Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to say farewell to a good man who taught me a great deal about what it means to be a public servant. Art Berman was a respected attorney, a community leader and the longest serving Democratic State legislator in my State. He represented the North Side of Chicago in the Illinois General Assembly for 31 years, until his retirement in 2000. He was known as ``the education senator'' for his decades-long commitment to see that every child in Illinois could attend a good school and make the most of his or her God-given abilities. He died earlier this month, June 6, at his home in Chicago. He was 85. I first came to know Art Berman in Springfield, our State capitol, when he was serving in the Illinois House of Representatives and I was a young committee staffer, just starting out. He was thoughtful, fair, and kind. I never heard him say a bad word about anyone. He regarded public service as a high honor and a joy. He seemed to radiate happiness. He was a patient man, but you would be wrong to mistake his patience for passivity. He was tenacious in the pursuit of justice and the common good. He entered politics as a Chicago precinct captain when he was just 20 years old. He was elected to the Illinois House in 1969, and in 1977, he moved to the State Senate, where he served until he stepped down in 2000. All told, he won 22 elections for public office and never lost once. He was a skilled legislator and a persuasive speaker who chose to use those gifts to help, more than anyone, the public school children of Chicago and Illinois. In both the Illinois House and Senate, he rose to chair the education committees. He didn't champion trivial matters. Over three decades in Springfield, he sought to correct one of the toughest, most intractable problems in all of public education: unequal funding of public schools. The problem was this: Illinois, like all States, relies heavily on local property taxes to fund public schools. Districts with higher property values bring in more tax revenues, which enables them to provide higher funding for public schools. As a result, the wealthiest districts in many States spend twice as or much or more to educate each pupil than do the poorest districts. Art Berman worked to end this inequity. Our State's landmark 2017 school funding reform bill, the Invest in Kids Act, owes much to his long years of advocacy. When State funding for special education was imperiled, Art Berman rallied support to save it. He helped make Chicago public schools more effective and more democratic through the creation of local school councils. In 1990, he sponsored a bill that made Illinois the first State in the Nation to mandate teaching about the Holocaust as part of World War II history. Every member of the Illinois General Assembly is allowed to nominate two worthy students each year to receive college tuition scholarships. After Art's passing, his children were touched to hear from so many now accomplished men and women who told them, ``I could never have gone to college without your father's support.'' At the core of his commitment to public school students was a deep appreciation for the difference that Chicago public schools had made in his own life. He was the eldest of three boys born to a mother who was raised on the West Side of Chicago and a father who immigrated to Chicago, alone, at the age of 17 from a land that was then known as Palestine. Today, it is Israel. His father found work with a Chicago bookbinding company. Some years later, when the owner retired, Art's father and a partner bought the company. Art and his two brothers all attended Chicago public schools. He graduated from Senn High School and went on to earn degrees from the University of Illinois and Northwestern University School of Law. Like a true Chicagoan, Art Berman loved the ``Da Bears.'' He also loved playing tennis. Up until about 2 years ago, if you asked how his tennis game was, he would smile and say proudly, ``Still playing singles,'' and it was the truth. More than anything, Art Berman loved his family. Loretta and I send our condolences to Barbara, Art's beloved wife; to his two children, Adman Berman and Marcy Berman Padorr and their spouses; and to Art's five grandchildren. May they find comfort in this sad time, and may his memory always be a blessing. The Heroes Act Madam President, I listened to the statements made this morning by the Republican and Democratic Senate leaders about the job ahead. I think it goes without saying that we are still in the midst of a health crisis and an economic crisis in this country. We did respond. We responded on March 26 in the Senate with the CARES Act. It was a bipartisan measure, a measure that engaged the leaders of the House and the Senate, Democrats, Republicans, Mr. Mnuchin, and the White House. In 8 days, we crafted a measure that may be one of the costliest individual measures ever passed by the Senate--some $3 trillion. It was an enormous investment in America, but it was desperately needed. It was, of course, crafted in a way to provide help for research and medical care, but also to invest in the people of America. We understood then, and I hope we still do, that small businesses struggling to reopen and struggling to survive need a helping hand, and we provided it with the Paycheck Protection Program. Hundreds of billions of dollars were loaned to these businesses, which can be forgiven if, in fact, they invest in their employees and in coming back to life after the end of this crisis. An equally important, if not more important, investment was unemployment benefits. There are now some 30 million unemployed Americans, one of the highest numbers in modern history. We know that unemployment brings with it hardship, sacrifice, and challenge. That is why we included in the original bill, the CARES Act, a Federal supplement to unemployment benefits of $600 a week. Some came to the floor and argued that it was too much money, that we would be giving people so much money that they would never want to return to work. I disagreed with that conclusion. I believe most people in America are proud and determined to get back on their feet and don't want to find themselves dependent on others. They want to be independent. I believe that, ultimately, they will be. For the time being, we need to stand with these families to make sure they can pay their mortgages and keep their homes and not lose their lifetime investment, to make certain that they can pay the basics in life, food and utility bills, the needs for clothing and education for their children. On July 31, in just a few days, that unemployment program will expire. Speaker Nancy Pelosi passed a bill 4 weeks ago called the Heroes Act--a $3 trillion bill--and it has languished here in the Senate. When Senator McConnell was asked if he would call up this bill, he said that he didn't feel there was any urgent need to do so. I hope that Senator McConnell now feels a sense of urgency. He came to the floor this morning and characterized the House effort of a month ago, the Heroes Act, as unserious, a political wish list, and that people were laughing at how unrealistic it was. Many people may have laughed at our original effort at $3 trillion, but it was desperately needed, as is a second effort as soon as possible. Senator McConnell said this morning that when we return in 2 weeks, his priorities will be to focus on kids, jobs, and healthcare. I couldn't agree with him more. Many of the aspects of the Heroes Act that passed the House addressed those very subjects. If you want to take care of the kids of America, take care of their parents who are unemployed and make certain that they have unemployment assistance. Make certain their COBRA benefits are paid for by the government so they can maintain their health insurance at this time of health crisis. If you want to make sure that the kids of America have a fighting chance and that we create jobs, provide money to State and local governments. I am reminded this morning of how many people we call healthcare heroes are actually employees of State and local governments who are risking their lives to fight this pandemic every single day. When the bill that passed the House of Representatives dedicated money for that purpose, it was money to invest in kids, in jobs, and in healthcare-- the three priorities announced by Senator McConnell. His notion that we owe nothing to these State and local units of government is to ignore the obvious. Their alternative will be to lay off teachers, nurses, healthcare professionals--people who are desperately needed for us to resume the normal activities of this American economy. I also hope that Senator McConnell will be open to the suggestion of providing additional funds to our hospitals across America. I know what is going on in Illinois, and I have read what is going on in his State of Kentucky. Hospitals, which are the major employers in many small communities, are laying off dozens--if not hundreds--of employees because of the state of the economy and because of the healthcare challenge. Hospitals in downstate Illinois constantly have ads on the radio and TV, saying it is safe to go back to your hospital for elective surgery and outpatient care, and because people are still reluctant to do so in my part of the world, they are withholding the funds that could be paid to those hospitals for the care that people need. We have to see that change. We have to restore confidence not only in our economy but, first, in the state of healthcare in America. We need to move on this. Senator McConnell has said the House of Representatives doesn't meet as frequently as the U.S. Senate, and that may have been true over the last several months. Let me remind him that we are in a period of time when we are all discouraged from travel that is unnecessary and when we are all told to be careful where we are going, when we are going, and not to gather in groups that might be a danger with the pandemic that we face. The House of Representatives has produced dramatically more legislation than the U.S. Senate over the last year and few months in so many different areas, which we will