Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I regret the fact that the Senator objected. I am not surprised, but I understand his statement. I do hope that he feels as I do that we should be working in a bipartisan fashion to find an answer to this challenge. I have been working on this Dream Act for a number of years. Over 780,000 young people have signed up for DACA, and many more are currently eligible, and I would like to address their plight in just a moment here on the floor. But I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for the encouraging words to continue this effort. It is long past time for us to find a bipartisan answer to this situation. It was, in fact, 10 years ago when I joined with Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, on a bipartisan basis to call on President Obama to use his legal authority to protect Dreamers from deportation. President Obama responded by creating the DACA Program. DACA provides temporary protection from deportation of Dreamers if they register with the government, pay a fee, and pass criminal and national security background checks. I got started on this 20 years ago. I know you have to be patient to serve in the U.S. Senate, but I am losing my patience, not for my own plight and situation but for these young people. We know their circumstances. They were brought to this country as infants, toddlers, and little kids. They grew up here thinking this was home. It was home. They went to our schools. They pledged allegiance to our flag. They counted themselves as just another American kid. Then, sometime when they were teenagers, mom and dad sat down with them and said: We have a serious matter to discuss with you. It turns out you are undocumented. Technically, you are illegal in your presence in the United States, and let us warn you that at any moment you could be stopped, arrested, and deported. In fact, they might even drag many members of the family along with you if that circumstance should apply. Imagine growing up with that as a teenager, with all the things you worry about in adolescence, worrying about a knock on the door and deportation that might drag along other members of your family. That is how these kids lived. That is how they grew up. One of them came to my attention in Chicago. Her name is Tereza Lee. Tereza came to the United States originally from Korea through Brazil. She came to Chicago with her family on a visitor visa at the age of 2. Her family stayed. Most of them reached legal status, but they never filed any papers for Tereza. She didn't discover until she was in high school that she was an undocumented person in America. She just happened to have an extraordinary talent as a musician. She signed up for a program known as the MERIT Music Program. They taught her how to play the piano, which she had already started learning. She was found so phenomenal that by the end of her high school years, her instructor said: Why don't you apply to the great music schools of America--Juilliard or the Manhattan conservatory of music? She started to fill out the application with her mom and came to the section where it said ``citizenship,'' and she said: What are we supposed to put there, Mom? And her mom said: I don't know. We better call the office of Senator Durbin. They called us, and we learned for the first time of Tereza's situation. Under the law of America, despite the fact that this 2-year- old girl who arrived in the United States and now is 18 years of age-- under the laws of the United States, she was compelled to leave the United States for 10 years and apply to come back in. How could you do that? She didn't choose to come to this country. She didn't choose not to file for the right legal papers. She was the victim of this situation. So, on her behalf, I introduced the DREAM Act, and over the years, I have tried my level best in every way imaginable to pass it and make it the law of the land so that young people just like her can have a chance to earn their way to permanent status in the United States and ultimately to citizenship. I often fail to tell the end of this story, and I want to tell it because many people say: What ever happened to Tereza Lee? Well, the fact is, she was accepted by the Manhattan conservatory of music, and these wonderful people in Chicago--including my dear friend Joan Harris--said: We will pay for her education. She is so good. They did it. She finished. She married an American Jazz musician and became an American citizen by virtue of that decision. They now have three children. She just emailed me last week. She just got her Ph.D. in music. She has performed in Carnegie Hall. She is an amazing young woman. She was the first Dreamer. That is not a unique story. I have come to the floor over 100 times and told stories just like that of young people brought to the United States who are remarkable and who could really add so much to this country. There have been some 800,000 Dreamers who have come forward to sign up for DACA, the program we discussed earlier. DACA, under President Obama, by Executive order, unleashed the full potential of many of these Dreamers for the first time. They could be public about their status, go to college, and do things they dreamed of. Many of them today are contributing to this country as soldiers and teachers and owners of small businesses and healthcare workers. More than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential, critical, infrastructure workers. That is not my term; that is a term of the Donald Trump Department of Homeland Security. That is how they are classified: essential, critical infrastructure workers; 200,000--a fourth of the DACA recipients. Among them are 41,700 DACA recipients in the healthcare industry--doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, respiratory therapists, and health professionals like the one I will talk about in just a moment. But on September 5, 2017, despite his assurances to me and so many others that he would take special care of these young people, these Dreamers, President Trump repealed DACA. Hundreds of thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and being deported out of the United States to countries they didn't even remember. Federal courts stepped in and ordered the Trump administration to continue the DACA Program while they resolved in court whether the President's actions were proper. However, Dreamers who have not received DACA protection have been blocked from applying for this protection now for almost 3 years. For example, children cannot apply for DACA until they reach the age of 15. The Center for American Progress estimates that approximately 300,000 Dreamers have been unable to apply for this program since President Trump abolished it--or tried to--on September 5, 2017. Fifty-five thousand of those young people have turned 15 in that period of time. Since the Supreme Court decision more than a month ago, the Trump administration--the Trump administration--has failed to comply with Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts' order rejecting the repeal of DACA and requiring the Trump administration to reopen the program. The Trump administration is knowingly avoiding and violating the order of this Court. Two weeks ago, I joined with Senator Kamala Harris in leading a letter from 33 Senators to the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf. Our letter called on the Trump administration to immediately comply with the Supreme Court decision and reopen DACA for those who want to seek admission or at least protection under that program. So far, of course, we have not received a response to our letter, but that is not unusual with this administration. Ten days ago, a Federal judge issued an order for the Trump administration to follow the law and follow the order of the Supreme Court and begin accepting new applications for DACA. So earlier today, Acting Secretary Chad Wolf of the Department of Homeland Security finally responded. Here is what he said: ``The Department of Homeland Security will take action to thoughtfully consider the future of DACA policy, including whether to fully rescind the program.'' He said: ``In the interim, DHS will reject all initial requests for DACA.'' That is in open defiance of the order of the Supreme Court in the decision issued by Chief Justice John Roberts--open defiance by the President and his administration. What on Earth is this supposed to mean? If the Trump administration wants to repeal DACA again--and I pray that they won't--they can certainly try, and they can see if that action would be arbitrary, capricious, or would somehow withstand legal scrutiny. But under our system of separation of powers, the executive branch of government does not get to ``thoughtfully consider'' whether to comply with a Supreme Court order for some undefined period of time. Let's be clear. The Supreme Court rejected the repeal of DACA. That means DACA returns to its original status, and the Trump administration must reopen the program, and they must do it now. Instead, Mr. Wolf is saying the DHS is going to turn away 300,000 Dreamers eligible for DACA who have not had a chance to apply because the case has been in court. Mr. Wolf claims the administration is following the law, but it is notable that the Department of Homeland Security website still features a statement from a DHS official saying the Supreme Court's decision ``has no basis in law.'' After the Supreme Court decision, President Trump tweeted: ``I have wanted to take care of DACA recipients better than the Do Nothing Democrats, but for 2 years they have refused to negotiate.'' Well, here is the reality, and it isn't the President's tweet. The President has rejected numerous bipartisan deals to protect the Dreamers. Take one example--February 15, 2018. The Senate considered bipartisan legislation by Republican Senator Mike Rounds and Independent Senator Angus King. The bill, which included a path to citizenship for Dreamers, was supported by a bipartisan majority of Senators. It failed to reach 60 votes that it needed to pass the Senate because President Trump opposed it. Remember when he said that the Democrats were at fault here, that there were no bipartisan measures to solve the problem? Here was a bipartisan measure that he openly opposed. On the same day, the Senate voted on the President's immigration proposal. The Trump plan failed by a bipartisan majority of 39 to 60. Over the years, I have come to the floor of the Senate many times to tell the stories of Dreamers. These stories tell the whole story, as far as I am concerned, as to what is at stake with the future of DACA and the Dream Act. Let me tell you the story today about this young man, Juan Alvarez-- 125th Dreamer--whom I have come to the floor to introduce to the Senate and the people who are watching. He came to the United States from Mexico at 3 years of age and grew up in Compton, CA. A great student. From a young age, he wanted to get involved in healthcare, but because of his immigration status-- undocumented--he was unable to attend medical or nursing school. Instead, he went to the California State University in Long Beach, where he completed a bachelor of science degree in nutrition and dietetics. Today, thanks to DACA, Juan is working as a dietitian at an acute care hospital in Los Angeles. He sent me a letter, and here is what he said: I never imagined that I would be able to work in the field that I love and am passionate about--but thanks to DACA, that was made possible. Simply said, DACA has opened doors for me that I once thought were bolted shut and completely out of reach. Now, Juan Alvarez is on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic. He is part of this hospital's critical care team treating patients with coronavirus. Juan's role is to ensure that patients receive adequate nutrition during their hospital stay so they survive. Here is what he said about this experience: I am in constant fear of being infected and then infecting my family. But as an essential healthcare worker, I continue to show up to work and put myself at risk so that I can continue to serve my patients. While I do it to continue to help my patients and make sure that they are well nourished and strong enough to fight off the virus, I cannot set aside how worried I am myself. I want to thank Juan Alvarez for his service. He is an immigrant health hero. He is a DACA health hero. He is putting himself and his family at risk to save the lives of other Americans. He shouldn't have to worry about whether he is going to be deported. Will America be a stronger country if we tell him to leave or if we send him back to Mexico, which he doesn't even remember, or if we allow him to become a citizen and to use his skills and education and training to continue to help others? I think the answer is clear. Juan and hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers are counting on those of us who serve in the Senate to solve this crisis that President Trump has created. I am sorry there was an objection to the Dream and Promise Act today. So long as I am a U.S. Senator, I will continue to come to this floor day after day, week after week, and month after month until the Senate gives Juan Alvarez a chance to become part of America's future. It would be an American tragedy to deport this wonderful and talented young healthcare worker who is literally saving lives as we meet today in the Senate. We must ensure that Juan and hundreds of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to stop when the need for their service has never been greater. We must give them the chance they deserve to become part of the American family. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

Mr. DURBIN. Directing another question to the Senator through the Chair. What has been the coordination of this Federal activity with local and State law enforcement in Portland, OR?

