Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. First, let me say to my friend and colleague from Idaho, thank you. The tone of your remarks are positive, constructive, bipartisan. That is exactly what the American people are looking for, at least in Illinois, and I will bet you in Idaho as well. This national emergency, this public health crisis, should bring out the best in us and not the most political side of our nature. Thank you because I think your remarks were offered in that respect. We have been here now 3 weeks. This is the third week since returning from a break where most of us were at home. I think this is the longest period of debate on the coronavirus we have witnessed on the floor of the Senate in 3 weeks. I thought this 3-week period would be all about COVID-19, all about the vaccine. It hasn't. We have taken up many other things that have nothing to do with it. What we have talked about here this morning is encouraging to me. If bringing this resolution up with a unanimous consent request is going to lead to the Senate Foreign Relations and other committees moving forward on important policy questions that you raised, and I hope I raised as well, then it was not time wasted. It was time well spent. We do agree on so much more than we disagree, I am sure of it, when it comes to this. I invite you, I encourage you, I beg you, as soon as we return from next week's recess, the sooner we can bring a hearing before your committee and others the better. I would like to address the unanimous consent request of my colleague from Indiana as well. It has been my good fortune in the House and Senate to work with the Food and Drug Administration. It is probably one of the most underrated agencies of our Federal Government. They make decisions, literally, life-and-death decisions, every single day of things unimaginable to us. It is hard to look at all of the things they regulate and inspect and not be impressed. I have been impressed over the years with the Food and Drug Administration. But the gold standard of the Food and Drug Administration, which was established at least 60 years ago with the Thalidomide scandal, was that this agency was to take a look at drugs that were about to go on the market in America and conduct tests, ask questions, do their own research to determine two things: Are they safe, and are they effective? Safe and effective. That is it. But it is a lot. Over the years, for 60 years or more, they have used this standard to judge drugs, clinical trials, which carefully measure the impacts of a drug on the human body over a period of time and the like. It is frustrating because, at times, it takes longer than we wish. There are exceptions that have been created at the Food and Drug Administration for extraordinary circumstances wherein it can accelerate the process, but by and large, it has to judge drugs as being safe and effective. Nearly three-quarters of drugs today are approved in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration before they are approved in any other country around the world. The FDA is considered the gold standard. I have been told that so many times. Many countries look to the Food and Drug Administration in the United States to see if it has approved of a drug's being safe and effective before they move forward. This demonstrates that the Food and Drug Administration has an awesome responsibility but is doing a good job in ensuring Americans have timely access to the same drugs as have patients in other countries. The ADAPT Act, which Senator Braun brings to the floor, is a solution, I believe, in search of a problem. Sadly, it runs a real risk. This notion that we are somehow going to open up the possibility of a drug's having been approved in another country being approved in the United States quickly, without any review, I think is a dangerous thing to do. To date, we know what the coronavirus has done to us, and we also know that this bill would completely change how drugs would be approved for sale in the United States of America. It is not a minor bill. It is a major change. Under current law, if a pharmaceutical company wants to sell a drug, it needs the approval of the FDA. It tests it to be sure it is safe and effective. It is the gold standard. The Senator's proposal would abolish this method. That is significant. Instead, the Senator's proposal says, if a drug has been approved by another developed country--I am not sure of his definition of a ``developed country''--it can bypass standard U.S. regulation and come to market without going through the Food and Drug Administration's study, review, and approval. It is worth noting that many Members of the House and Senate have criticized the pharmaceutical industry for charging Americans the highest drug prices in the world. I have been in that chorus from time to time and have suggested that drug prices in the United States should be the same as they are in Canada and Europe for the same drugs. Many times, people on the Senator's side of the aisle have resisted that suggestion. They have called it socialism and have said we shouldn't let other countries dictate what America has to pay for drugs. Yet, now, apparently, Senator Braun is comfortable with letting other countries dictate whether our drugs are safe and effective. This bill is not a targeted response to the coronavirus; it is an open-ended giveaway to some pharmaceutical operation. More importantly, it is putting our safety at risk in America, which we never ever want to do. Instead of approving the resolution I introduced that simply expresses the support for global coordination, Senator Braun wants to completely overturn our Nation's drug approval process. This bill was introduced more than a year ago. It is still in search of a cosponsor, and it hasn't been consented by the Republican Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which oversees the FDA. Now is the time for the best and the brightest from all nations to work together toward the shared goal of ending this pandemic and finding a safe and effective vaccine. It is not the time to completely upend our Nation's drug approval process to make it easy for some countries to flood our market with unsafe and ineffective drugs. For these reasons, I object to Senator Braun's counterproposal.