highlight during the remainder of this week. The House of Representatives has sent legislation to the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, which he has ignored. For you to come to the floor and then criticize the House for not being in session enough, what is the point, Senator McConnell? They have passed legislation that you have put in the legislative graveyard in the U.S. Senate. You will not even take it up to debate it. We are on this inexorable path to fill every judicial vacancy with people who are thinly qualified, if qualified at all, for lifetime appointments so long as they meet the Republicans' political ideology test. That is what we spend our days and weeks doing here in the U.S. Senate instead of addressing issues of substance like this pandemic and the economic crisis our Nation faces. I want to address the issue of liability, too, because Senator McConnell brought it up again this morning. He basically said that he wants to protect those who are engaged in dealing with the public from liability for their actions. He said that, if they live up to what he called the best available guidelines, they should be spared any liability for their actions. Let me just tell you that I don't know what the best available guidelines might be, but the best available guidelines should be a pronouncement by our healthcare experts as to what makes for a safe workplace and what makes for a safe retail establishment. If the owner is living up to those standards, yes, I agree with him that it should be a valid defense for anyone who suggests wrongdoing. Yet, at this moment, the Republicans cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that we should give immunity to businesses if they live up to some guidelines and not tell us where those guidelines originate and whether they are based on science and public health standards. If they are, they can be taken seriously. If they are not, then this is an empty promise--a promise at the expense of customers and employees who still show up for work. We have a lot of work to do. We will finish up this week and be gone for 2 weeks. Then, in the 3 weeks or 4 weeks when we return before the August recess, we will have a responsibility to not only deal with the economic crisis facing America but to take this healthcare crisis seriously. The other day, Dr. Fauci said we were not in a second peak in terms of infection. He believed we were still reaching the first peak, which means there are many challenges ahead. It is time for us all to get serious. It is time for the President to slap on a mask and to stop with this colossal ego of his that will not let him be seen with a mask. If he would do this today--put on a mask-- it would be a message to his loyalists that defying this basic protection of the people around you is simply not smart but arrogant in its approach. We need to have some humility here. This virus is on the attack and doesn't care what political party you belong to. So I encourage the President to put on a mask once and for all. Don't be the last American to ignore the obvious I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. No one should have to risk their life to cast a vote. That is why it is so important to have safe opportunities to allow Americans to participate in a democracy and to fulfill their right in November. Thankfully, in Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker recently signed legislation expanding safe voting opportunities for all Illinois voters. Under the new law, about 5 million voters with active registrations will automatically receive an application to vote by mail for the 2020 election. Voting by mail and voting safely at home is a necessary option in the midst of a global pandemic that has already killed more than 126,000 Americans and a total of more than half a million around the world. Despite the deceptive and sometimes deceitful narrative being pushed by some, voting by mail is a secure option. As the Brennan Center for Justice explained in a recent analysis, ``Since [the year] 2000 more than 250 million votes have been cast through mailed-out ballots, in all 50 States, according to the Vote at Home Institute. . . . Despite this dramatic increase in mail voting over time, fraud rates remain infinitesimally small.'' However, some voters still prefer to vote in person. That is why it is important that States offer that option, with safety procedures to protect them. Under the new law in our State, Illinoisans can vote in person if they wish. They can vote early as well. To protect voters and poll workers, the law requires all election authorities to comply with guidance from the Illinois Department of Public Health on early voting. Election authorities in Illinois also may establish curbside voting options. Election day will be designated a State holiday in 2020 to ensure more safe polling places will be available. Why is it so hard for those who are legally entitled to vote in America--what does it say about a democracy when the key to that democracy of voting by those legally entitled is such a burden and hardship? These upgrades I have talked about are expensive. That is why the Federal Government needs to help. The CARES Act took a first step. I thank Senator Klobuchar for her role in including provisions that provided $400 million to help States prepare for the 2020 election cycle. Illinois received about $14 million. Another $3.6 billion is needed in the next package to help all States increase the ability to vote by mail, expand early voting and online registration, and increase the safety of voting in person. The President of the United States votes by mail. What does that tell us? Is he participating in a questionable political procedure? I don't think so. The House-passed Heroes Act, a few weeks ago, included that money, and I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure those critical funds are included in any COVID-19 relief package that we may consider. I am also proud to sponsor Senator Klobuchar's Natural Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act, which would also provide necessary funding and safeguards to protect voters. I was disappointed to see my Republican friends block this important legislation on the floor this afternoon. In the middle of this global health crisis, Americans need to know what the Federal Government is doing, and they need to know that we are doing everything we can to ensure that voters will be able to have their voices heard at the ballot box in November. If you start with the premise that both political parties don't want anyone who is unentitled or cannot legally cast a vote to do so, you have to ask the basic question, Why does one major political party look for ways to delay, limit, and put hardships on voters and the other believes that an expanded electorate reflects America? It should be encouraged. Federal funding and guidance is clearly needed. Look at the chaos we have seen in the last few weeks. Is this America when, in Georgia, voters waited more than 6 hours to cast a ballot due to long lines and voting machine failures? Is this America in the State of Wisconsin when thousands of voters didn't receive their requested absentee ballots, leading voters to decide between casting a ballot and protecting their health? Last month, a State official said that 71 people--71--people were exposed and infected by COVID-19 after voting in person and working at the polls in Wisconsin during the primary election. In Kentucky, we saw images of voters banging on the windows of Louisville's only polling location when the doors were locked after traffic at the site prevented a significant number from being able to get in line in time. These situations are appalling, unacceptable, and downright embarrassing in a democracy. It is time for us to come together and protect the fundamental right to vote, as well as the health and safety of all eligible Americans who seek to exercise it I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 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, we are now several months into a global pandemic that has caused terrible human and economic suffering. Here in the United States alone, more than 2.3 million Americans have been infected, and more than 120,000 have died. That is more Americans killed in the Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars combined and more than those killed in one of our most deadly wars, World War I. I recently spoke with Melinda Gates about the foundation she and her husband Bill established and its efforts regarding the coronavirus pandemic. Bill warned years ago to prepare for just this kind of pandemic, including directly with Donald Trump just before taking office. Not surprisingly, their foundation has provided millions to global efforts to find a vaccine and treatment for the coronavirus. One such event was an EU-hosted virtual conference in May with many of our key allies that raised more than $8 billion to be spent over 2 years to further promising vaccine and treatment efforts. The EU and Norway each gave $1 billion; the French, Germans, and Brits combined also gave nearly $1 billion; the Canadians pledged $850 million; the Swiss $400 million, and the Dutch, $200 million. Japan and others also made sizeable pledges. The Gates Foundation gave $125 million, with Melinda wisely telling the gathering, ``This virus doesn't care what nationality you are . . . As long as the virus is somewhere, it's everywhere.'' And what was the contribution of the United States? Nothing. The U.S. Government under President Trump didn't participate in this shared effort that could help save American lives. But that is not all. On this 40th anniversary of the World Health Organization's historic achievement to eradicate smallpox, President Trump also withdrew the United States and suspended U.S. funding from this key global health organization. That is right, amid a deadly, worldwide pandemic with devastating impacts on the American people, President Trump decided this was the time to walk away from the body heading a global response. I cannot think of more counterproductive, ill-informed, and petty decision when it comes to addressing this