Mr. DURBIN. Well, I don't know if I am on my own time at this moment or----

Mr. DURBIN. Fine. So I will still continue, without objection, with colloquy between myself and the junior Senator from Oregon. Let me say to the Senator that we were concerned at the beginning of this week, because of your experience, with what might happen in the city of Chicago. Senator Duckworth and I sent a letter to the President of the United States expressing that concern. I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated July 21, 2020, to President Trump, along with the press release dated July 22, 2020, describing its contents, be printed in the Record

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to direct a question to the junior Senator from Oregon through the Chair. I thank both my colleagues from Oregon. I especially thank my colleague Senator Merkley, who contacted me last weekend when the situation was unfolding in Portland and talked to me about his reaction to it and what he was hearing from the people of the State he represents. Of course, there was genuine concern in the city of Chicago, which I am honored to represent, because this President in the White House had been taking swipes at that city for years now, and we fully anticipated that the atrocity that was occurring in Portland could occur in Chicago as well. I just want to say to the Senator from Oregon: Thank you for your leadership on this. Thank you for bringing this issue to the floor and to the floor of the Senate. This is an issue we should be voting on. We should have voted on it this week. There was no excuse for it. We have risen to the occasion before when a historic occurrence brings to our attention that the Senate should speak and express itself. We should have done it this week on the issue that you brought, and I hope we can resort to this issue quickly--if not today, as quickly as possible afterward. I am a cosponsor of the legislation the Senator is offering, and it is basic. It is fundamental. As I recall, and I will ask the Senator from Oregon, what you are asking for is, if the Federal Government is going to send out the so-called law enforcement protective forces and such, that they identify themselves and that they not come into a community anonymously, without any indication of who they are. I am reminded of the Russian invasion of Ukraine--eastern portions of Ukraine, the Donetsk region--and Vladimir Putin was very careful that his invaders not wear Russian uniforms. They were known as little green men. We have a comparable situation here where the Federal forces are not identifying the agencies they represent but coming to the streets of Portland in camouflage. The Senator from Oregon, I would like you to please, if you would, respond. Has this not been the case? Has this been documented?

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask another question through the Chair to the Senator from Oregon. Is it not also true that many of these Federal agencies have defined responsibilities and defined areas of jurisdiction? For example, in the city of Chicago, as probably is the case in Portland, OR, there is a Federal protective service that has a specific building and facility and personnel in that facility that they are responsible for. Is that not the case in Oregon?

Mr. DURBIN. And in this situation, have these Federal agents of some different agency or whatever extended their reach of jurisdiction beyond that Federal protective facility?

Mr. DURBIN. How far?

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would say to the Senator from Oregon that the Department of Justice made an announcement yesterday that they were, in fact, sending, I assume, a number of Federal agents--150--into Chicago in pursuit of an operation known as Operation Legend. This is an operation which began July 8, 2020, by the Federal Government starting in Kansas City because of the death of a 4-year-old young man, Legend Taliferro, shot and killed in the early morning hours in Kansas City on June 29. I received a phone call this morning from John Lausch, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, a man whom I was instrumental in selecting and supporting and still do support to this day--his professional activities--who gave me his personal assurance that what happened in Oregon was not going to happen in Chicago; that this Operation Legend, as he described it to me, was in coordination with State and local law enforcement in the city of Chicago, the State of Illinois, to make certain that their activities were coordinated and known in advance and that they were focusing on gun violence and drug trafficking in the city of Chicago. I have also been alerted by Mayor Lori Lightfoot that she has received the same assurances and briefing, as well as Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois. So our circumstances are different from the ones that Portland faced. I will tell you that we are going to hold Mr. Lausch and the Department of Justice and all others to their word that we will not see in Chicago anything like we witnessed in the streets of Portland, OR. I just want to say in closing to the Senator from Oregon: Thank you for bringing this to our attention because when we were alerted--the Governor, the mayor of Chicago--Senator Duckworth and I both jumped on this immediately and contacted the Trump administration for clarity about what was going to happen in Chicago. We have been given these assurances. I ask unanimous consent that the lengthy press release, which describes the activities that are going to take place, again, with the knowledge and coordination of local law enforcement, be printed in the Record at this point

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, what happened in Portland, OR, is unacceptable in the United States of America. We have heard the historical analogies from the senior Senator from Oregon where authoritarian central governments moved into an area and took control. We have seen the historic parallel in the eastern reaches of Ukraine, in Crimea. We know what it looks like because history has shown us. We don't want this occurring in the United States of America. I am sorry for those who were injured and bear the scars of this Federal incursion in the city of Portland, OR. I stand with the junior Senator from Oregon. We will call and we will pass, I hope, on a bipartisan basis the reassertion of the basic principles of this country when it comes to the separation of powers and when it comes to the dignity which we ask in the streets of America under our Constitution. I thank the junior Senator from Oregon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on June 10, we lost an extraordinary advocate for children and families in Illinois. For more than four decades, Maria Whelan fought to ensure equal access to quality and affordable childcare. Today, we pay tribute to her hard work and life. Maria was born on December 4, 1950, in East Hampton, NY. She was the third of 12 children. Ten cousins lived just down the road. Maria went to Clarke College and completed her master's at the University of Chicago. She supported herself working as a waitress and a janitor. It was in Chicago that she met Jack Wuest. They married and raised three daughters in Chicago's North Side neighborhood of Rogers Park. In 1976, Maria was working with educators and advocates to help families when the local afterschool program's sponsoring agency closed. Maria and some of these folks formed what would later become the Carole Robertson Center for Learning. She served as the center's first executive director until 1989. Maria helped the center become a thriving center for quality early childhood education. Maria continued her fight for families as the director of children services for the Illinois Department of Human Services and then the senior program officer for the Chicago Community Trust. In 2000, she became the president and CEO for Illinois Action for Children, which provides 150,000 children and families every year access to high-quality early care and education opportunities. Under Maria's leadership, Illinois Action for Children expanded its scope. She helped create the Healthy Food Program, which helps families stretch their dollars by reimbursing childcare providers for the cost of feeding children with healthy food. Maria was instrumental in the development of Innovation Zones that connect critically important resources in some of Chicago's most underserved communities. The Innovation Zones led to the transformative Community Systems Statewide Supports Program, which helps communities improve early childhood services with training, planning, and collaboration. Maria also helped move Illinois Action for Children into direct early childhood services with its early learning program centers in Chicago's South and West suburbs. There was no one like Maria. Maria was tough, smart, passionate, and an authority on what needed to be done to best serve families in Illinois. I made it a point to meet with her. She made partnerships that mattered. Maria helped them launch the Lunch Bus with the Greater Chicago Food Depository to provide free summer meals to children. Maria enjoyed reading, classical music, and spending time with her family in Vermont. And she always loved a good laugh. We will miss her smile, her wit, and her heart. She is survived by her husband Jack; her three daughters, Catherine Mary, Ellen Rose, and Maeve Margaret; her three grandchildren, Teddy, Archie, and Evie; and her nine brothers and sisters.