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I came to the floor this morning to listen to the statements made by the other side of the aisle in reaction to the proposal of Speaker Pelosi to deal with the coronavirus and the national emergency we face. The Republican leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, as well as his whip, repeated their theme on the issue of the liability facing businesses and others because of the COVID virus pandemic which we are facing. In fact, the leader, Senator McConnell, has gone so far as to declare that there is a ``redline''--his words, a ``redline''--to bar any further assistance to State and local governments and other entities until we address this so-called liability question. He has gone so far as to say that he will refuse to fund the money that has been proposed officially by the Democrats to help our police, firefighters, paramedics, and teachers unless we provide guaranteed business immunity from COVID-19 lawsuits--lawsuits that might be brought by workers and consumers. Senator McConnell's guaranteed business immunity is an invitation, sadly, for irresponsible corporations to cut corners when it comes to protecting workers as well as protecting their customers. The McConnell redline threat will result in more people being infected by the coronavirus and more people getting sick--exactly the opposite of what we should be doing as a matter of policy. We also heard today, both from Senators McConnell and Thune, that there is no urgency in continuing to provide assistance across America because of the economic crisis that we face and certainly the public health crisis we face. I couldn't disagree more on both counts--the McConnell redline on guaranteeing business immunity as well as the argument that we have done enough. Let's sit back and wait and see what happens. I couldn't disagree more. Yesterday, we had a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Graham held the hearing and the title was ``Examining the Liability During the COVID-19 Pandemic.'' That hearing took place yesterday afternoon after Senator McConnell had come to the floor and had spoken about the concerns of businesses about lawsuits against them related to the COVID-19 virus. In fact, Senator McConnell came to the floor yesterday morning and characterized the lawsuits that were being filed and pending because of this pandemic, and the words he used to characterize them were very explicit. He called it an ``epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.'' He referred to the ``minefield'' created by these lawsuits. He went so far as to call them a ``tidal wave''--``tidal wave,'' his words on the floor of the U.S. Senate when it came to these lawsuits related to COVID-19. So I went into this with my staff and said: Tell me about this tidal wave of lawsuits. Here is what we discovered about this so-called tidal wave of lawsuits. As of Monday, there are 958 COVID-related cases that had been discovered in a tracking database of lawsuits filed in the United States--958. But then we took a closer look. How many of these lawsuits were malpractice suits being brought against hospitals, clinics, doctors, nurses, medical professionals? Nine. Nine lawsuits. There have been 1.3 million Americans diagnosed as infected by the COVID-19 virus, and 9 lawsuits have been filed. Senator McConnell calls that a tidal wave. A tidal wave? It is barely a ripple. We added 27 other cases for personal injury. We are up to 36 cases out of 1.3 million Americans who have been diagnosed as infected--36 cases. That is not to say that they are all serious or all frivolous. No way of saying. I am counting all lawsuits of personal injury and medical malpractice brought because of COVID-19. We took a look at other lawsuits. There are 260 lawsuits that have been filed by prisoners in jails arguing that they were held in an unhealthy, unsanitary, and unsafe condition. Is that what the Senator wants to stop? Does he consider that a tidal wave of lawsuits? There are 171 cases brought against insurance companies. In other words, a business is suing an insurance company over the coverage they have in their insurance policy. Is that one of the avalanche of lawsuits that Senator McConnell is talking about? There are 95 contract cases and 79 civil rights cases. We took a look at the civil rights cases being filed with mention of COVID-19, and, you know, many of them were being filed by businesses arguing that they should be allowed to reopen. Is Senator McConnell suggesting that we should be prohibiting those lawsuits as well? What it comes down to is this. There is no tidal wave of lawsuits. We shouldn't condition helping businesses, unemployed people, and individuals across America because of this phantom threat of lawsuits. I am surprised that they didn't refer to a caravan of trial lawyers coming up to the courthouses across America. It just isn't there. Yesterday, in a hearing, we had some excellent witnesses. One of the better witnesses, I will be happy to concede, was a person brought in by the Republican Senators. His name is Kevin Smartt. Kevin is the chief executive officer and president of Kwik Chek Food Stores out of Bonham, TX. He was speaking on behalf of the National Association of Convenience Stores. He told the story of what he has done with his businesses and outlets and 600 employees to make it safer for them. He has really gone, based on his testimony, to great lengths to create a safe workplace. But Listen to what Kevin Smartt said about the problems he faces. Here is his testimony: ``This was a challenge [mitigating the threat] because the guidance provided by the CDC, [OSHA] as well as state and local governments often conflicted with one another in addition to being vague and difficult to follow.'' What he was looking for and stated in his sworn testimony were guidelines for a safe workplace, guidelines for a safe business place, and they don't