pandemic. Twice in the last 2 months, I came to the floor to ask consent on a simple and timely resolution sponsored by nearly half of this Chamber's Members. It urged increased American participation in these global coronavirus vaccine and treatment efforts. After all, we don't know where a vaccine or effective treatment may ultimately be discovered. With so much medical and scientific knowledge, it may be here in the United States. I hope so. But why not team up with our allies on joint programs that maximize and speed up the chances of success? Do we really want the American people left out of such efforts? For example, today there are more than 100 coronavirus vaccine candidates in development worldwide. The United States launched Operation Warp Speed to focus on 14 of them, including promising ones like those from Oxford-AstraZeneca and Modern. We are proud to have some of the world's best researchers and experts--from the NIH and our leading universities to private industry--but it is quite plausible the safest and most effective vaccine will be developed in Germany, China, or elsewhere. But when the United States pursues a go-it-alone approach while the rest of the world is working together, where will that leave us? Look no further than the worldwide demand and competition we faced accessing PPE. The supply chain for vaccine products like glass vials, stoppers, and syringes will demand global cooperation. Just ask NIH's Drs. Fauci and Collins, who said, ``The ability to manufacture hundreds of millions to billions of doses of vaccine requires the vaccine-manufacturing capacity of the entire world. `` But ultimately it is simple math. Most of the vaccine candidates currently in human trials have not originated in the United States, joining global efforts makes sense and is the point of my resolution. Sadly, the majority objected both times. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that this week, the resolution has finally passed the full Senate, and I want to thank Senators Lee and Risch for working with me on a path forward. This final resolution now states the obvious: that the United States should work with key partners around the world to find an effective and timely coronavirus vaccine and treatment. On this historic 40th anniversary of the global cooperative effort that eradicated smallpox, I can think of no more timely message from the Senate. I only wish we had said so sooner.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week, the House of Representatives will vote on the override of President Trump's veto of my resolution overturning Education Secretary Betsy DeVos's borrower defense rule. Congress passed the resolution on a bipartisan basis in both Chambers. Ten Republicans joined Democrats to overturn the rule in the Senate. Unfortunately, in just the eighth veto of his Presidency, President Trump rejected the measure. Unless Congress overrides his veto--with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate--the DeVos borrower defense rule will take effect. It means that student borrowers who are defrauded by their schools will have almost no chance of getting their Federal student loans forgiven. Estimates show that only 3 percent of all student loans associated with school misconduct and fraud will be forgiven under the DeVos rule. That is because it places unreasonable new burdens on defrauded borrowers. First, the DeVos rule eliminates all group relief. It makes every individual borrower who is defrauded gather and submit their own evidence instead of being able to apply as a group when they have experienced similar misconduct. To prove their claims, borrowers must provide evidence that the school intended to deceive them, had knowledge of the deception, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. How are defrauded borrowers supposed to prove that? In addition, borrowers under the DeVos rule are required to show financial harm above and beyond the fact that they now carry huge amounts of debt as a result of their experience. They have to prove that they have been trying to find a job, weren't fired, or didn't fail to meet other employment standards. It is unfair and excessive. Who are these borrowers who are being defrauded? More than 318,000 student borrowers have applied for borrower defense relief from the Department of Education. They come from every State in the Union. Sadly, many of them are veterans. That is why more than 30 veterans organizations, including the American Legion, called on President Trump to sign our resolution to overturn this terrible rule. In his statement ``imploring'' Trump to sign, American Legion National Commander James ``Bill'' Oxford said: Student veterans are a tempting target for . . . for-profit schools to mislead with deceptive promises while offering degrees and certificates of little-to-no value. Under [the DeVos rule], it is nearly impossible for veterans to successfully use a borrower defense [to have their loans forgiven when they've been defrauded]. Unfortunately, just days after Memorial Day, President Trump ignored the pleas of veterans and vetoed the resolution. This issue isn't going away anytime soon. More students are going to be defrauded by for-profit colleges and are going to be left high and dry by the DeVos rule--unless Congress votes to override Trump's veto. The Department of Education estimates that nearly 200,000 borrowers will be subject to illegal practices by their schools next year alone. Those estimates were before the current pandemic, which creates a new opportunity for predatory for-profit schools to take advantage of students. Last week, a New York Times article entitled ``For-Profit Colleges, Long Troubled, See Surge Amid Pandemic.'' The article notes how the industry saw a similar surge during the 2008 financial crisis when Americans were losing jobs and turning to flexible, highly advertised, for-profit college programs to continue their education in an attempt to make themselves more marketable to employers. Unfortunately, these programs are too often of dubious quality, the promises they make are often false, and the cost leaves students buried in debt. For-profit college stocks are beginning to see increases as investors smell the opportunity. The CEO of for-profit American Public Education, Inc., which owns American Public University and American Military University, put it plainly when she said, ``The pandemic has created an unexpected opportunity.'' Predatory for-profit Ashford University is hiring hundreds of new recruiters to take advantage. We are seeing these for-profit schools use the same tactics they developed during the last recession. Only this time, if the DeVos rule goes into effect, these defrauded borrowers will be stuck with crippling student debt for a worthless degree for the rest of their lives. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article to which I referred to be printed in the Record following my remarks. My colleagues in the House will have the chance to hold schools accountable and not leave students and veterans holding the bag for the misconduct of their schools. I urge Republicans and Democrats to come together, stand with students and veterans, and vote to override the President's veto. How many of us have given speeches about how much we support our military and veterans? Well, tomorrow is the time to prove it by voting to override the President's veto and overturning the DeVos borrower defense rule.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, our Founders did not give us a perfect nation. Even they knew that. When Thomas Jefferson, himself a slaveowner, reflected on the existence of slavery in a nation which claimed to believe that all men are created equal, he wrote: ``I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'' Jefferson was not alone as a slaveowner. George Washington--the namesake of this great city and another great State, the father of our Nation--and his wife owned 300 slaves. Just minutes before he died, he asked his wife to bring the two copies of his last will for him to look at for one last time and to decide. He handed one of the copies of the wills to his wife and said: Burn this one, and keep the other. What he burned would have released all of his slaves at the moment of his death. The one he signed said that they would continue to be his wife's slaves for as long as she lived. He was the father of our Nation. We might not have had an independent nation without his skill and leadership; yet he was not a perfect man by any means. The true measure of a nation's greatness is not simply the words written by an earlier generation; it is the work of every generation to make those words not just ideals but facts. We see that work all around us today. For weeks, Americans have joined together in an incredible display of constitutional petition of this government, of this Nation, for change. In cities large and small and in virtually every State, they are protesting systemic racism and police violence against people of color. These protests have spread around the world. Videotapes and DNA evidence have done more to assault the foundation of justice in America than anything in our history. In the midst of a pandemic caused by a new virus, a multi-ethnic, multigenerational alliance seems to have found a collective will to confront one of humanity's oldest viruses--the virus of racism. It was a different protest 51 years ago this month that began one of the newest chapters of America's long struggle for equal rights. That protest is the reason that June is celebrated as Pride Month. It started in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in the Greenwich Village section of New York City. Today, the name ``Stonewall'' stands as a milestone on America's journey toward equal justice, alongside such revered names as ``Selma'' and ``Seneca Falls.'' In 1969, however, the Stonewall Inn was a ramshackle refuge for outcasts--a home away from home for some of the poorest, most powerless members within one of America's most marginalized communities. Its patrons included drag queens and lesbians, transgender and gender nonconforming people, homeless LGBTQ youth who lived in nearby