want, be my guest if it is going to help working families. But make no mistake--a $1,200 check to a family who was receiving $600 a week, $2,400 a month, is cold comfort, and it won't help them pay the bills they face every single month. I only wish that the Republicans who are calling for these dramatic cuts in unemployment compensation for millions of Americans--30 million Americans--I only wish they would go home to Kentucky and other States and sit down for a meal with an unemployed family and let them tell these Republicans what they are facing each and every month, trying to get by, even with this unemployment check. You see, there is an assumption that these people have a lot of money in savings. It is not reality. In the real world, half of American families have little or no savings to turn to--even before this current economic downturn. Imagine what they are going through now and the sacrifices they have to make. Surely the Republican leaders have heard the stories or seen firsthand, as I have, the families showing up at food banks and pantries, looking for a helping hand to put something on the table to feed their families, some of them with their eyes down to the ground, tears in those eyes because they never dreamed they would be in this position in life. And what is the alternative suggested from the Republican side? Cut the unemployment compensation for millions of Americans at this moment in history. Think small, Republicans say. We can get through this by doing as little as possible. That is not true. We have been told over and over again that if we take our foot off the accelerator to try to move this economy out of the ditch, it will crash even further, and we don't want that to happen. We want people to get back to work and businesses to reopen and schools to reopen, but we have to do the right thing in terms of providing compensation to individuals. I reject the premise that many Republicans bring to this conversation that if you are not rich, you must be lazy in America. I don't think unemployed people in this country are lazy people. I think they are hard-working people who have been dealt a tough hand of cards. They are trying to keep their families together until they can get back to work and to a decent job. Cutting unemployment compensation at this moment in history is cruel, inhumane, and insensitive to the realities these families are facing every single day. There is one provision that came out yesterday that I want to speak to for a moment. For months, literally for months, Senator McConnell has come to the floor and criticized Speaker Pelosi for her efforts to pass the Heroes Act almost 10 weeks ago. Ten weeks ago, the House of Representatives, under Speaker Pelosi, passed legislation to provide COVID-19 relief that we knew was coming because we knew the unemployment benefits were going to expire in just a few days. She saw that coming and 10 weeks ago did what was the right thing to do. She mustered her troops and provided a majority to vote for a package that moves us forward, helps State and local governments face the reality of this economy, helps hospitals, and helps individuals pay for their health insurance--a good package and one that I could readily support. Senator McConnell came to the floor frequently, regularly, several times a week, saying how bad that package was, how terrible it was, while he did nothing, while the Republicans proposed no alternative. It is just like the Affordable Care Act. They have done everything they can 150 times to try to repeal it and never once proposed an alternative. The same thing is true when it comes to this COVID-19 relief. In this circumstance we received finally, yesterday, this proposal that was brought by Senator Cornyn on behalf of himself and Senator McConnell to address the issue of the immunity of corporations from lawsuits that have any relation to COVID-19--immunity for these corporations so that they will not be held liable if, in fact, they are not performing up to the standards necessary to protect employees and customers. It is 65 pages long. It is a big giveaway to the biggest corporations in America. The Republican corporate immunity bill does nothing to protect workers, improve safety standards, or give business incentives to take proper precautions to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. In fact, this bill does the opposite. It views workers and victims as the problem, and it sets high hurdles that prevent meritorious COVID- related crimes from having their day in court. What the bill would do is impose sweeping Federal preemption on the rights of workers and victims to bring cases in State courts for COVID-related harm. It would supplant State laws that require businesses to act with reasonable care. Then it would say that businesses are shielded from liability in Federal court if they merely make an effort to comply with the weakest available mandatory safety standard that applies to them so long as they are not grossly negligent. So what are the kinds of safety standards that the bill would urge businesses to follow? Well, it certainly wouldn't be the guidelines of the Centers for Disease Control because those aren't mandatory. So, amazingly, a business can get shielded from liability under this Republican approach even if they make no effort to comply with the Centers for Disease Control guidelines. How does that make us any safer? Not only that, but if workers or sick Americans want to try to bring a meritorious COVID-related case in this bill, this bill puts them through a gauntlet of tort reform obstacles that will make it nearly impossible to prevail: a heightened burden of proof, heightened pleading requirements, limits on discovery, damage caps, restrictions on joint and several liability, and so much more. The Republican bill also creates sweeping Federal preemption of medical malpractice cases, including claims under medical malpractice not even related to COVID- 19. It would upend the medical liability laws of all 50 States for 5 years. Instead of sending a strong, clear, and enforceable Federal safety standard like an OSHA emergency temporary standard, the Republican bill would actually shield businesses from regulatory enforcement proceedings under OSHA, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and more. The liability immunity under this bill would last for 5 years, from December 2019 to 2024. The fact that Republicans are proposing 5 years of liability immunity for corporations while promising just a few months of assistance for workers tells the whole story about priorities and values. Let's be clear. Republicans have not made the case for why we would even consider Federal liability immunity for corporations. Remember, under current State tort law, if a business has taken reasonable precautions, it will not be held liable for negligence. State laws give incentives for businesses to act