exist. One of the reasons came up earlier this morning when Senator Schumer came to the floor and said: We want to see the CDC guidelines released so businesses and individuals across America can see how to deal with this threat in the workplace. There was an objection on the Republican side of the aisle for the publication of these CDC guidelines. They can't have it both ways. They can't argue through Senator McConnell that we should have guaranteed business immunity from liability and then basically say to the businesses, as Mr. Smartt told us, there are no guidelines. You see, that is a defense in any lawsuit. We live by the guidelines. We have appropriate social distancing. We put up the plastic shields to protect employees and customers. We have people wearing masks. Those are all good defenses in any lawsuit that might be brought, but the Republicans want it both ways: guaranteed immunity for the business but no guidelines from the government as to what is a safe practice. Mr. Smartt said that makes his job next to impossible in his important business in Texas. But there were numbers given to us yesterday that really did show a tidal wave. Marc Perrone is the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers. He testified before our committee, and during the course of his testimony he told us that 162 of his workers--those who are in grocery stores, food processing, and particularly in meat processing, 162--have died from COVID-19. Now, working in a meatpacking plant is something I know a little bit about. I worked my way through college--12 months--in a meatpacking plant in East St. Louis, IL. It is dirty, hot, and dangerous work, elbow to elbow with fellow workers. I saw it firsthand. It has changed--I am sure--over the years, but the fundamentals are still there, and that is the danger of that workplace. The most dangerous workplace in America--meat processing. There have been 162 deaths and 25,000 of Marc Perrone's workers who have been infected so far with COVID-19. So, if you want to talk about a tidal wave, we ought to take a look at what those workers in meat processing are facing right now. Some companies are, conscientiously, trying to do the right thing and make their workplace better and safer and test their employees. I salute all of them. There are good people who are leading these businesses, and they are making good decisions, but they need the guidelines and standards of the CDC and OSHA. And the Republicans just objected to publishing those standards. I want to tell you, there is a way through this pandemic in a sensible fashion that is fair to business and fair to workers as well. This notion that giving guaranteed immunity to businesses across the board is the answer is just plain wrong. Those businesses--many of them--will take advantage of that umbrella of protection from any lawsuits. They will cut corners. More people will be infected, and there will be more bad results. Conscientious businesses like the one represented yesterday on the Republican side in the Senate Judiciary Committee deserve what Mr. Smartt is asking for--standards we can stand by and live with. HEROES Act Mr. President, let me say a word about this HEROES Act that was released yesterday by Speaker Pelosi. Yes, she has asked for more money to be spent. We have to decide whether it is worth spending. Is it worth giving more direct economic payments to families across America? I supported President Trump's call for those payments in the first round. Does he believe, do we believe, does the Senate believe that $1,200 is the end of the story for people who are struggling these days, facing unemployment, facing the hardships that are part of our economy? The flood of people at our food banks tells us that people need more resources to provide the basics for their family. Senator McConnell has told us that is not an urgent need. Well, he ought to go to a food bank in Kentucky and take a look around. He is going to see a lot of people--not just Democrats but Republicans and Independents--facing the hardships of this economy. To say it is not urgent that we provide money to hospitals--I will tell you, even in the areas of Illinois--smalltown, rural Illinois-- hospitals are struggling even if they don't have COVID virus infections to deal with. They are struggling because of the economy and people who are leery about going forward with elective surgery and outpatient treatment. One thing to keep in mind: Even if you happen to have a hospital in a remote, rural area with little or no infection from the COVID virus, if you want to return to elective surgery, good medical practice requires that you test the patient before the surgery to see if they are positive for COVID virus. Hospitals I have talked to are also testing the drivers who are going to take the patient home after the procedure. We need testing so that these hospitals, even in areas not directly affected by this pandemic, can get back in business and keep their doors open. What a tragedy it is, in any State, to lose hospitals in rural areas. Speaker Pelosi, in her bill, the HEROES Act, calls for additional funds for these hospitals. I think there is a sense of urgency to that. Clearly, Senator McConnell does not. The notion that we would honor the people who are working on the frontlines to make sure that they would be able to continue to serve us and to risk their lives for us in treating the patients--I think that is a priority, and there is a sense of urgency, and I think Speaker Pelosi was correct in including that money to give those first responders, health workers, and others a helping hand. And let me say that this notion that we shouldn't be helping State and local governments--who in the world do we think is on the frontline in the battle against this national emergency, this pandemic? It is the doctors, of course, and the nurses, of course, but it is also our first responders, our policemen, our firefighters, and even our teachers. If we don't provide the resources that have been lost to the States and localities because of this pandemic, there will be cutbacks in pay and layoffs for sure. Is