Christopher Street Park after being abandoned by their own families. Police raids and arrests were regular events at the Stonewall Inn, as they were at most gay bars in America at that time, but something changed during that raid in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969. Something in this great universe shifted. That night, when the police became violent, the patrons of the Stonewall Inn fought back. The Stonewall uprising was a 6-day protest against police mistreatment, and while the protests were contained almost entirely within Greenwich Village, they changed the world. On the first anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, the first Gay Pride parade was held in New York and Los Angeles and in the city of Chicago. Within 2 years of that uprising, there were gay rights organizations in every major city in the United States and Canada, Australia and Western Europe. The month of June is now recognized throughout much of the world as Pride Month--a celebration of diversity, acceptance, and inclusion. Last year, on the 50th anniversary of Stonewall, the grand marshal leading Chicago's Pride Parade was our city's first openly gay mayor, Lori Lightfoot--an incredible leader. This year, most Pride parades and festivals in the United States and around the globe were canceled or transformed into virtual celebrations because of COVID-19, but those virtual gatherings still had much to celebrate. We have witnessed profound progress in the half-century since Stonewall. Public attitudes about gay and trans rights have increased greatly. Marriage equality is now the law of the land. Openly gay men and women serve as corporate and civic leaders, as mayors, Governors, Members of Congress, and an openly gay, married man just ran a serious campaign for President. Gay men and lesbians serve openly in America's Armed Forces. While this administration has regrettably reinstated a ban on transgender persons serving openly in the military, trans men, women, and children are becoming more visible members in much of the rest of our society. This June also brings a major new cause for celebration. In a landmark 6-to-3 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is prohibited under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is an amazing story in history, where an ultra-conservative Congressman from Virginia in 1964 thought that he would torpedo the civil rights bill by adding the word ``sex'' into those bases for discrimination, thus inviting protection for women. He was sure that would be the end of the conversation. His amendment was adopted and of course led to a lot of debate on gender equality and ending gender discrimination. Little did he know--or many others--that it would lead to this historic Supreme Court ruling when it came to sexual orientation. This is history happening before our eyes, and thank goodness--thank goodness--we are alive to see it. But work of equal justice under the law is never finished. We were reminded of that 2 weeks ago when the Trump administration released a discriminatory rule that attempts to eliminate explicit healthcare protections for LGBTQ Americans. We are reminded that the work of equality is not finished each time we learn of another victim of alarming violence--violence against Black transgender women, including the deaths of 25-year-old Riah Milton in Ohio and 27-year-old Dominique ``Rem'mie'' Fells in Philadelphia. On May 29, 4 days after George Floyd's murder, more than 100 of the Nation's most prominent LGBTQ civil rights groups released a letter condemning racial violence. Their letter said that violence against transgender and gender nonconforming people of color happens ``with such regularity, it is no exaggeration to describe it as a[n] epidemic of violence.'' The groups went on to say: ``We understand what it means to rise up and push back against a culture that tells us we are less than them, that our lives don't matter. . . . Today, we join together again to say Black Lives Matter and commit ourselves to the actions those words require.'' Among the organizations signing the pledge are the Human Rights Campaign, Equality Illinois, and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago. Nearly all Americans recognize Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' speech at the 1963 March on Washington. It was a great moment in America's long struggle for equal rights. But how many of us know that the organizational genius behind that great gathering was a gay Black man-- Bayard Rustin? How many of us know the names of Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera-- activists and transgender women of color, members of one of the most marginalized and victimized groups in America. They were also leaders of the Stonewall uprising. They both continued to fight for gay and trans rights all of their lives--until Marsha's death in 1992 and Sylvia's death a decade later. Years after Stonewall, Marsha P. Johnson recalled: History isn't something you look back and say it was inevitable. [History happens] because people make decisions that are sometimes very impulsive and of the moment, but these moments are cumulative realities. James Baldwin, a brilliant writer and thinker, a gay Black man, warned us that ``nothing can be changed until it is faced.'' Stonewall was a tipping point. The protests today against the deaths of George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, Ahmaud Arbery, Laquan McDonald, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, and so many other Black men and women and children are, in fact, a tipping point. Let's not look away from this historic moment of change. Let this Senate join on the right side of history. Let's not let a procedural setback on the floor of the Senate stop us from finding some common ground to move forward. Let's acknowledge the rightness of this month's Supreme Court decision and pass the Equality Act to make it plain that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal and will not be tolerated, not just at your place of employment but all across America in every walk of life. Let's act to end state- sanctioned violence and oppression against our Black and Brown brothers and sisters. Let's do our part, in our time, to make the noble promises of our Founders real for all Americans

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. First, I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Booker and Harris. Thanks for your leadership and courage and the fact that have dedicated yourself to this moment. Some would say we are fortunate; others would say we are blessed to be at this moment in this place in the roles that we currently have. Can you imagine across the United States of America how many people would like to be standing where we are standing today? Despite the frustration, we have a voice. We have an opportunity. We, as U.S. Senators, have the power, if we use it, to do something about what threatens America. Imagine how 8 minutes 46 seconds could have such profound impact on this Nation of over 300 million people and the world, but then to realize that 8 minutes 46 seconds merely reminded us of all of the other issues, all of the other cases, all of the other George Floyds who came before. I have just been stunned in my own home State of Illinois--which I dearly love and know fairly well--by what I have seen in the streets of towns large and small. In the city of Chicago, just this last Juneteenth weekend, there was an amazing display of unity on Black Lives Matter. The African-American ministers led it, but all the rest of us were happy to be part of it because it meant so much. Then you go downstate Illinois to towns like our capital city, Springfield, or Jerseyville, IL, and attend Black Lives Matter rallies there that were organized by two young women, African-American high school juniors. They organized 1,500 people in Springfield for a Black Lives Matter rally. Nykeyla Henderson and her twin sister Nykia Henderson said: Let's call together students and friends about Black Lives Matter. Fifteen hundred people showed up. No windows were broken, no looting, no screaming, no shouting, no cursing. It was a textbook display of constitutional authority that each of us as a citizen has, and they used it so well. I salute them even to this day. Then, to go down to Jerseyville, a small rural community that I have represented over the years--which may or may not have a minority population at all--and to have, from 20 miles away, a high school junior, a young African-American woman whose name is Lay'lahny Davis, who did exactly the same thing: She called together hundreds of people--in this case, some 350 on the courthouse lawn in Jerseyville-- to celebrate Black Lives Matter. I have never seen anything like this. I have never seen it reach this level of commitment. Trust me, these young women were doing this, knowing that some of the people standing on the perimeter were not their friends, but they had the courage to be there because they believed in what they were doing. Do we have the courage at this moment to speak up for real change? How many times in the history of this country can Senators come to the floor and say that it is within our grasp? We can make America better, and we can perfect this great Nation to even be greater with courage. What I hear from my colleagues--Senators Harris and Booker--I could not agree with more. I am going to vote against this motion to proceed tomorrow. I believe, as they do, that we as a Senate can do better. We can do better in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which throughout generations has been the place to go, the forum to visit, the last stop, if you will, on the most important issues of our day--the Senate Judiciary Committee--time and again. I have been blessed to serve there for over two decades, and I look back on the history of that body before I arrived, and I think to myself: Durbin, you are a lucky man to be on the Senate Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, particularly at this moment. This is not only our issue; this is our moment in the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That is why Senator McConnell's tactic is so empty and so obvious. We understand how the Senate works. If you have been here 5 minutes, you know. He is the majority leader. He calls the shots. He decides what is coming to the floor, which amendments will be offered, which will not be offered, which bills will move forward, and which bills will stop. It is his power to do it. It is a very powerful position. Instead of saying to us: Start in the Senate Judiciary Committee, find a bipartisan measure to bring to the floor, and then let's work together to have meaningful amendments but to have it, in fact, enacted--instead of that, he said: Take our bill or leave it. If you don't want to vote for the Republican bill on this subject, go home and defend your vote. I am prepared to and I think my colleagues are too. Listen to what the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund said about this bill today. This organization is an incredible organization, and if you don't know much about it, read ``Devil in the Grove,'' a story of Thurgood Marshall in the late 1940s and 1950s, risking his life defending African Americans who were facing criminal charges across the United States. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund said: ``In this moment, we cannot support legislation that does not embody a strong accountability framework for police officers and other law enforcement who engage in misconduct as well as needed reforms to policing practices.'' The group wrote in a letter, a copy of which was sent to Members of the Senate, and they went on to say: ``We urge you to vote no on the motion to proceed with consideration of the JUSTICE Act''--which is the Republican bill--``and instead advance reforms that will hold law enforcement accountable and offer more transparency of policing practices such as those embodied in S. 3912, the Justice in Policing Act of 2020''--a bill which I am honored to cosponsor with my friends, Senators Booker and Harris. This morning I sat down and decided to read in detail the analysis of these two bills. It is night and day in terms of the direction they take. Something as fundamental as choke holds--does America know what a choke hold is? We saw it and will never forget it. We saw that knee on George Floyd's neck, and we watched the minutes pass by and his life ebb away. Can we be anything less than resolute on the issue of choke holds? Our bill is. It bans them. It bans them. The restriction of blood or oxygen or the carotid artery--we are specific; we are specific. Sadly, the Republican bill is not. We also defined ``deadly force'' and what is less than ``lethal force.'' We specifically defined it. What does the Republican bill do? It calls on the Attorney General of the United States to develop a policy--to develop a policy--Attorney General William Barr. On no-knock--I thank Senator Harris for raising that--we have direct legal limits on the use of no-knock, which was, in fact, the procedure followed that led to the death of Breonna Taylor in Louisville, KY. What does the Republican bill have? A reporting requirement--a reporting requirement. Body cameras? We require them. We put penalties in the law for those who don't use them. We also require that they be on vehicles, law enforcement vehicles. The Republican bill does not require them. It offers grants to police departments that want to buy them and then asks from those departments ``assurances'' that they are using them. On the misconduct registry, we establish public access to the misconduct registry when it comes to police misconduct. But there is no public access in the Republican bill. Yes, it is true, as was noted earlier by the Senator from Texas, there is commonality on issues like anti-lynching--thank goodness--a mere century after we started debating it in the U.S. Senate. We have reached that point, and I am glad we have. When it comes to training, data, and demographics, there are many areas of commonality, but there are specific areas that this bill--the one we have introduced--includes that are not included in the Republican bill: Criminal liability under the Civil Rights Act--we changed the standard to make it truly an attainable standard on the Democratic bill; qualified immunity; civil rights investigations; the power of subpoena, which we give to the Department of Justice; the use-of-force investigation; grants for independent investigation; and--this is a measure I have worked on for a while and am so glad it is included here--banning racial profiling once and for all. I want to salute a former colleague from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold. He was one of the earliest on this whole issue of profiling, a courageous position on his part at that moment in history. Finally, we include it in our bill. It is not included in the Republican bill. Instead, what they offer are commissions, data collection, and a couple of other criminal offenses, each of which is worthy of consideration but should not be enough to divert us from our goal. I am going to conclude by saying this. I feel blessed to be here in the U.S. Senate at this moment in history. I feel fortunate to have a chance, with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to change the history of this country in the right direction. My goodness, it is so long overdue. After all of the 400 years of slavery, when it first came to our shore, and the greed and racism that fed it as that insidious original sin of our country, now is our chance to do something in our generation to make a difference for those future generations that march in the street and look to us for real change. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), 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, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. 2000.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from both the House and the Senate, Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, for his kind words. He has been such a valuable ally in this battle. As leader on the Senate side, Chuck, I just can't thank you enough.

Mr. DURBIN. Time and again, we did things here that were difficult politically--difficult politically--to fight for the young people. I just want to thank all of the Senators on both sides of the aisle who were a part of moving this issue forward. They did it at great political risk. I can remember, as sure as I am standing here, watching one of my Democratic Senate colleagues walk down and vote for the Dream Act, return to her desk in the corner, put her head down and sobbed, realizing that she had probably cost her own reelection with that vote. Over and over again, people stood up for these young people. This morning, minutes ago, the Supreme Court brought a smile and a sigh of relief to more than 700,000 young people in the United States of America. This morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the September 2017 rescission of the DACA Program by the Trump administration was to be stricken as arbitrary and capricious. So what does it mean? It means, for these 700,000 DACA-protected individuals, that they can continue to live, to work, and to study in America without fear of deportation for the moment. DACA, of course, is a program created by President Obama in 2012. It was a program that was, frankly, our answer to the failure to enact the DREAM Act as the law of the land. The President used his Executive authority to create the DACA Program, and here is what it said, just basically mirroring the standards of the DREAM Act, which I introduced 20 years ago: If you were brought to America as a child, if you have lived in this country, gone to school, don't have a serious problem with the law, you should have a chance to live here without fear of deportation. The DREAM Act said you should have a chance to become a citizen of the United States, which is, of course, our ultimate goal. But the DACA Program opened up eligibility, and almost 800,000 came forward and applied. They had to pay a filing fee of $500 or $600, go through a criminal background check, but for many of these young people, it was a turning point in their lives. At that point, finally-- finally--there was a chance they could stay in the country they called home, the United States of America. They seized that opportunity and did remarkable things. They enlisted in our military. They went to schools and colleges to pursue an education. They took up jobs as teachers. They finished medical school. They did things that were unimaginable for DACA. Of course, when the administration changed and a new President came in, there was a real question as to whether he would continue the DACA Program. The very first time I ever spoke to President Donald Trump was the day of his inauguration, within an hour or two after he was sworn, at a luncheon. What I said to him then--my first words were these: Mr. President, I hope you are going to help those young people, those Dreamers, those protected by DACA. He looked at me, and he said: Senator, don't worry. We will take care of those kids. Well, sadly, that didn't happen. In September of 2017, there was a decision made by this administration to eliminate the DACA Program, and at that point, were it not for a court challenge and a protective order by the court, those young people might have been subject to deportation. But many, myself included, believed that the process used by President Trump was flawed, and, if challenged, it would fall in court. It took from September 2017 until today, just minutes ago, when the Supreme Court ruled that the administration's approach to eliminating DACA was wrong and would be stricken. I want to say for a moment who these young people are, because many people don't know them. They don't wear badges or uniforms to claim that they are DACA-protected, but this is who they are. Of the 700,000, 200,000 of them are essential employees. You may see them every day in many, many callings across America as we face this national health emergency. Over 40,000 of them are healthcare workers. So if you are a patient at a clinic or a hospital today fighting COVID-19 and your doctor or nurse just walked in the room with a big smile, it is because the Supreme Court said