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I read this morning that more Americans have died in the last 3 months than in any 3-month period in the history of the United States. That is a stunning statistic. We are searching the records to make sure that it is an accurate statement, and I am afraid it is. So far, we believe 140,000 Americans have died of this COVID-19 crisis that we are facing. This is not a moment of American greatness. They have just done a review of the nations across the world and the safety of living in those nations that face this pandemic. Where does the United States rank among the nations of the world in terms of safety in dealing with the coronavirus? It ranks 58th--two ranks ahead of Russia. How could we have reached this moment in time when this pandemic has been so devastating in the United States, more so than in many other countries around the world--countries that are supposedly not even close to us in terms of economic development and strength? They have handled this far better than the United States. Yet what are we doing about it now? It is a valid question. I know that the President has decided he doesn't want the likes of Dr. Tony Fauci by his side any longer when it comes to talking about this pandemic, but Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins, of the National Institutes of Health, were interviewed over the weekend and were asked directly about the issue of testing. Why does it take so long in the United States to get results, and what kind of problems does that create? Well, we know. If people suspect they are positive for this virus and go in for a test, they are worried that they may be endangering their own lives, not to mention the lives of others. Then, they have to wait 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, 6 days--more--for the test results. That is unacceptable. We need to invest more money in testing and more money in finding tests to provide quicker results. You would think that it would be obvious to everyone, but it is not obvious in this negotiation that is taking place now in the U.S. Senate. There are Republican Senators who are resisting the idea of putting more money into testing in the United States. What country do they live in? Do they ever go home from Washington to see what is happening in the rest of this country? We closed down the testing facilities in my hometown of Springfield, IL, this last week. It was disappointing, for we needed it, and we need more. If we are serious about opening this economy, if we are serious about stopping the spread of this pandemic, and if we are serious about opening our schools and making certain that teachers and pupils are safe, we need more testing. Yet here we are, tied in knots, as Senator Schumer said earlier. The Republicans can't agree among themselves about the issue of putting money into testing in the midst of this pandemic. It is hard to believe. It was more than 2 months ago that the House of Representatives passed the Heroes Act. Senator McConnell has come to the floor regularly to ridicule that effort because he doesn't like the provisions in the act. It is his right to have a difference of opinion, but the obvious questions to Senator McConnell are these: Where is your alternative? What have you been doing for the last 2 months? You should have been writing a bill that we should be voting on as soon as we finish the one that is pending on the floor. Apparently, the White House and the Senate Republicans can't come to any agreement about how to move forward. There are some who are basically saying: Enough. We are not going to spend another penny. We are not going to waste any more money on any type of COVID-19. I have seen their testimony. I have seen their statements before the microphones. That is hard to imagine. I wonder if some of the Senators from States like Kentucky and Texas who have stepped up and said, ``We have spent enough money on this,'' have been home recently. Have they been there to meet people who are unemployed, out of work, or who have been laid off who are receiving the Federal unemployment benefits to keep bread on the table and to pay for the their mortgages and their health insurance? This $600 a week may sound like a pretty generous amount of money to some. Try living on it. Try living on $600 a week when it costs you $400 a week for health insurance. Yes, that is the average on COBRA premiums--almost $1,700 a month. So, when you talk about $600 a week, take out $1,600 or $1,700 off the top of that, and tell me what is left to take care of your family. As for the last Federal unemployment payment under the CARES Act, Senator Schumer is right. It ends on July 31--a week from Saturday. We have been told that the last checks will be mailed this Saturday, which is just a few days from now. Three days from now, the last check goes out. While that check is making its way through the mail, is it even possible that the Republican leadership, with the White House, will come up with a proposal to deal with this? It has been 2 months. Senator McConnell said, during those 2 months, that he didn't feel any sense of urgency-- no sense of urgency. Can you imagine the sense of urgency if you can't make your mortgage payment? Can you imagine the sense of urgency if that utility bill is so large you can't pay it? That is the reality facing a lot of families who have been laid off and are unemployed. I believe--and many agree--that one of our highest priorities is to make sure that the resources are there for the families. I also want to say that we are in the midst of this conversation about public health while the President and his party are trying to kill the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court. More than 140,000 Americans have died from this pandemic, and President Trump and the Republican Party are trying to kill the major source of health insurance for millions of Americans. For 10 years, the Affordable Care Act has been the law of the land, and before it was the law of the land, there were some things going on when it came to health insurance which we should not forget. Routinely, health insurance companies discriminated against women before we passed the Affordable Care Act and prohibited their practices. There was a time when insurance companies were allowed to charge women more than men for the same health insurance policies. It was common for women to pay three or four times what men pay for on the identical plans. Important women's healthcare was often excluded from most insurance plans. For instance, most individual policies refused to cover maternity or newborn care. Insurance companies were allowed to deny coverage and charge higher premiums to Americans with preexisting conditions. That particular discrimination hurt women much more than men. Approximately 24 million American men have preexisting conditions; 30 million American women. Insurance companies could consider a host of medical conditions to be preexisting conditions: breast cancer, C-sections, victims of domestic violence, asthma, acne, heart disease--all preexisting conditions. Before the Affordable Care Act, that is what the health insurance companies pointed to when they charged women and others more because of it. The Affordable Care Act put an end to that, and now the Republicans want to put an end to the Affordable Care Act. Well, you must say, they must have a much better idea. There must be a Republican proposal out there far better than the Affordable Care Act. There isn't. We haven't seen any. They have no alternative. They just want to kill anything that might have the name ``Obama'' on it. We have to do something about this to protect health insurance for the future, and the notion that the Republicans and President Trump are fighting the Supreme Court to eliminate the Affordable Care Act in this moment in American history, when we are fighting this pandemic, is impossible to explain. Amendment No. 1788 Madam President, I have been honored to work on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee since December of 2012, when Senator Dan Inouye, the legendary Senator from Hawaii and recipient of a Congressional Medal of Honor, passed away. Since I have taken that job, I have been impressed many times over by the extraordinary Department of Defense and the actions they have taken--the development of technology like GPS, investing in critical medical research, and the abiding commitment to women and men in uniform, who make so many great sacrifices for our country. But I have also discovered at the same time how poorly we manage the Department of Defense. Our procurement system seems designed to generate redtape, delays, and cost overruns. Our top adversaries around the world develop game-changing technologies at a fraction of the cost that it takes us to develop them. There is going to be an amendment on the floor today about future spending in the Department of Defense offered by Senator Sanders. I heard what Senator McConnell had to say about it earlier. He seems to believe that any suggestion that there is misspending in the Department of Defense is not patriotic. Somehow you are a chicken if you raise any questions about waste in the Department of Defense. I couldn't disagree more. The Sanders amendment proposes a 10-percent budget cut in the Department of Defense. Well, I have taken a look, as others have, at the failed audits, the cost overruns, and the sclerotic bureaucracy at the Department of Defense. I believe the American taxpayer deserves more. One of my early hearings in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee focused on the defense industrial base and the threat of sequestration. The lives of our servicemembers often depend on the equipment and training provided. When managed well, the defense industrial base generates the best equipment, next-generation technology, good jobs, and powerful weapons. However, I am concerned that holding defense contractors accountable for poor performance has not been the priority it should be today. Listen to this: From 2016 to 2019, military spending rose by 18 percent. During the same period of time, the Department of Defense accumulated $18 billion in cost overruns for weapons programs. What about the contractors who generated those cost overruns? The top five defense contractors in America saw their profits increase by 44 percent in that same period. This doesn't add up. Businesses have the right to earn a profit, but taxpayers have the right to demand accountability. With defense spending on such a steep rise, we should be driven by the motto ``pay for performance.'' I don't believe that is the culture at the Department of Defense today. Senator Sanders wants to direct $74 billion to communities across the country--including many needy communities in my State of Illinois--for housing, healthcare, childcare, education, and jobs. Senator McConnell comes to the floor and calls that socialism. Socialism when it comes to education and childcare? I don't agree with him. There is considerable merit to what Senator Sanders has to say about the run-up in cost at the Department of Defense, but I do not agree with his basic approach of across-the-board cuts. When you start exempting things like military pay and healthcare, it means the remaining items take a deeper hit. The 14-percent cut that has been proposed for the remaining items at the Department of Defense would be a hard hit, no question about it. As I have said many times, sequestration didn't work, and we ought to learn a lesson from it. The National Guard should not have a 14-percent cut. Special victims counsels and sexual assault prevention programs should not be cut by 14 percent. Cleaning up PFAS contamination at military bases should not be cut by 14 percent. Instead, we ought to look at the Department of Defense budget more carefully, not with an across-the-board cut. Let's start with the $16 billion OCO gimmick. OCO is the account created to fight a war. We started this account years and years ago, when we actually were engaged in a war. We have kept it alive to this day because it is a way to escape budget rules. The OCO gimmick funds were requested for routine Army, Navy, and Air Force operations that have nothing to do with fighting a war in Afghanistan or any other place. The administration requested these funds for the sole purposes of evading the caps on the base defense budget. Beyond that--listen to this--the President of the United States, who is arguing for this budget, was the first to raid it and take $8 billion or more out for his medieval wall on the southern border of the United States. The $18 billion in weapons systems overruns that I mentioned earlier--what could we do with $18 billion in cost overruns? Well, you could increase the budget for the National Institutes of Health medical research by almost 50 percent. That is one thing. You could provide student loan forgiveness for healthcare workers or hazard pay for these same men and women who risk their lives for us every day. I have to tell you, there is need for us to look to space in terms of our future defense. I still haven't been sold on this concept of the so-called Space Force. Putting millions of dollars into additional bureaucratic costs is hard for me to understand or explain. Ultimately, the Sanders amendment is going to be considered in this authorization bill, but if it is going anywhere in concept, it will be in the Appropriations Committee, where I serve. Our work as appropriators is to examine the details of the budget and make the best decisions for the taxpayers and for our national defense. I believe Senator Sanders is on the right track to demand accountability and to ask that we find cost overruns and expenditures that can be changed without jeopardizing our national defense. His exact approach is not one that I would endorse, but I have to say that I stand behind his concept that we need to ask harder questions about this massive spending. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I am expecting the Senator from Utah to come to the floor momentarily to resume debate over an issue which was raised yesterday and suspended to move to a vote that had been previously scheduled. Since this item, this issue, we are discussing is of such importance to so many individuals in our country today--and many of them are following this carefully and closely--I wanted to make sure we returned to it today to at least consider one aspect of the debate. Yesterday, when I made a unanimous consent request, Senator Lee said he had not had time to look at my proposal. That is why I waited until today to come back, so that he would have that opportunity. Yesterday, I came to the floor to speak about the plight of immigrant workers who are suffering because of a serious problem in our immigration system known as the green card backlog. Many of these immigrants are essential workers who are helping to lead the fight against COVID-19, but the green card backlog puts them and their families at risk of losing their immigration status and being subject to deportation. Under the current law, there are clearly not enough immigrant visas-- also known as green cards--available each year. The numbers that we have established in 1990 are still applicable today, though our national economy has doubled since then. We are still talking about 140,000 employment visas each year. These so-called green cards have resulted in many people waiting for long periods of times--literally for years--for the opportunity to become legal permanent residents and securing one of the green cards. While they are waiting, their families are at risk. These backlogs are particularly difficult on children because as they wait, the children, of course, advance in age, and when they reach age 21, they are subject to deportation. I have met with these families, and I have talked with them. It is a heartbreaking situation. The unanimous consent request, which I will make today, addresses the plight of those children directly. Senator Lee objected to it yesterday. He said he had not had a chance to look at it. I hope he will reconsider when I make the same request today. These children who face, what we call, aging out at age 21 would be protected by this unanimous consent request, which I am making. In addition to the green card backlog, it is clear there is a solution to this issue, which I am afraid we are not going to be able to achieve. It is to increase the number of green cards available each year in this country. These immigrant workers who are seeking green cards are already in the United States working legally. This is not a question of increasing the number of green cards, of bringing in new immigrants to compete with American workers. These workers are already here. It is about whether immigrant workers will continue to be able to work on temporary visas, where they have to depend on their employer for their immigration status and their future is uncertain. I introduced legislation known as the RELIEF Act. My cosponsors are Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. The RELIEF Act would increase the number of green cards to clear the backlog for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 years--eliminate the backlog for green cards within 5 years. This RELIEF Act would keep immigrant families together by treating children and spouses of green card holders as immediate relatives, just as the children and spouses of citizens are, so they don't count against the green card caps. The RELIEF Act would protect the aging-out children who qualify for a green card based on parents' immigrant petition. The RELIEF Act that I am describing is not novel or controversial; it is based on a provision of the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill, which I helped to write with the so-called Gang of 8. That included Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Senator Flake, as well as Senator Rubio on the Republican side; myself, Senator Schumer, Senator Menendez, and Senator Bennet on the Democratic side. We worked hard and passed that measure through the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the floor by a vote of 68 to 32. What I am proposing is something I have proposed in the past, crafted, passed, and offered to the House of Representatives to help start to solve the immigration crisis, which we currently have in this country. Unfortunately, the Republicans, who controlled the House of Representatives when this measure came before them several years ago, refused to even take up this measure and debate it. If they had, we wouldn't be here today. The green card backlog would not exist based on the provision which I offered with others in the comprehensive immigration reform bill. Unfortunately, some of the Republicans on the other side of the aisle are still unwilling to increase any number of immigrant visas. They want to keep the immigrant workers on a temporary basis, where they and their family are at risk of losing their immigration status and being deported. The senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, has introduced S. 386, known as the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, to address the green card backlog. I have a basic concern with that bill. It includes no additional green cards. Without any additional green cards, S. 386 will not reduce the green card backlog. Without additional green cards, S. 386 will not reduce the green card backlog. Don't take it from me. There are those who will disagree and say: Oh, Durbin is wrong. He is just mistaken in saying that. Please go to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Here is what they said about S. 386, Senator Lee's legislation. ``S. 386 would not reduce future backlogs compared to current law.'' Despite my concerns about Senator Lee's bill, I agreed to sit down and work in good faith with him to resolve our differences. Last December, we reached an agreement--I believed we did--on an amendment to the bill. The amendment doesn't address the core problem because it doesn't increase the number of green cards. As a result, it would not reduce the green card backlog, but there was an improvement in the amendment which we put together. I talked about it yesterday. Let me highlight two key provisions of our agreement. We protected the families who are stuck in this backlog waiting for a green card. Immigrant workers and immediate family members would be allowed to ``early file'' for their green cards. That was a proposal that came to me from Senator Lee, and I thought it was reasonable. These individuals would not receive their green cards early, but they would be able, while waiting, to switch jobs and travel without losing immigration status. I think that is reasonable. Early filing adds a critical protection that wasn't in S. 386. Listen carefully. Our agreement prevents the children of immigrant workers from aging out of green card eligibility so they will not face deportation while they are waiting for a green card. Our agreement also would crack down on the abuse of H-1B temporary work visas. Really, I think this is at the heart of the problems we are running into. There are corporate entities in India, which have extraordinary power over the securing of these H-1B visas. The amendment we put together would allow legitimate use of H-1B visas, but here is what it would say. It would prohibit a company from hiring additional H-1B workers in the future if the company's workforce is more than 50 employees and more than 50 percent of those are temporary workers. The 50-50 rule is from a bipartisan H-1B reform bill that I authored with Senator Grassley. This provision was included in the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill. Senator Lee has said publicly: This is a commonsense reform to root out abuse. I think he is right. I know these companies despise this provision, and I think it is one of the reasons we find ourselves with no common ground today. If this is included, they don't want anything to pass, and they are doing their best to stop it. The reality is that the top recipients of H-1B visas today are outsourcing companies that use loopholes in the law to exploit immigrant workers and offshore American jobs. In the most recent year for which data is available, 8 of the top 10 recipients of new H-1B visas were outsourcing companies. Unfortunately, yesterday, Senator Lee objected to this proposal, which we had put together. Instead, he offered a revised version that included changes that were requested by the Trump administration. Let me explain Senator Lee's changes because I think they are basic, and I believe they are a problem. First, he wants to remove a provision from our original agreement, known as the hold harmless clause. What it says is very simple. It assures immigrants already waiting in line for green cards that there is nothing we will do that will, in any way, injure or delay their pursuit of a green card; they can't fall further behind in line. We hold them harmless from any change we make. Why wouldn't we? Some of these people have waited for years. The hold harmless provision basically says we are going to protect wherever you stand in line. The second thing that Senator Lee wants to do is to delay for 3 years the effective date of the 50-50 rule to crack down on outsourcing companies. I don't know why we want to wait 3 years to do that. We don't have to. We shouldn't. Why on Earth would we give these companies that are outsourcing American jobs and exploiting immigrant workers a free pass for an additional 3 years? Third, Senator Lee wanted to delay for years early filing for people who are stuck in the green card backlog. The object behind the early filing, and the reason why it is so appealing to me, was that it would protect the individuals applying as well as their families from the start, and now the Senator suggested that we delay this. That just means that many children will age out during that 1-to-3-year period of time and be subject