that how we are going to answer this national emergency? I believe there is a profound sense of urgency here as well. I notice that a couple of my colleagues are on the floor to speak, so I will wrap up my remarks by saying we need to stick with this program of helping America get back on its feet. We need to stand by the individuals who are struggling to feed their families and going to food banks to try to get by. We need to stand by those who are drawing unemployment insurance today with additional Federal help, trying to keep their families together while they are looking for a job and waiting for the economy to rebound. We need to stand by the small businesses that cannot survive if we don't continue our assistance. This notion that because it was Speaker Pelosi who suggested it, it has to be a bad idea is just plain wrong and selfish. Look at her proposals on their merits. They mirror what we have started to do with the CARES Act and need to continue to do. As I said yesterday, you don't build a bridge halfway across a river. You build it all the way. Let's build it to the point where our economy can rebound with strength and people can get back to work. Let's stand by the workers and their families and the businesses and support the HEROES Act that has been introduced in the House of Representatives. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there was a meeting last week--a telephone conference call--of the leaders of a dozen major nations around the world. It was a meeting to discuss something we are all thinking about, the answer to the question everyone in America asks every day: How will this end? When will this end? In this telephone conference, leaders from other nations talked about the ending that most of us envision--the discovery of a safe and effective vaccine that can protect people around the world from the scourge of this coronavirus. I am not sure when that vaccine will be discovered--the sooner the better--but the big question we need to ask ourselves at this point is, Where will it be discovered, and what benefit will it provide for the United States? You see, there was one major nation that boycotted this international telephone conference about discovering a vaccine. It was the United States. President Trump decided not to participate with the leaders of nations from around the world in this global conversation about finding a safe and effective vaccine to fight coronavirus. I am not sure what his motive was. But we know that at least 94 other vaccines are being explored and worked on in nations around the world--in England, for example, and in Germany and so many other countries. They are looking for the same safe and effective vaccine as we in the United States are looking for. I have great faith and confidence in the men and women in medical research in the United States and the production facilities in our country, but I am not so proud or so vain as to believe that no other country could find that safe and effective vaccine. And if they did-- and if they did--would we hesitate for a moment to turn to a country and say that the United States wants to be part of producing that vaccine and receiving that vaccine for the people who live here? Why would the President of the United States decide we are going to boycott that conference, stay away from it? Oh, I am sure he has a dozen reasons, but they don't seem very convincing to me. We should be at the table wherever there is a serious, credible effort to discover a vaccine. The United States should be participating. They were trying to raise $8 billion. That is a lot of money, but remember, we are dealing with an effort to rescue our economy from coronavirus, which is now in the range of $2.8 trillion. They are asking the participants to put in money. Norway said it would pledge $1 billion--Norway. The European Union said it would pledge $1 billion toward this global vaccine effort. The United States should have been at that table. We should be all in for any credible effort to find this vaccine as quickly as possible. I have introduced a resolution calling on the administration to reverse its position and to join in this effort. I want to commend Bill and Melinda Gates, who participated in that telephone conference and pledged millions of dollars of their own funds on behalf of the United States. Thank you to the Gates family for caring. Now, Mr. President, you should join them. This morning, the Republican leader came to the floor to talk about the problems and challenges that we face and the fact that there is another bill that is going to be offered publicly this week by Speaker Nancy Pelosi--the next in a succession of legislation that we have considered over the last several weeks. We have seen dramatic investments in unemployment insurance for a record number of unemployed people in this country. We have seen dramatic investments in the small businesses of America, to give them a fighting chance to reopen and to prosper in the future. I have joined in all of these on a bipartisan basis, and I will continue to. I don't know the specifics of Speaker Pelosi's proposal. Senator McConnell came to the floor and warned us not to think big and not to think about transformational things. Then, of course, he went back to his time-honored course about the question of liability. Senator McConnell has come to the floor repeatedly--repeatedly--and said that before he would consider another COVID-19 rescue bill, he would need to see what he calls a redline honored when it comes to immunity from lawsuits. What is being proposed by Speaker Pelosi when it comes to State and local governments is really an affirmation of what has been said by every one of us when it comes to our first responders, the police, the firefighters, the paramedics, the healthcare workers, and the teachers. What she says in the bill is that they have been hit and been hit hard at the State and local government levels by this COVID-19. She is proposing, as I understand it, a substantial commitment to help those units of government that have truly been hurt by this coronavirus. What she is asking