to that healthcare worker or to that healthcare hero: You can stay in America. We need you. Of course, that could change. I want to raise this issue because it is an important one. The Trump administration can decide that they are going to reinitiate this effort to rescind DACA and try to do it right this time by the Supreme Court standards. That would be a terrible tragedy if he made that decision, not just for those 700,000 but for their families as well. The front page story on the Chicago Tribune this morning was about just such a family, both husband and wife protected by DACA, working in America, trying to buy a little home in Aurora, IL. She works in a cancer clinic. He has a job as well. They have two beautiful little kids. They are both DACA-protected. Because of the Supreme Court decision, they have another day in America. They have a sigh of relief this morning, but what about next week? What will the Trump administration do to them next week? I am calling on the President and those around him, begging him to give these DACA protectees the rest of this year until next year at least before anything is considered. Let's protect them now through the election, and let the next President, whoever he may be, make a decision. I hope before that happens we will do our part in the U.S. Senate, the second part of what we can and should be doing, calling on the President not to rescind DACA again, not to put these young people and their families through this all over again but, secondly, that we do our job in the Senate. I listened to Senator McConnell earlier, talking about bipartisanship and talking about our legislative accomplishments. He is correct that the lands bill we passed yesterday was historic. I am glad we did it. The coronavirus relief bill we passed is historic. I am certainly glad we did it on a bipartisan basis, and I sincerely hope, when it comes to Justice in Policing, we can do the same--a bipartisan effort to enact good law. Let me add to the list, which unfortunately doesn't include a lot of legislation, something that is now critically important. The House of Representatives, months ago, passed the Dream and Promise Act, which would take care of the DACA issue once and for all. We could enact that law and say to these young people: Now you have your chance to stay and earn your path to citizenship in America. That is what we ought to be saying. Everyone knows that our immigration laws are a mess. They are hard to explain and impossible to defend. We have a chance to do something about them on a bipartisan basis, and I am calling on Senator McConnell and all the leaders on either side of the aisle: Let's join together and do that. Let's have a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let's bring this bill to the floor of the Senate this year so that once and for all we can deal with the problem we have been looking at for 20 years and approaching in so many different ways. In the meantime, for today--at least for this week and, I hope, for long beyond that--we will be celebrating a Supreme Court decision that gives a new lease on life to 700,000 young people who have one goal in mind: to be part of America's future. They were educated in our schools. They stood in those classrooms and pledged allegiance to the same flag we pledge allegiance to. They have their children. They have their families. They have their hopes and a future, and they are making a good living with life in the America. Thanks to the Supreme Court, they have some more time, but now it is up to the President and up to us to solve this problem once and for all, to do the right thing for them and for the future of America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, we are in the midst of one of the greatest public health crises in our Nation's history. Over 2 million Americans have been infected by the COVID-19 virus. Over 115,000 Americans have died. Sadly, infections are still trending upward in many States. And what is the response of the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate to this public health crisis? This week, the majority leader, Senator McConnell has scheduled a vote on his family friend and former intern, Justin Walker, to be a judge on the DC Circuit, the second highest court in the land. Colleagues, let's be honest. You cannot say with a straight face that Justin Walker, a 38-year-old with no practical courtroom experience and a few months' time on the district court bench, is the best person for the job of DC Circuit judge. He is not, and we know it. So why is he getting this nomination? I believe there are two main reasons: because Justin Walker is a protege of Senator McConnell and because he is an outspoken critic of the Affordable Care Act. Justin Walker has made clear that he is willing to toe the Republican party line of hostility to Obamacare. Before he was confirmed as a district judge last October in a party-line vote, he called the NFIB case that upheld the ACA's constitutionality an ``indefensible decision.'' And in March, while he was a sitting judge, he cracked jokes about his opposition to the ACA at his ceremonial investiture. These comments apparently put him on the fast-track for a promotion to the DC Circuit. I find it astonishing that Senate Republicans have rubberstamped so many nominees who have written articles or spoken publicly about their hostility to the ACA, nominees like John Bush, Steven Grasz, James Ho, David Porter, Neomi Rao, Mark Norris, Michael Truncale, and Sarah Pitlyk, not to mention Chad Readler, who filed the brief for the Trump Justice Department in the Texas v. U.S. case that called for striking down the entire ACA, including its protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Chad Readler was nominated to the 6th Circuit within a day of filing that brief. It is a pattern. And right after the vote on Justin Walker, Senator McConnell wants to vote on yet another nominee with a record of outspoken hostility to the ACA; 5th Circuit nominee Cory Wilson of Mississippi has repeatedly spoken, written, and tweeted criticisms of the ACA. In one of Wilson's newspaper columns, he wrote ``for the sake of the Constitution, I hope the Court strikes down the law.'' In another column, he described the ACA as ``big, intrusive government'' and as ``perverse'' and ``illegitimate.'' And he has tweeted negatively about the ACA more than 30 times. Justin Walker's and Cory Wilson's public statements clearly show that they have already made up their minds about the Affordable Care Act's merits and its constitutionality. And yet, they have been unwilling to recuse themselves from ACA cases that might come before them if they are confirmed. This is important because the ACA has been under constant attack in the Federal courts. The Republican Party, from President Trump on down, has been obsessed with trying to get the ACA struck down as unconstitutional. There is a case pending before the Supreme Court right now where Republican officeholders and the Trump administration are trying to strike down the entire ACA. That would strip away health insurance and preexisting condition protections for millions of Americans. Even in the middle of a pandemic, the Republican Party is not stopping its attack on the Affordable Care Act. They failed to overturn the ACA in Congress, of course. But clearly, Republicans are determined to attack it through the courts, no matter how many Americans might lose their coverage and protections. Make no mistake, the nominations of Justin Walker and Cory Wilson are part of the Republican assault on the Affordable Care Act. And the American people are watching. I oppose these nominees.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there are moments in history when you think: This is going to make a difference. One of them was in a first- grade classroom in Connecticut. A person walked into that classroom several years ago and opened fire on first grade students--6 years of age, 7 years of age--their teachers, and assistants. They were killed at their desks at Sandy Hook. I thought that would make a difference. I thought there would be a national conversation about gun safety and the memory of those beautiful little children who died so senselessly because the person had a gun that gave them the power to kill them en masse. It didn't happen. Then, when that gunman in the hotel in Las Vegas opened fire with a gun that he had converted into an automatic weapon and killed those concertgoers at that country western concert, just shot at them at random, I thought: Now, that will make a difference. That is the moment when we can sit down and honestly talk about gun safety in America. It was so graphic, and it was so horrible that at least we can come together for a bipartisan conversation about making America a safer place for first graders in Connecticut, for concertgoers in Nevada, and for all of the many other gun tragedies we have had in America. It didn't happen. The President promised to do something. He didn't. What happened in the U.S. Senate in terms of addressing this issue? Nothing--nothing, not even an effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business owning them: convicted felons, people who are mentally unstable. The types of guns that are for sale in the United States go far beyond any need for sport, hunting, and, in many cases, even self-defense. Yet we couldn't even open the conversation on gun safety in light of those horrible tragedies. Then several weeks ago, a patrolman in Minneapolis put his knee on the neck of George Floyd, and America changed. You see that video, which we have all seen over and over again. It was so graphic, so real, so personal, you just cannot escape it. Here was a policeman, in 8 minutes and 46 seconds, killing George Floyd. What was the charge that he was being accused of? Perhaps passing a phony $20 bill--a $20 bill. I think the image that still sticks with most of us, in the 8 minutes and 46 seconds as George Floyd died, were all the people begging the policeman to stop, imploring him: Please. Floyd was crying out ``I can't breathe! I can't breathe!'' mentioning his mother's name in those desperate, final moments of his life as that