to deportation. We shouldn't do that to these children and these families. Yesterday, I made a simple proposal to Senator Lee, which he hadn't seen personally, and that is why we had to come back today. While we continue to debate the best way to fix the green card backlog, let's make sure no children of the affected families are harmed or deported. It is just that simple. I offered a new bill--very simply stated--the Protect Children of Immigrants Workers Act. This brief, three-page bill would ensure that children do not age out while waiting for a green card. Imagine if you brought your family to the United States, worked on an H-1B visa, applied for a green card to stay in this country, and your children are waiting with you for the green card. You are paying for them to go to college because they don't qualify as American citizens for any type of Federal financial aid. You are making great sacrifices for them. Then the day comes when they reach the age of 21 and they can be deported and the family divided. Why would we want to let that happen? This three-page bill, the Protect Children of Immigrant Workers Act, protects those children. It would not increase the number of green cards. It would not provide any special benefits. It would simply allow children of immigrant workers to keep their place in line for a green card and be protected from deportation until they can get that card. Yesterday, Senator Lee said he had not had a chance to review it, so I wanted to return to the floor today. I believe this is timely and important, and now he has had a chance to look at it. Senator Lee's original bill does not offer any protection for those children, which I think is a major humanitarian problem caused by the green card backlog. The early-filing provision in my agreement with Senator Lee will immediately protect the kids in the backlog under the age of 21. However, if early-filing is delayed, Senator Lee now proposes those kids would age out and lose their green card eligibility. I have met many of these young people. It breaks my heart to hear their stories, that they may be reaching a point where they have aged out and could be deported. That is why I want to offer this specific single provision. There is no reason these children should be punished for a broken immigration system. It is beyond their control, but it is not beyond our control to help them. I now am going to ask unanimous consent for the Protect Children of Immigrant Workers Act. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged of S. 4243, the Protect Children of Immigrant Workers Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there is no question that there is a green card backlog for immigrant visas. We issue 140,000 employment- based visas a year and 226,000 family visas. There are some 5 million seeking them. I want to increase the number of green cards. The Senator from Utah opposes that. As a result, the bill that he introduced, according to analysis by the Congressional Research Service--this is not Durbin's language; this is the Congressional Research Service: S. 386, the lead legislation, would not reduce future backlogs compared to current law. When he talks about 195 years and John Quincy Adams or whatever his historical analogy was, he doesn't address that at all in S. 386. The problem, of course, is that he is bound to a position of his party that will not allow one additional new immigrant--none. I don't take that position. These men and women and their kids have been living in the United States. Many of them have been here for years, some of them for decades. Some of them are doctors in hospitals in my hometown. I trust them, and I trust their kids. What I am asking him to do today is simply join with me in protecting their children while we resolve the other issues. He refuses. He refused yesterday. He refuses again today. He calls my approach sloppy. Let's see the Lee alternative to protect the children. I would like to see what he would like to propose. Maybe it is language that is better, and maybe I can embrace it. But let's take care of that discrete part of this issue. Why would we leave these children now aging into adults at risk? That is just the wrong way to approach this. We can solve this problem, and we should. While we solve it, we should protect these children. It is within the ken of both Senator Lee and myself to sit down through staff and come up with that language. I believe we can. I want to say I will continue to offer this opportunity for Senator Lee to protect these children until we can sit down in good faith and resolve any differences we have between us. I have heard this case over and over again about the plight of these children. I am trying to address it. He continues to object. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Just do the math; 140,000 EB visas and 226,000 family visas per year and 5 million people waiting. If you think you can solve this without changing the number of green cards, you can't. You may address it from one angle or another. You may help some who are waiting as opposed to others. You only give assistance to some at the expense of some other group. I understand the Senator's position. I don't quarrel with the fact he made it clear from the start that, from his perspective and perhaps from his side of the aisle, there is just no appetite for increasing the number of green cards, even for these people who have been living and working here in the United States for years and sometimes decades, even for physicians from India and other countries who are literally risking their lives today on COVID-19 patients. The Senator told me there is no appetite for giving them additional green cards so they can stay here on a permanent basis. I think that is unfair, and that is my position. The Senator made it clear--and I am not saying otherwise--that he disagrees with me. So what I tried to do is come in and say that at least during the pendency, while they are waiting for green cards-- which could be decades unless the law is changed--let's at least protect their families. That is all I basically said. He has come back and said: I want to put in a provision that takes out the hold-harmless protection. I want to protect these people who are outsourcing companies in India that have captured the lion's share of these H-1B visas. I want to make sure that those who are going to be protected have to wait up to 3 years before there is any protection. Why in the world would we do any of those things? I am willing to sit down and talk to you, but I am not going to accept these at this point unless we can find a starting point, which is protection for the children of these families. If you will agree to that, I will be more than happy to discuss the other provisions again, but because the other provisions are now what you are offering, I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator has addressed a question to me, I believe.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I know other Senators are waiting to speak, so I will try to be as concise and brief as possible. I understand the Senator's position. He doesn't want another green card. He believes Members on his side of the aisle don't want an increase in the number of green cards--period. I knew that going in. He made that abundantly clear. We can't solve the underlying problem without it, but we can make it better. That is why we continue to talk and negotiate, and I hope we will continue to talk and negotiate. Yet, for goodness' sake, the starting point ought to be the protection of these children. Can we not agree that we will protect the children and then proceed to continue the negotiations on the premise that the Senator cannot accept one more green card? I can, and the Senator can't, but we will try to improve the system with that premise accepted. At the starting point, for goodness' sake, let's protect the children while we negotiate and debate. Hopefully, we can do it on a timely basis. That is my response. I am willing to continue to work. I understand the Senator cannot issue another green card. The math never works with 5 million people waiting and 140,000 employment green cards and 226,000 family visas a year. It is never going to work, but I am willing to try to make the system better, with the understanding that I will increase the number of green cards and that the Senator will not.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, John Lewis was a great American, but there was a humility in his heart that showed his greatness even more, and he gave speeches that stirred a nation. Who among us can forget his trademark speech of explaining how, as a young man, growing up on a farm, he practiced public speaking to an audience of chickens? He told that story over and over again. John Lewis used to say, ``People come up to me in the airport, and they say, `I'm going to cry. I'm going to pass out.' '' John's reply was, ``Please, don't pass out; I'm not a doctor.'' John Lewis was a healer and a balm for troubled souls. I was struck by an article in the Atlanta newspaper that talked about an incident that occurred in January of 2009. A former Ku Klux Klan member, Elwin Wilson, confessed to being part of the White mob that had bloodied John Lewis and other Freedom Riders in Rock Hill, SC, nearly 48 years before. Lewis noted in his 2012 book ``Across That Bridge'' that Wilson was the first of his attackers to apologize for his actions. Wilson traveled to Washington a short while later to meet Lewis face-to-face and ask for forgiveness. ``Without a moment of hesitation, I looked back at him and said, `I accept your apology,' '' John Lewis wrote. This was a great testament to the power of love to overcome hatred. John Lewis had another incident that I thought was worth mentioning this morning, as well, that was another example of the forgiveness. Kevin Murphy wasn't born until a year after John Lewis was knocked unconscious by a blow from a wooden Coca-Cola crate in 1961 after the Freedom Riders pulled into the bus station in Montgomery, AL. As the city's police chief in 2013, Mr. Murphy wanted to issue an apology for the officers who declined to step in as a White mob descended on Lewis and his bus-riding colleagues. So, when Lewis and other dignitaries assembled at Montgomery's First Baptist Church to commemorate the event, Murphy walked to the microphone and offered Lewis what was long a symbol of oppression for many African Americans--his police badge. Murphy told Lewis he hoped it would serve as a token of reconciliation. ``I often said, when I started going up through the ranks, that if I had a chance--if I ever became police chief--that I was going to try to right that wrong,'' said Murphy during an interview--now the deputy sheriff for Montgomery County, AL. He went on to say: ``A lot of my peers didn't want to talk about it. They didn't want to face the truth.'' Because of that gesture, John Lewis and Kevin Murphy struck up a friendship, and John Lewis invited Murphy to the White House to meet President Barack Obama. Then the two of them, both Lewis and Murphy, traveled to Ireland and Northern Ireland to talk with Catholics and Protestants about