for, really, is whether or not all of our speeches about healthcare workers, police, first responders, firefighters, and teachers are really credible and whether, in fact, we will come up with the resources that are needed. Senator McConnell has said that he will not support that legislation unless--as he calls it--his redline of liability immunity is honored. What he is saying is that he refuses to fund our police, firefighters, paramedics, and teachers unless we provide guaranteed business immunity for corporations. This is, sadly, an invitation for irresponsible corporations and businesses to cut corners when it comes to protecting workers and those customers and such who would be threatened by coronavirus. The McConnell redline threat would result in more people being infected by the coronavirus and more people getting sick. That is not what we want. There is a better way. We should be talking about how to do this properly. This afternoon there will be a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the witnesses being called by the Republicans is a man named Kevin Smartt. He is the chief executive officer and president of Kwik Chek food stores in Bonham, TX. He is testifying on behalf of the National Association of Convenience Stores on this question of liability. I read his statement this morning in preparation for the hearing, and I commend it to my colleagues because I want them to listen carefully to what Mr. Smartt says he believes businesses need. Here is what he says. He talks about his own company Kwik Chek. Kwik Chek's first priority is the safety of our employees and customers. Beginning in early March, we adjusted our daily protocols to mitigate the spread of the virus. This was a challenge-- Listen to what Mr. Smartt says-- because the guidance provided by the CDC, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as well as State and local governments, often conflicted with one another in addition to being vague and difficult to follow. Yet despite many uncertainties, including the constantly fluctuating public health guidelines, we began to adjust to the pandemic. Mr. Smartt is not saying that businesses don't have a responsibility here. He is accepting that responsibility to create a safe environment for workers and customers, but he is saying to us: When are you going to establish the standards? Why do you keep changing the standards? Here we are with Senator McConnell threatening to derail the next rescue bill for police, firefighters, and teachers across America, unless there is guaranteed immunity from lawsuits, and here is one of the leading companies, the No. 1 primary witness of the Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, saying to the Federal and governments: Establish standards, reasonable standards, for us to live up to when it comes to conducting business, and we will do it. I think that is a reasonable request by his business. Why aren't we doing it? Why hasn't OSHA established standards for the safety of workers? One of our other witnesses here is this gentleman who is the head of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Marc Perrone. I have a special fondness for this union because when I was a college kid, I spent 12 months working in a slaughterhouse in East St. Louis, IL, and it was this union that I belonged to back in those days It was tough, dirty, and dangerous work. I look to it as an important chapter in my life, when I saw how real people go to work every day and many times risk their safety and their health in doing it. Marc Perrone tells us there are literally thousands of his meat processing workers who have been affected by this virus and 95 of his members who have died as a result of it. What he is looking for--what we are looking for--is for those companies to establish standards of safety for their workers so that they can go back to work in this important business. Some are doing just that. I commend them. Some are working with the union to find safe ways to test their workers and to bring them back to a job site that is safe for them to work in. But they don't have a national standard to live up to. We haven't established a national standard, as we should. Whether through OSHA or through CDC, we ought to establish standards for businesses across this country to live up to. I believe many--Mr. Smartt with Kwik Chek and Marc Perrone with the United Food and Commercial Workers--would applaud that. They would say: At least we know what social distancing standards are to be used in the workplace. At least we know what protective equipment is required in the workplace to protect our employees. At least we know going into this exactly what the standards are that we need to live up to. Senator McConnell's approach is immunity from lawsuits; don't establish any standards and don't hold anybody to any standards at all. That is wrong. The net result of that is that more people would be in danger, more people would be infected, and more people would die. That is not the right approach. What we need to do is to make certain that when this is all said and done, we have a smart approach to this; that a business that is conscientious, cares for its customers, and cares for its workers has standards to live by and that they can meet reasonable standards that have been thought through from a public health viewpoint. It is no wonder that there is uncertainty when you look at the situation today. The Centers for Disease Control suggests voluntary standards, suggestions. The White House accepts some, publishes some, scoffs at others, and ignores others. There is just no clear message to businesses and people across America on what the standards of safety will be. So I would say that this hearing this afternoon is important to hear from Mr. Smartt and his willingness to look for standards that he can live by, and to hear from Marc Perrone about the dangers to his workers across the workplace. And don't believe for a minute that this caravan of lawsuits threat that we hear over and over tells the whole story. When you take a look at the lawsuits that have been filed, it is not just the so-called