patrolman stared into that video camera with those cold, hard eyes. You cannot escape the reality of that video moment and the impact it has had on America and beyond. George Floyd's image and name are now the subject of rallies not just across America but around the world. In my own home State of Illinois, it is understandable that in cities like Chicago, which have a diverse population, that African Americans know what it is like to be the object of racial discrimination when it comes to law enforcement. What has amazed me in my home State and in many other places, with my colleagues, is that this is not just a conversation in the big cities of America. This last Sunday afternoon at 4 o'clock I went to Jerseyville, IL, for a Black Lives Matter rally. What an unlikely location. I don't how many African-American families live in Jersey County or Jerseyville, but there aren't many. It didn't stop 300 to 400 people from gathering on the courthouse lawn to make clear that they want things to change when it comes to policing in America--and change, it must. I want to salute my colleagues, particularly Senators Booker and Harris. They came together and put a bill in place with the Congressional Black Caucus, with Karen Bass, a Congresswoman from California. It is a bicameral proposal that has been introduced now in the House and Senate. I am proud to be a cosponsor. It is comprehensive, and it takes into consideration the reality that these moments of historic opportunity come along very seldom, and when they come, we need to seize them to make a difference in this great Nation. Let's not be halfhearted. Let's be committed to doing something that makes a difference, and that means a bipartisan effort. Tim Scott is my friend, a Republican Senator from the State of South Carolina. I like him, and I respect him. He has done and said things that I think have made a real impact on this Nation. His observations as an African-American Senator from South Carolina and what he has gone through--not just in his State but in his life and even in Washington, DC--touch my heart. I know that they are genuine, and so is he. When he was chosen on the Republican side to lead the effort to come up with some way to bring justice to policing, I thought that was a good choice, and I still do. Now we are off to a start in this conversation, but it is an unusual and awkward start. My colleagues, Senators Booker and Harris, put the legislative proposal, the Justice in Policing Act, on the floor and have described it in detail over the last several days. It has been there for those who support it, as I do, and for those who are critical. We are obviously looking at this from a lot of perspectives. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a lengthy hearing on police misconduct, and there were references throughout to the Booker and Harris bill, as both of them serve on the Judiciary Committee. Senator Scott's bill we saw just a few hours ago, and Senator McConnell came to the floor earlier to the Senate and said that we are moving to this bill. It will be the next item of business. I am glad that Senator McConnell now feels a sense of urgency when it comes to reforming policing. Now is the moment for us to work together to come up with a bipartisan bill that can pass the U.S. Senate. Let us not miss this opportunity, this historic moment, to do something that will make a difference. How many times, how many commissions, how many agencies, how many experts have issued reports on dealing with racism in law enforcement in America? Scores of them. Going back to the 1960s, the former Governor of Illinois, Otto Kerner's commission, that long ago--60 years ago--was considering the same issues, many of the same issues we are considering today. The hearings yesterday brought in some talented people--experts--to talk to us in the Senate Judiciary Committee about this measure and this challenge that we face--community leaders, civil rights activists, and experts on the subject. I think Senator Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Republican side, would agree that hearings are important and we should continue them, but they are never enough. We need to do something that the Senate rarely, if ever, does. We need to legislate. We ought to do it in a process that was established in this Senate generations ago, bringing this matter to the floor for amendment and debate. I understand the numbers in the Senate. As the whip on the Democratic side, I think the skill that is necessary to succeed is to be able to count to 60. I learned that very early in my Senate career. We know what the numbers really are. There are 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans. If you need 60 votes in most procedural questions in any debate, it must be bipartisan. If it is going to be bipartisan, it means that people have to sit down and be willing to listen to one another and be willing to compromise. I think we can do that. I have seen it done. I can remember 2 years ago when the Senate passed the FIRST STEP Act. I started on this mission 10 years ago, after the passage of the effort on the drug crimes bill in the House of Representatives over 20 years ago, it was clear that bill was fatally flawed. That law resulted in unjust outcomes, as well as ineffectiveness when it came to fighting drugs. I started 10 years ago to try to change it, to change the disparity between crack and cocaine sentencing guidelines. I managed to get some part of it done, but when I took on the bigger issue of mandatory minimum sentencing, which was involved in this, as well, I ran into a blockade by the name of Chuck Grassley Chuck, the senior Senator from Iowa, didn't see eye to eye with my approach at all, and I realized my bill was going nowhere with him. He was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We sat down for a year--for a year--and we came up with a bill we both agreed on. It wasn't what I wanted--it wasn't the original bill, by any means--and it wasn't what Chuck Grassley wanted. But we filed a good bill called the FIRST STEP Act, and he became the lead sponsor on the Grassley-Durbin bipartisan bill. That bill passed the House, passed the Senate, and was signed into law by President Donald Trump. Who would have guessed that Donald Trump would have signed a bill on criminal justice reform? But he did, and he bragged about it afterward and continues to this day. I guess the lesson learned here is if the right people sit down with the right goal, we can achieve an important victory for the American people. I understand now, having been to these rallies of Black Lives Matter, how determined and desperate people are across the United States to see us change when it comes to racism and law enforcement. They are desperate, primarily in our younger populations. It is interesting. Even the largest rallies are being led by high school students who are bringing together hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of people to peacefully demonstrate on behalf of justice in law enforcement. The message is pretty clear. They do not want to grow up and they don't want to raise their families in the shadow of racism. We have fought this issue in America for over 400 years. That is how long it has been since slavery came to our shores. The racism that followed from it and was part of it is still very much alive in America and is seen in video after video. These young people are telling us once and for all: Change it, grownups. You are supposed to be in charge. You are supposed to have the authority. So what we say on the Democratic side is that we cannot waste this historic moment, this singular opportunity. Let us not do something that is a token, halfhearted approach. Let us focus on making a change that will make a difference in the future of America. When I take a look at the bill we put together, the Justice in Policing Act--again, I want to salute Senators Booker and Harris--we establish standards for criminal police misconduct under the law. We talk about qualified immunity reform. Allow me to say a word about this. That was the one thing that Senator Tim Scott said on Sunday was a major sticking point on the Republican side. We discussed it yesterday in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. What does it mean? It means that if a policeman is guilty of discriminatory misconduct against a person, they can be liable for civil damages. An obvious case--if somebody is shot and killed and there is a belief that the policeman was guilty of misconduct in the process, that policeman can be found guilty in court and liable for civil damages to the family, much the same as wrongful death or personal injury. But the problem is that the courts have taken this qualified immunity and basically said that if you cannot find an identical fact pattern for that policeman's misconduct, you can't pursue the civil recovery of damages for the family who lost the breadwinner, for example. The argument for that position has been made by some Republicans that even if a patrolman or policeman has done something that is terribly wrong, you shouldn't take their home away from them to compensate that victim's family. So the Republicans have said that they don't want to change the qualified immunity standard. Now let's move from that debate to the real world, and I know just a little bit about it. There was a sheriff in a downstate county in Illinois who was sued many years ago and accused of misconduct for imprisoning and mistreating prisoners in his county jail. When he was sued in court, much the same as the qualified immunity situation I described earlier, he was defended in that court. Who defended that sheriff for his misconduct and potential damages that he owed to his victim? I did. I didn't do it as a U.S. attorney or State's attorney or in any official public capacity. I did it representing an insurance company. DeWitt County, the county that employed the sheriff, considered him a county employee for their purposes and had bought an insurance policy which said that if there is any wrongdoing by county employees, the insurance company will pay whatever is owed. I represented the insurance company. We went forward