bridging the religious divide. Murphy said he was awed by Lewis's capacity to walk through the world with an open heart. You can just tell, with everything he had been through, that he wasn't a bitter man. He truly had tried to put a lot of what happened--the injustices--behind him. That was John Lewis. It is a miracle that he didn't die when angry Klansmen and their sympathizers torched the bus that carried a young John Lewis and other Freedom Riders near Anniston, AL, in 1961. It is amazing that he survived the Edmund Pettus Bridge, on Bloody Sunday in 1965, when the Alabama State troopers nearly beat him to death. Clearly, there was a purpose in his life that had to be served. I had the honor to serve with Congressman Lewis in the House for 10 years, and I called him my friend for nearly 40 years. For a man who had witnessed the depths of hatred and despair, John Lewis was one of the most hopeful people I had ever met. He once said the only time he came close to giving up was after the murder of Robert Kennedy in 1968. Martin Luther King had been assassinated 2 months earlier. So when Bobby Kennedy died, it seemed for a few weeks that any hope for justice and equality had died too. That is what John Lewis said. Yet he didn't allow despair to overcome him. He didn't spend his life hoping for better; he spent his life making the world better. He still had hope, and he had a profound belief in the future of this Nation. I was reminded this weekend of a story that captured so well John Lewis's humility and his enormous redemptive influence on America. It was January 20, 2009--a day I will never forget. Barack Obama was sworn in to be the first African-American President of the United States. As he was leaving the podium, John Lewis stepped forward to the new President and asked him to sign his inauguration program. The President hesitated, pulled out a pen, and wrote the following inscription: ``Because of you, John. Barack Obama.' John Lewis was an icon of the American civil rights movement. If he had confined his life's work to only ending racial injustice, he would have still been in the pantheon of heroes, but his vision and faith were bigger than justice for just one group. His commitment was to genuine democracy and equality. He said so many times: ``You cannot build a wall when it comes to equality; it must be equality for all and not for some.'' He told us: ``We must be headlights, not taillights.'' For John, being a headlight meant going out ahead and shining a light so that we could see the people living in the cold shadows of discrimination and bring them into the warmth of America's promise. He challenged us always to expand our concepts of justice and equality--as he said, ``to respect the dignity and worth of every human being, Black or White, Latino or Asian, immigrant to Native American, gay, straight, Muslims, Christians, Jews.'' John spoke for all of them. How many times did he tell us: ``We are one people, one family; we live in one house''? One of the great injustices for our times was overly harsh drug laws. It was a measure passed in the 1980s and 1990s that disproportionately harmed people and communities of color. Many of us worked for years to replace those biased laws. John Lewis was deeply committed to our cause. About 2 years ago, a proposal was offered that would have shifted the focus of our efforts and really walked away from a commitment to criminal sentencing reform. It was John Lewis who stepped up. His steadfast insistence made a difference, and it resulted in having the FIRST STEP Act being signed into law. Rosa Parks was one of John Lewis's heroes. When she died in October 2005, her body lay in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. Tens of thousands of people filed past to pay their respects to this great heroine of justice who had the courage to refuse to sit in the segregated portion of that bus. They came all night and all the next morning. Late at night, John Lewis walked quietly into the Rotunda. He waited in line with every other mourner. Accompanying him were a handful of blind men and women who were using white canes. That was John Lewis, showing the way by quiet and powerful example. He showed us that the promise of America is the promise of dignity for everyone. In John's eyes, none of us is free until all of us are free. Born in rural Troy, AL, the son and grandson of sharecroppers, he saw the injustice of Jim Crow even when he was a young boy. When he was 15, he discovered a man who became an iconic leader and his personal mentor. At that age, John bought a comic book entitled ``Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Story.'' It was 14 pages long, and it cost him a dime, but it touched his heart and inspired his life. That thin dime had yielded arguably the greatest return on investment of any purchase in the history of our Nation. Now we are asked, how should we honor this man? It was a little over 10 years ago that I joined the Faith & Politics pilgrimage and made a trip to Alabama. It was a weekend that John had led for so many years wherein we visited the shrines of the American civil rights movements. We saw the monument and tribute to Rosa Parks, and we went to the church where those little girls were killed in Birmingham. Unfortunately, my schedule was such that I had to leave before we actually visited Selma, which was to occur at 12 noon on Sunday. I went to John and said: I am sorry I can't be there, as I have always wanted to be on that Selma bridge and to hear your story in your own words. He said: You have got to come. We will make a special trip. I will meet you in the lobby of the hotel at 6:30 in the morning, and we will drive over and see it. I will take you on that tour. How could I possibly say no? I said: I will be there in the lobby. Let's go. And off we went. We talked all the way over about his memories of what led to that march in Selma. He was the one who told me personally how Federal Judge Frank Johnson had often been overlooked but that if it were not for his rulings that had allowed that march to go forward, it might never have happened. It was an inspirational visit for me to be there in the early Sunday morning hours on that misty day, standing at the end of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, right next to John Lewis. He pointed down, just at the foot of the bridge, and said: That's where I fell. That's where they hit me. There is a lot of talk about what to do next to honor John Lewis. There has been talk of renaming the Edmund Pettus Bridge in his honor. I am not opposed to that. I think that humble bridge is becoming a defining piece of American history. Yet John Lewis did not risk his life on Bloody Sunday for the right to rename a bridge; he risked his life for the right of every man and woman in America to vote and to have a voice in our democracy. John said so many times that the right to vote is precious, that it is almost sacred, and that it is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been weakened and whittled down by recent Supreme Court and other court decisions and by the actions of this Department of Justice. In December, the House of Representatives voted to restore the Voting Rights Act. John Lewis presided over the U.S. House of Representatives on the day of that important vote. That bill to restore the Voting Rights Act has been sitting on Senator McConnell's desk for more than 225 days. Words of praise for John Lewis are fine, but they are not enough. This Senate should honor the life and the sacrifice of John Lewis by voting to restore the Voting Rights Act. There are some who are trying mightily to diminish American's faith in our democracy and our elections. We can honor John Lewis by protecting the right to vote. Let's do it and do it now. Let me close with another story I learned about John Lewis this weekend. We have seen those iconic photos of the 23-year-old John Lewis as he led those marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in 1965--a young man, dressed in a tan trench coat, with a backpack. John Lewis had been arrested before for nonviolent protests. He just had a hunch that he was going to be arrested again that day and jailed, so in his backpack he had his toothbrush, toothpaste, an apple, an orange, and two books. One book was ``The Seven Storey Mountain'' by the Catholic monk and mystic Thomas Merton. That book spoke about the power of hope to transform abstract principles into realities that, one day, if necessary, we would be willing to sacrifice and even die for. On that day, the other book in John Lewis's backpack was entitled ``The American Political Tradition.'' It opened with a quote from the writer John Dos Passos. Here is what it read: ``In times of change and danger when there is quicksand of fear under men's reasoning, a sense of continuity with generations gone before can stretch like a lifeline across the scary present.'' John Lewis was the bridge that connected the civil rights generation with what we see today in the streets of America--again, a common effort to make sure we fulfill the promise of equality for everyone. John Lewis was heartened by the Black Lives Matter movement. His last public appearance was here in Washington in the area they have reserved for speaking their minds about this important issue. In this time of change and loss, may we honor the legacy of John Lewis and find within us the hope and courage to continue his work, as he reminded us that the cause of justice and equality is the cause of a lifetime. Protests Madam President, let me start by saying that there is no place for violence or vandalism in the exercise of any constitutional right. The use of force against peaceful protesters or members of law enforcement in the reasonable exercise of their responsibilities is unacceptable. In recent days, President Trump has indicated that he wants to send Federal agents into cities, including Chicago, to conduct policing activities that are traditionally handled by local law enforcement. The Chicago Tribune has reported that the Department of Homeland Security is developing a plan to send an additional 150 agents to Chicago as soon as this weekend, although details have not been made public as to what they are going to do. I join Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Chicago Mayor Lightfoot in strongly urging the Trump administration to refrain from taking any action that resembles what has occurred in Portland, OR. Any involvement by Federal law enforcement in community policing activity must be conducted in coordination with and with the approval of local law enforcement officials. In this time of heightened tension, we cannot have Federal law enforcement operating at cross-purposes with local leaders. In recent days, the Trump administration has deployed Federal law enforcement agents in the streets of Portland, OR. They have arrived without any visible identifying information. These Federal agents have reportedly used excessive force against peaceful protestors and detained residents in unmarked vehicles. Such conduct is unacceptable anywhere in the United States and certainly unacceptable in the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois. I