reasonably, and most businesses do. Also, time and again, I have heard Senator McConnell and Senator Cornyn come to the floor and talk about the tsunami of lawsuits. This morning Senator McConnell said ``an epidemic'' of frivolous lawsuits. It so happens we keep track of lawsuits filed in the United States of America, and we can look to the pleadings in those lawsuits to see how many times they mention coronavirus or COVID-19. We know how many lawsuits have been filed since the first of the year related to this pandemic. We know that despite the fact that 4 million--at least 4 million--COVID-19 infections have been established in the United States--4 million--do you know how many medical malpractice cases have been filed by any of those 4 million Americans or anyone else against doctors, nurses, hospitals, and providers? What is the epidemic number? We have it. Here is the exact number of medical malpractice cases filed in the United States in the last 6 months: six--six. An epidemic? A tsunami? How about personal injury lawsuits, Senator? How many have been filed listing COVID-19 or coronavirus as one of the reasons for these lawsuits? Fifteen. With 4 million infected Americans, there are 15 lawsuits, and the Republicans have come to us and want to turn upside down the immunity and liability questions before the States and the Nation. How about unsafe workplace lawsuits? Now, that has to be a big category. With 4 million infected Americans, how many workers have brought lawsuits? Seventy-one. In the entire 50 States of America, there are 71 lawsuits. There is no flood of worker or victim lawsuits. It is a figment of the imagination of Senator McConnell, Senator Cornyn, and K Street. But we certainly shouldn't, at this moment in time, ignore the obvious. Over 20 States have stepped forward and established their own standards for lawsuits when it comes to the pandemic they face. This effort by the Republicans would preempt that State action. There have been hundreds and hundreds of COVID lawsuits that have been filed, business to business, on questions like insurance liability. You don't hear the Republicans wanting to stop businesses from filing lawsuits--no, just workers and the people who get sick. There is no need for the Federal Government to step in and override 50 States' liability laws, especially after the Federal Government has been deferring to the States on every other aspect of this pandemic: testing, PPE, masks, stay-at-home orders. Time and again, this President has said to leave it to the Governors and leave it to the mayors, except when it comes to protecting big corporations. If States need to adjust their liability laws, they can do so, and 28 States have already done it. So here is the bottom line. The Republican immunity bill would upend State laws, give businesses incentives to cut corners, jeopardize the safety of workers and families, and risk further spread of this virus. It is a big business giveaway, and that is not what America needs. This is not a small challenge; it is a historic challenge. We shouldn't take the Republican lead and play small ball. We ought to address this head-on. First, we need leadership from the top, which we have not had from the President. He has deferred time and again to Governors and mayors and other officials at the local levels, telling them: Find your own masks. Establish your own testing regimes. Find your own way out of this crisis. When we needed Federal leadership from the President, we did not receive it. America knows that. Why is it that this Nation, with 5 percent of the world's population, has 25 percent of the COVID infection cases in the world? Why? What happened here? Why didn't we follow the lead of other countries that stepped up with Presidential leadership--countries that have found dramatically less infection, dramatically fewer deaths. That is the reality of where we are today with this pandemic. The reality of our economy--we stepped in on March 26 and passed the CARES Act. We have managed to keep some businesses going. We have managed to keep millions of unemployed Americans together with their families through the most difficult period in their lives. Now, at this moment, the Republican leadership says: Think small. This is all going to pass quickly. Don't worry about these families who don't have enough to provide food and shelter and the basics for their families. They will get by with a lot less--from $600 a week to $200 a week. They will do just fine, according to Republicans I disagree. Our first obligation should be to these working families who are going through the toughest period they could ever imagine. Stick with them. Stand with them. Be prepared to put the money on the table, which we know they will spend right back into the economy. We will see more unemployment if we follow the Republican approach. It is estimated that some 3 million jobs will be killed by the Republican approach of cutting unemployment and the consequent downturn in spending by these same families. Let's stick with those families now. They need us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last month, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court rejected President Trump's effort to repeal deportation protections for Dreamers. Those are the young immigrants who came to the United States as children. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that President Trump's attempt to rescind DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was ``arbitrary and capricious.'' Those were the words of the Court. More than a month later, the Trump administration has refused to restore the DACA Program despite the decision written by the Chief Justice. The administration is now in open defiance of the Supreme Court when it comes to the DACA Program. The stakes are too high, both for the rule of law and the lives of these young Dreamers, for us to ignore it. Republicans and Democrats in Congress need to come together to compel the President to immediately comply with the Supreme Court mandate. On June 4, 2019, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6. In 2019, they passed H.R. 6, the Dream and Promise Act. This legislation would give Dreamers a path to citizenship, and it passed on a strong bipartisan vote. The Dream and Promise Act has been pending in the Senate on the desk of Senator McConnell for more than a year. Last month, I sent a letter signed by all 47 Democratic Senators, calling on Majority Leader McConnell to immediately schedule a vote on the Dream and Promise Act. As of today, Senator McConnell has not even replied to this letter. Since Senator McConnell refuses to take any action to address the plight of these Dreamers, I will ask unanimous consent at this point for the Senate to pass the bipartisan Dream and Promise Act. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 112, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.