caravan of trial lawyers that are coming in and jumping on this. There are businesses suing businesses. There are lots of lawsuits that have little or nothing to do with personal injury. There are also lawsuits involving workers' compensation. Senator McConnell's suggestion is that we overturn the State laws that give workers the right to recover in the workplace if their injuries and or their health is impaired because of the COVID-19 virus. What a terrible outcome that would be to walk away from decades of established protection for workers in every State in the Union, for Senator McConnell's so-called redline threat when it comes to the COVID virus No. 4 bill that Speaker Pelosi is proposing. There is a reasonable answer here. We can say to these businesses across America: Join us in the fight. Let's stand together. You protect your workers, you protect your customers, and we will stand by you. We will establish a reasonable standard of conduct for you, which will protect you from frivolous lawsuits. But to take the approach by Senator McConnell, saying that we just are going to guarantee immunity from lawsuits, is exactly the wrong thing to do. We need a standard of safety that businesses can be proud of, that workers can respect, and that customers can count on so that they can go into places, do their business, buy the products, and know that there is a standard of good health that is being established for everyone. 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), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in this season of great mourning, last Monday, America lost a man who tried for years--during some of our darkest moments--to comfort our grief-stricken Nation. His name was Greg Zanis, but he was known as ``The Cross Man.'' One month ago, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Last Friday, Mr. Zanis, his wife Sue, and their grown children watched from inside the Zanis family home in Aurora, IL, as a parade of neighbors drove past to show their love and respect for Greg. This caravan of caring stretched for a mile and included more than 320 cars, trucks, SUVs, and motorcycles. It was a fitting tribute to a quiet man whose compassion and sacrifice helped ease the grief of countless Americans over the last 25 years. You may never have heard his name before, but chances are you may have seen his work. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 and nearly every mass shooting and natural disaster since then, Greg Zanis crafted wooden memorials to honor the fallen. Over nearly 20 years, he made and personally delivered some 27,000 handmade memorials to communities across America. Most were crosses, but he also crafted wooden Stars of David and crescent moons to honor the fallen. He drove to Sandy Hook, CT, after 26 children and educators were murdered in that grade school. He drove to Florida to honor the victims of the Pulse Nightclub shooting and returned a heartbreaking short time later after the Parkland High School mass shooting. He drove to Las Vegas after 58 people were killed at a music festival; to the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX, after 26 worshippers were killed; to Pittsburgh, PA, to honor the 11 worshippers killed at the Tree of Life Synagogue. Greg Zanis considered his work a ministry, and it cost him financially and emotionally. He was a master carpenter who gave up much of the work he did otherwise to make and deliver these memorials. When he heard of a mass shooting or a deadly natural disaster, he loaded up his truck with crosses and drove, sometimes leaving in the middle of the night so he could get there as quickly as possible. One friend said that Mr. Zanis often wasn't sure, when he left home, how he would get the gas money to get back to Aurora. Somehow, he always did. He was in Aurora a little over a year ago, February 2019, when the epidemic of mass shootings came to his hometown. Five workers were killed, five police officers wounded at a mass shooting at a warehouse. The tragedy hit Mr. Zanis hard. As he told a reporter for the New York Times, he could drive away from all the other tragedies, but he said, ``I'm not going to be able to get away from this one.'' His ministry didn't take him only to places of mass suffering and death; he also made crosses for individuals. He made 700 crosses carried down Michigan Avenue in Chicago to honor those who died in that great city in 1 year. He made his first cross in 1996 to honor his father-in-law, who had been murdered in a shooting. He learned from that experience that transforming wood into symbols of faith helped to make grief more bearable. That is the gift that he tried to share with others. The mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso last September shook him deeply. Among the 22 killed and 23 wounded were little children shopping for school supplies with their parents. Between the heat of the south Texas sun and the enormity of their losses, Mr. Zanis struggled to make enough crosses. He decided, after that, that he had to retire from his ministry. He was 69 years old. A few months later, his cancer was diagnosed. In this time, when so many of the usual customs of grieving must be suspended, may we all find some consolation and inspiration in the extraordinary, ordinary man who helped to ease the grief of so many. 