with the case. The point I am getting to is that sheriff was not going to lose his home or car or motorcycle. It was a lawsuit being brought in court for that sheriff's responsibility in creating a loss to the plaintiff that merited damages from the court and jury. So this argument that we cannot hold policemen responsible for their misconduct on a civil basis for damages overlooks the obvious--that 99 to 100 percent of damages paid out are paid out not by the individual law enforcement official but usually by the insurance company. The insurance company indemnifies the defendants; in other words, it takes on the responsibility of defending them and paying out any verdict that is filed or any settlement that is reached. Why would we want to go ahead and allow this civil recovery? Because it is a lesson learned for that county when it comes to the conduct and training and hiring of individuals. If they know that certain things are going to result in a liability--even through their insurance company, with higher insurance premiums as a result--they will think twice, won't they? It is human nature. The opposite result is true. If the Republicans have their way and don't touch qualified immunity, then, in fact, you have created a defense wall for any potential defendant who is in law enforcement from civil liability, and you have taken away the incentive of their employer or that department to improve the way they administer justice. I think it is pretty obvious that if we want the right outcome, there should be a price to be paid for wrongdoing, and there certainly should be compensation for a victim's family. So I don't understand the resistance on the Republican side. We need to talk because we cannot move forward on this issue of police responsibility and say there is a whole area of immunity when it comes to the police being sued for civil damages in court. We also need pattern and practice investigations. What that means is there comes a moment when the Department of Justice needs to take a look at local police departments. I know about that. The shooting of Laquan McDonald in the city of Chicago was an event that still has an impact on the people who live there. I joined with the attorney general, Lisa Madigan, in asking the Department of Justice to investigate the police department after the shooting of Laquan McDonald. It wasn't a popular decision with some people, but I thought it was the right thing to do. We will be better for it. The city of Chicago will make changes that need to be made, and I am sure there need to be more in the future, but extending and advancing pattern and practice investigations in the Department of Justice is long overdue. In the Obama administration over 20 of these investigations took place across America; under the Trump administration, one. It is time for the Department of Justice to do its job, and that is part of what we are setting out to do. We also have the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act included in the Booker-Harris bill. Police departments lack uniform standards to ensure an adherence to best practices in communities of color with accountability. We call on the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to move them in the right direction of training and retraining when it comes to reducing the use of force and reducing the killings that are taking place that are unnecessary. We need to establish a national police misconduct registry, which is part of the Booker-Harris bill, so no police officer who loses his or her job because of misconduct can go to a nearby jurisdiction or another State and escape the scrutiny of taking a review of the history they have as members of a police department. We need to require States to report to the Justice Department incidents in which force is used against a civilian or against a law enforcement officer. I bet 99 percent of Americans believe there is automatic reporting, for example, of the shooting of unarmed people by police across the United States. There isn't. It turns out that the only source you can find is the Washington Post newspaper, which decided in 2015 to start collecting that information by reading news outlets and information and putting it all together. Let's get the data so we will understand if we are falling behind or making progress when it comes to the administration of justice. We need to prohibit Federal, State, and local law enforcement from racial, religious, and discriminatory profiling. This is an issue I have been working on for years. Others feel the same. Profiling needs to come to an end. We know it is a real problem. We need real training on racial bias and a duty to intervene. This gets to the heart of policing. Policing runs parallel to our military in the standards and rules that they operate under. We talk about peer intervention. We ask ourselves, why didn't the other three policemen in Minneapolis say to that policeman with his knee on the neck of George Floyd, ``Stop. You are killing him''? They didn't because of the so-called chain of command. We need to have peer scrutiny and peer intervention, particularly in life-and-death situations. We believe we should ban the no-knock warrants in drug cases. We know what happened in the city of Louisville. We want to make certain it doesn't happen again. We want a clear ban on choke holds and carotid holds. We want the police to exercise absolute care with everyone with a standard of reasonableness to prevent death and serious bodily injury. Consider what happened in that Wendy's parking lot in Atlanta. There are a number of factors involved here, but what was at the heart of the issue? At the heart of the issue was a man who drank too much and fell asleep in his car in the drive-in line at Wendy's. That is what started the police call and everything that followed. At the end of 40 minutes, the man who fell asleep in his car was shot dead in that parking lot. When you try to bring and measure the response and the result against the original charge, it is like the $20 counterfeit bill. You think to yourself: Did that merit pulling a gun and killing a man because he fell asleep in his car? He shouldn't have been driving while intoxicated, but there is no evidence he was involved in any accident. There was certainly a better way to bring that to a conclusion other than the confrontation that led to his death. We also need the Camera Accountability Act, requiring Federal uniformed police officers to wear body cameras and have dashboard cameras and make sure they are operable. We also need to finally pass the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act. I spoke on that yesterday, and I will not dwell on it today, but this is long, long overdue. One of the first Federal anti-lynching bills was introduced after World War I by a Republican Congressman in St. Louis named Leonidas Dyer, a World War I veteran who served as an officer in the Army. He was prosecuting attorney for St. Louis County. On July 1, 1917, there was a horrendous race riot in my hometown of East St. Louis, IL, where 7,000 African Americans were rousted out of their homes and forced to cross the bridges into the city of St. Louis to escape death. The estimates of how many were killed are just that, but they range in the hundreds of African Americans who were lynched and murdered. As a result of that horrible experience in East St. Louis and the race riot, Congressman Dyer, Republican of St. Louis, introduced the Federal anti-lynching law. He passed it in the House of Representatives. There were 119 negative votes. Among the negative votes were four Members of the House who went on to become Speakers, but all four voted against the Dyer Federal anti-lynching bill. It was sent to the Senate where it died by design. A combination of those who opposed it, including southern Democrats, stopped the bill from being considered. It faced a filibuster--end of story but not the end of lynching, by any means. Lynching is a blight on America's history. There is absolutely no reason why we should not include the Federal anti-lynching statute, which passed the House 410 to 4, in this package that is being considered. I believe it may be part of Senator Scott's bill as well. I hope it will pass. I hope the one Senator on the other side of the aisle who has held it up can be convinced otherwise. History demands that we bring an end to this miserable, bloody chapter in American history, which touches so many of our States. We have a job to do. We now have two bills, and we are seeing the Republican bill for the first time this morning. Many of us believe it is at least an indication of the urgency of the issue but not as responsive as it should be. Let us not escape this moment in history. Let us not avoid it. Let's face it, and let's use it. We can make this a better Nation. We can say to those young people, Black, White, and Brown, those young women and men who are leading the marches in my State and across the Nation: We hear you. We understand you want to grow up in a different world, in a different Nation. We understand that you want to see discrimination and racial mistreatment come to an end in this country. This generation, the ones who are elected to do something about it, will do just that. We will respond. I hope what Senator McConnell said this morning about opening this debate on the floor of the Senate is not just a one-and-done, take-it- or-leave-it approach on the majority side of the aisle. Let's have a real debate. Let's have real effort to find common ground. I think it can work. Senator Grassley and I proved that with the FIRST STEP Act, a bipartisan bill signed by President Trump that made a difference. Literally, thousands of Federal inmates were released from prison who had been serving lengthy, impossible-to-explain sentences for nonviolent drug activity. They are home now. They are back out of prison now, as they should be. They did it on a bipartisan basis, and we compromised to reach it. Let us make sure that at the end of the day, what we do pass makes a difference in the future of America, not just a quick press release but something we can live with and be proud of for years to come. I yield the floor.