am joining Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon this week in introducing legislation to prevent President Trump from taking this action in Chicago or any other American city. The bill we jointly are offering would require Federal officers to wear identifying insignia. There is no place in America for secret police. The bill also would limit Federal forces to the immediate vicinity of Federal property unless there has been a written request by local leadership or the Insurrection Act has been invoked. There is no question that the Federal Protective Service and other Federal law enforcement does have the responsibility for Federal facilities, but what we have seen in Portland has gone far beyond that location and into the community at large. Our bill would also prohibit arrests or apprehensions in unmarked vehicles and render any arrests made in violation of this act unlawful. How in the world can we explain that in the year 2020, the Trump administration would follow the example of Vladimir Putin in his invasion of Ukraine with these so-called green monsters, who would arrive without any insignia or any indication of whom they were fighting for? These little green men turned out to be agents of the Russian Government. We don't need anything like that--even close to it--in the United States. Finally, the bill would require notice to the public in the event of crowd control-related deployments that includes information about the agencies involved, the number of personnel, and information related to requests and other details. That is what you come to expect in a democracy. In February 2017, Senator Tammy Duckworth and I sent President Trump a letter suggesting how he could help, how the Federal Government could come forward to give us assistance in fighting crime and gun violence in the city of Chicago. The letter noted that public safety is primarily a local responsibility, but the Federal Government can be a partner in public safety efforts alongside local officials, law enforcement, and community stakeholders. We recommended the administration take steps to assist local violence-prevention efforts, including enhancing Department of Justice programs that improve community policing; directing the Department of Justice to promote mentoring and job-training programs for youth and the formerly incarcerated; improving mentoring and violence-prevention initiatives and boosting funding for recidivism-reduction programs; directing the Department of Justice to abide by its commitment to help implement policing reforms recommended by the Department's Civil Rights Division; closing the gaps in the FBI gun background check system and in Federal firearm laws that enable straw purchasers and gun traffickers to flood Chicago's streets with illicit guns; prioritizing career and youth training programs to address lack of economic opportunity; and redirecting resources that are devoted to the construction of his border wall to making our cities and communities across the United States safer. That is the way the Trump administration can show that it really cares about law enforcement in the city of Chicago and across this Nation and can help us move forward in reducing the incidence of violence. I join Mayor Lightfoot in making it clear to President Trump that we have no need and will not tolerate tyranny by the Federal Government on the streets of Chicago. If the President truly wants to cooperate with law enforcement efforts, we can find ways to find common ground and make it a safer city together, but sending in secret police with unmarked vehicles to snatch people off the streets is not only unacceptable, it is un- American Coronavirus Madam President, I listened carefully to Senator McConnell this morning as he came to the floor and talked about the situation we currently face. Make no mistake--we are still in the midst of this pandemic. COVID-19 is taking its toll on many parts of America. In the last week, more than 40 different States that decided to open their economies early have found that it was not a wise decision; that, in fact, many more people are becoming infected and dying. Over 140,000 have died in the United States so far, and over 3 million have been infected. I am afraid that there will be more to follow. I wish that were not the case. The question is, What can we do? First, what can we do when it comes to COVID-19? I listened the other day when Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health was interviewed, and he and Dr. Collins have both been asked, why does it take so long to get results when people go in for testing for COVID-19? Well, there is no explanation, and there is no good reason, and, sadly, that delay is causing a problem. People are uncertain of their status as to whether they are positive or otherwise for days on end, waiting for the results of the test. It is time for us to develop a test that is timely in its results and widely available to Americans. We cannot realistically open the economy or even conceivably get our schools back to normal until we have that testing. Why, then, does the White House resist putting money in the next COVID-19 bill for the additional testing that is fundamental to the question of dealing with the future of this COVID-19 virus? In addition, I am joining with a number of my colleagues--Kirsten Gillibrand, Michael Bennet, Chris Coons, and others--in an effort to try to expand the medical and healthcare personnel necessary to make sure that we finally bring this virus to bay. We are going to try to include this in the COVID-19 legislation. I have legislation that Senator Rubio--a Republican from Florida--and I have cosponsored that would enhance the training of National Health Service doctors, nurses, and dentists and medical professionals, mental health counselors and the like. I think our bill is a step forward because it provides scholarship assistance to those who will pledge years of service to the National Health Service Corps once they have graduated and are licensed. We need that. Chris Coons is talking about expanding the opportunity for Americans to step forward and serve their Nation doing contact tracing and other things that are essential. It would create thousands and thousands of jobs across the United States at a time when we desperately need them for a cause that we must conquer ultimately. These are good things to include in this legislation, but there are more immediate things on the economic side. Do you realize that this coming Saturday will be the last day we will be sending out unemployment checks with the Federal supplement that we voted on on March 26 in the CARES Act? Yes, this week--before next Sunday--the last check will be mailed because, you see, our effort under the CARES Act expires on July 31. The last payment will be made on Saturday, and then what? And then what? For the millions of Americans who depend on this Federal supplement to feed their families, pay their rent, pay their mortgage, pay the utilities, pay their health insurance premiums--what are they going to do next? I listened to Senator McConnell say: Well, we are going to have to take a look at what that is going to be in the future. Well, let's do it, Senator, but let's do it quickly. Why have we waited? It has been since March 26 that we have taken up any legislation on the subject, and we knew this day would come. Why did we wait until the last minute? Eight weeks ago, the House of Representatives did their measure, the Heroes Act--one which I think is sound and principled and I would have supported. Senator McConnell has come to the floor regularly to say it is so bad, it is inadequate, it is wrong. Yet we still don't have a proposal from the Republicans, who are the majority in the Senate, about what they would do to move forward from this point in the next COVID-19 bill. One of the areas that I want to address specifically is the fact that almost 3 months ago--maybe longer--Senator McConnell came to the floor and said: There is a redline here. If the COVID-19 bill that we are considering in the future does not include a provision giving immunity--legal immunity--to businesses across the United States, it has no chance. We are not going to consider it. Well, many of us have a lot of questions about this legal immunity that Senator McConnell is asking for. What is it? How far does it go? Well, it turns out there was a memo describing it that was leaked to K Street. That is where the lobbyists' offices are for special interest groups in Washington. That memo found its way into a newspaper, and we have read it, and there are still many unanswered questions. We have been waiting for months for the language--this redline immunity language that Senator McConnell insists on. He has described the number of lawsuits and litigation that have been filed under COVID- 19 as being a tsunami, overwhelming in number. Completely false. The number of claims that have been filed is few across the United States, with more than 3 million people who have so far been infected. Should we have a standard of conduct? Of course we should. The Senate Judiciary Committee, almost 3 weeks ago, had a hearing where a Texas businessman came forward and said: I want to do the right thing, but what standard should I be following here? Something local? Something State? Something Federal? Give me the standard, and I will do my very best to live up to it. Well, that sounded like a good-faith effort by a businessperson who wants customers and employees to be safe when they come into his establishment. He has every right to ask for that standard, and we have every responsibility to provide it based not on the politics of the moment but on public health, on medical certainty, and on science. That is what the standard should be drawn to, and the notion that any standard published by anyone--whether by a town, a city, a township, a county, a State, whatever it might be--is sufficient to absolve any business from any liability goes way too far. Unfortunately, it is going to be misused, I am afraid, by those who do not--as this businessman clearly was not going to do--want to live up to their responsibility. What that Texas businessman said in the Senate Judiciary Committee gave me a good belief and strong faith that the business community wants to do the right thing but just wants guidance. It would be amazing if the CDC and OSHA stepped forward and provided clear, enforceable standards so that businesses and others across the United States knew exactly what to do in terms of social distancing and masks and the like. We need that, but first we need the language from Senator McConnell. This so-called redline has been promised now for months. Let's see the details. Let's move forward from there. The notion of immunity for businesses by any standard that will not protect employees and customers is unacceptable. It would not make America safe; it would make the situation even worse. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, a few steps from the Senate Chamber, at my whip's office, on the credenza behind my desk, is a framed government document. It is my mother's naturalization certificate. She was an immigrant to this country. She was brought here at the age of 2 from Lithuania. She lived long enough to see me being sworn in to the U.S. Senate. I am proud of the fact that I stand here today as the son of an immigrant. That is my story. It is my family's story. It is America's story. I believe immigration has made America the Nation that it is today. Immigrants are an integral part of our economy, our culture, and our soul. In the midst of this deadly coronavirus pandemic, we should never forget that 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers--that is 3.1 million people out of 18.7 million--is an immigrant. They risk their lives every day in the midst of this pandemic for the good of this Nation. Immigrants are playing this critical role in the battle against COVID-19. Yet our broken immigration laws do not allow many of them to fulfill their dreams of finally becoming Americans. Thousands of immigrant workers, including many health workers, are suffering because of a serious problem in our immigration system--the green card backlog. What is a green card? A green card is our immigration ticket. If you are here as a temporary worker, a green card or legal permanent resident status allows you to remain in the United States without having fear of deportation and to be on a path toward permanent citizenship in the United States. Green cards are critical in the lives of so many who are here on temporary and work visas. The backlog in this system puts families at risk of losing their immigration status, as they wait year after weary year to finally make it through this green card backlog, and it stops their ability, many times, to participate in the fight against COVID-19 and to work toward building our economy. Under the current law, there are not nearly enough immigrant visas-- also known as green cards--available each year. The current numbers for 140,000 EB immigrant visas were established in 1990--30 years ago. The American economy has doubled, but the number of green cards has remained the same. As a result, immigrants are stuck in a crippling backlog year after year after year. Close to 5 million future Americans are in line, waiting for these green cards. Many are working in the United States on temporary visas while many are waiting overseas and are separated from their families. Only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards are available each year. The backlogs are a real hardship on these families who are caught in this immigration limbo. For example, the children in many of these families age out and face deportation. How does this happen? Well, those applying for the green cards also list their spouses and children. If they have to wait a long period of time and the children reach the age of 21, they are no longer protected by the parent's efforts to obtain the green cards, and they can be deported at any time. For many children who age out and face deportation as they reach the age of 21, it is a family disaster. The solution to this green card backlog is eminently clear to anyone who looks at it: Increase the number of green cards. The number that might have made sense 30 years ago makes no sense today. The senior Senator from Utah, Senator Lee, with whom I have worked on previous legislation, has introduced S. 386, known as the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, to address this issue. I have a basic concern with this bill, and I have told Senator Lee. S. 386 adds no additional green cards, and without additional green cards, S. 386 will not reduce the backlog or the wait. Here is what the Congressional Research Service says about Senator Lee's legislation. To all of those following this debate, don't take my word for it; read the Congressional Research Service's study that was released on March 26, 2020, entitled the ``Employment-Based Immigration Backlog.'' What does it write about Senator Lee's bill? It writes: S. 386 would not reduce future backlogs compared to current law. . . . The total backlog for all three categories [of employment visas] would increase from an estimated 915,497 individuals currently to an estimated 2,195,795 individuals by FY2030. These outcomes would occur whether or not S. 386 is enacted [and here are the operative words] because the bill maintains the current limit on the number of green cards issued. That is the bottom line. If you don't change the number of green cards and 5 million people are in the queue, waiting for 140,000 employment green cards and 226,000 family green cards, you understand the math. Despite my concerns that S. 386 would not work as intended, I agreed to sit down with Senator Lee and work in good faith to resolve our differences. Last December, we reached an agreement on an amendment to his bill that addressed many of these concerns. I want to be clear. This amendment was far from perfect and not what I would have written. The biggest problem is that it still does not increase the number of green cards. As a result, it would not eliminate the backlog. But it has made a substantial improvement to his original bill. Here is how it reads: It protects immigrants and their families who are stuck in the backlog. Immigrant workers and their immediate family members would be allowed to ``early file'' [a provision that Senator Lee suggested and I accepted] for their green cards. They would not receive their green cards early, but they would be able to switch jobs and travel without losing immigration status. I thought that was fair. Early filing adds a critical protection that was not in the original Lee S. 386. It prevents the children of immigrant workers from aging out of green card eligibility so that they will not face deportation while they are waiting for green cards. Our agreement also included a green card set-aside for immigrant workers who were stuck in the backlog overseas. The amendment would reserve 4,600 green cards on an annual basis for immigrant workers who would not be eligible for early filing because they would be outside the United States. This number is based on the approximate number of people who apply for employment green cards from overseas each year. Finally, our agreement would crack down on the abuse of H-1B temporary work visas. I thought this was going to be an easy provision. It has turned out to be the real problem in this bill, and let me tell you why. The amendment prohibits companies from hiring additional H-1B workers if the companies' workforces have more than 50 employees and if more than 50 percent are temporary workers. This 50-50 rule is from the bipartisan H-1B reform bill that I offered with Senator Grassley, Republican of Iowa. This provision was included in the comprehensive immigration reform bill, which I voted for and which passed in the Senate. Senator Lee has said, ``This is a commonsense reform to root out abuse.'' When most people think of the H-1B visa, they think of well-known companies--Microsoft, Google--that hire top-notch professionals at top dollar when no American is available. That is how the program was supposed to work, but the reality is different. In fact, the top recipients of H-1B visas are outsourcing companies that use loopholes in the law to exploit immigrant workers and even offshore American jobs. In the most recent year for which data is available, 8 of the top 10 recipients of new H-1B visas were outsourcing companies. The vice president of one of them, Tata--one of the leading firms--candidly acknowledged that it uses H-1Bs to exploit immigrant workers. He said: Our wage per employee is 20-25 percent lesser than the U.S. wage for a similar employee. . . . The issue is that of getting workers in the U.S. on wages far lower than local wage. It is important to understand that the vast majority of immigrant workers in the backlog in the United States is on an H-1B temporary work visa. So if we want to stop the future exploitation of immigrant workers and the displacement of American workers, we have to stop the abuse of H-1B visas. Back in December, I asked my Democratic colleagues to support this bipartisan agreement that Senator Lee and I reached. They all agreed. I told Senator Lee that I wanted to move immediately to solve this problem. There were so many people whose lives were tied up in this debate. However, Senator Lee asked me for more time to discuss it with his colleagues. I agreed. In March, 3 months later, Senator Lee told me he wanted to make significant changes in the agreement, and he said that without these changes he could no longer support it. Some of the changes were made at the request of the Trump administration, which I will note is not exactly the most reliable or objective source on advice on immigration. Let me briefly explain the changes Senator Lee demanded. The original version of Senator Lee's bill provides that no individual who had already been approved for a green card would receive the green card at a later time than they otherwise would have. This provision, known as a hold harmless clause, is a critical protection that assures immigrants who have been waiting years, patiently, in line that nothing we do on the floor will change the number of years they have to wait--perhaps improve them but not make them worse. Now, at the request of the Trump administration, Senator Lee wants to delete this hold harmless provision which was in his original bill. That would jeopardize many people who are innocently waiting patiently for their opportunity. Second, Senator Lee wants to delay for 3 years the effective date of the 50-50 rule to crack down on outsourcing companies. Why on Earth would we give companies that are outsourcing American jobs and exploiting immigrant workers a free pass for 3 more years? Third, at the request of the Trump administration, Senator Lee wanted to make two changes that would allow early filing for people who are stuck in the green card backlog. He would delay early filing for 1 year--1 more year for children to age out; 1 more year for them to wait. Why? That means that any children who age out in the meantime lose their chance for a green card and will be subject to deportation. He would also require that immigrant workers could only ``early file'' after their green card petition had been approved for 2 years--a 2-year delay on top of a 3-year delay. Any children who had aged out during this new 2-year waiting period would not be protected and would also be subject to deportation. Why is Senator Lee--or at least those in the Trump administration advising him--so afraid that these children might have a future in America? When we met in March, I told Senator Lee these changes were not acceptable. It has now been 7 months since Senator Lee and I reached our original agreement and more than 4 months since we met in March. Immigrants who are stuck in the backlog and their children have waited long enough. I am now going to ask unanimous consent on my agreement with Senator Lee from December 2019--the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, as amended by the Lee substitute amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1044, Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Lee amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.