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), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, Americans owe a great debt of gratitude to the healthcare heroes on the frontlines of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about one special group of healthcare workers: immigrants. Consider this: 1 in 6 healthcare and social service workers--3.1 million out of 18.7 million--are immigrants. These immigrants are playing a critical role in the battle against the pandemic, yet our broken immigration system does not allow many of them to fulfill their dreams of becoming part of America's future. I have come to the floor today to tell a story of one of our immigrant health heroes, and I will continue to highlight these stories in the coming weeks. I am also inviting my colleagues from across the Nation to come tell their own stories on social media or on the floor with #ImmigrantHealthHeroes, shown on this chart. Thousands of immigrant health workers are suffering because of a serious problem in our immigration system: It is the green card backlog. This backlog puts them and their families at risk of losing their immigration status, and it hinders their ability to participate in the fight against COVID-19. Under our current laws, there are not nearly enough immigrant visas, also known as green cards, available each year. As a result, immigrants are struck in crippling backlogs not just for years but for decades. Close to 5 million future Americans are in line waiting for green cards. Hundreds of thousands of them are already working in the United States on temporary visas, while many more are waiting abroad, separated from their American families. Only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards are available each year. The backlogs are really hard on these families who are caught in this immigration limbo. For example, children in many of these families age out and face deportation as their parents are waiting in line for their green cards. The green card backlog includes thousands of doctors--medical doctors--who are currently working in our country on a temporary basis. These doctors face many restrictions due to their temporary status, such as not being able to volunteer at hospitals in COVID-19 hotspots where they are so desperately needed. The solution to the green card backlog is clear: Increase the number. In 2013, I joined a group of four Republicans and four Democrats who authored a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. The bill passed the Senate with a strong vote, 68-3, and it would have eliminated the green card backlog. Last year, I introduced the RELIEF Act, legislation based on the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill that would clear the backlog for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 years. I will keep fighting to help all immigrants who are stuck in this backlog. Last week, I joined with my colleagues, Republican Senators David Perdue of Georgia, Todd Young of Indiana, and John Cornyn of Texas and Democratic Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Pat Leahy of Vermont to introduce legislation to quickly address the plight of immigrant doctors and nurses who are stuck in this green card backlog. This backlog poses a significant risk to our ability to effectively respond to this pandemic. Our bill, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act, is a temporary stopgap bill that will strengthen our healthcare workforce and improve healthcare access for Americans in the midst of this crisis. Our bill would recapture 25,000 unused immigrant visas for nurses and 15,000 unused visas for doctors. These are visas that Congress previously authorized, but we never used. Our bill would quickly allocate these visas to doctors and nurses who can help us today in the fight against COVID-19. It is important to note that our bill requires employers to attest that any immigrant from overseas who receives these visas will not displace an American worker. We want to ensure that all beneficiaries of this bill complement our American healthcare workforce. As Congress begins to work on the next legislation to address this pandemic, I will push for the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act to be included. Today, I want to tell you the story of one immigrant healthcare worker who is stuck in this green card backlog and would benefit from the act I just described. This is Dr. Ram Sanjeev Alur. Dr. Alur was born in India. As a child, he survived a bout with meningitis, a disease that is often fatal. This experience inspired him to become a doctor. He went to medical school in India, then trained in internal medicine in the United Kingdom. Dr. Alur came to the United States in 2007 for medical residency training. In 2011, he began working as an internist and hospitalist in the Marion Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Marion, IL. Dr. Alur has led the emergency room inpatient unit for the last 3 years, and now, he is on the frontlines of the pandemic as a member of his hospital's COVID-19 response team. Dr. Alur lives in Marion with his wife and three kids. Their ages are 12, 8, and 6. He sent me a letter, but listen to what he said about his life in southern Illinois living in Marion: I consider the opportunity to work at the VA medical center as a blessing. To serve the veterans is an honor, responsibility and satisfaction that enhances anyone's life. I found my calling and hope to spend the rest of my career and raise my family here. I would like to see my children blossom in this community and grow into successful, responsible citizens. Unfortunately, Dr. Alur is one of thousands of doctors stuck in this green card backlog. He has been forced to renew his temporary visa four times since he started working serving our veterans at the Marion VA facility. He has been approved for a green card but will have to wait decades--decades--because of the backlog of people just like him, waiting for their green cards. In the meantime, Dr. Alur's oldest daughter would age out--she is 12 now--but she would age out and be forced to leave the country before he is legally entitled to become a citizen of this country. Think of that heartbreaking situation, breaking up this man's family because he has been approved for a visa but has to wait to make sure he meets the quota in each year, and he will end up waiting for decades. In the midst of this pandemic, Dr. Alur's immigration status puts him at a great risk. If, God forbid--God forbid--he contracts COVID-19 and becomes disabled or dies, his family would lose their immigration status and be forced to leave the United States. Tell me that is fair, that this man who is serving our veterans and has waited patiently to become a citizen of United States and be part of our future, should he get sick or die, his family would be deported. Here is what he said to me about this: The pandemic shook our family. Being a temporary worker on a visa never stared us in the face more. This lack of protection is every frontline immigrant doctor's nightmare. Dr. Alur's temporary immigration status also prevents him from working part-time in a COVID-19 hotspot like Chicago. Here is what he said: It is depressing to watch the medical system, stretched while the pandemic takes its toll, and not be able to help or participate. It is like a soldier sitting out a battle, player sitting out a game, fireman sitting out a house fire. His family's plight led Dr. Alur to start Physicians for American Health Care Access, a nonprofit organization to advocate for doctors serving underserved communities who are stuck in this green card backlog. I can tell you, in southern Illinois, we are desperate for good doctors. We need them not just at Marion VA, but we need more specialists around the entire region. This is a rural area of our State, small-town area, and they need these specialists more than ever. How we can take a good man like this, who is willing to serve our veterans and do more in this COVID-19 epidemic, and tell him he is not welcome to be a citizen of this country, I just do not understand. When I heard Dr. Alur's story, it inspired me to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to introduce this law that I mentioned, the Healthcare Workforce Resilience Act. Under our bill, Dr. Alur and thousands like him could receive their green cards. They and their families would get the permanent immigration status that they deserve and be able to use their skills to serve in the frontlines of the pandemic if they are needed--and they are. I hope that, even in these divided times, we can come together in Congress to quickly aid these immigrant healthcare heroes.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, we live in a dangerous world, and this morning we were reminded as the Republican leader came to the floor and spoke about foreign policy. Later on today, we will address the issue of a veto override on the War Powers Act, a measure which I cosponsored. It may surprise some people that we are in the area of foreign policy on our Senate agenda this week, because in this dangerous world that we live in, we all know that the first thing we look for is the danger at the doorstep. Our danger, of course, is a national emergency, as President Trump has characterized it, a public health crisis--the COVID-19 coronavirus threat to the United States and all of our families. Many of us who came back to Washington this week were wary because we had been warned to stay in our homes as long as possible, to stay out of circulation, and not to gather in workplaces unless absolutely necessary. All of us thought if we were going to return, we hoped the priority would be this looming crisis in America, this public health crisis. But, sadly, as we bring this week's legislative activity to a close, little, if anything, has been said or done on the Senate floor or in committee to address the issue at the moment. What are we going to do to protect Americans and their families? Senator McConnell brought us back for a hearing for one of his favorite judges--a Federal judge in Kentucky, a young man who was an intern in his office and whom he is now trying to promote to the second highest court in the land. In the ordinary course of Senate business, this would not be unusual. It might have drawn some attention because of the qualifications of this individual, but attention has been given to it as people compare it to the real issues that we should be facing. When you think about the issues before us, one of them is very imminent. Across the street from the U.S. Senate is the Supreme Court building. Pending before the Supreme Court at this moment is a lawsuit brought by President Trump and Republican attorneys general from across the United States to abolish the Affordable Care Act--to abolish an Affordable Care Act that provides health insurance for 20 million Americans and also provides protections in the health insurance policies for another 135 million Americans--a law which basically says if you have a preexisting condition, you can't be denied insurance coverage. At this moment in our history, at this moment as we face this health crisis, it is unimaginable that the Republican position is to eliminate health insurance protection for 20 million Americans and to lessen the protections in health insurance policies for 135 million more. So far, 1.2 million Americans have been diagnosed as infected with the COVID-19 virus. Sadly, some 70,000 Americans have died. What is going to happen in the days and months and years ahead if the Republicans have their way and if preexisting conditions return to health insurance? Will there be a day when you or your spouse or your parent or your children will be asked if you were ever diagnosed positive for COVID-19? Will this be a disqualification in the future if we don't have the protection when it comes to preexisting conditions? That is not out of the realm of possibility. How can the Republicans be thinking that this is the right moment in history to abolish the Affordable Care Act and the health insurance that 20 million Americans count on and 135 million Americans who have their own health insurance plans take advantage of? It is exactly the wrong moment. There was an effort to abolish this Affordable Care Act--they like to call it ObamaCare--on the floor of the Senate in the last 2 years. I still remember the moment when Senator John McCain, the late Senator from Arizona, came to the floor in the early morning hours and gave the motion for a ``no'' vote, and that was the end of the story. The Republican abolition effort ended with that vote. You would think they learned their lesson. Senator McCain and other Republicans said: We cannot eliminate this unless we have something better to replace it with. They didn't then. They don't now. Attorney General Barr warned the Trump White House not to go forward with this lawsuit pending in the Supreme Court. He understood that it was unwise not only from a policy viewpoint, but it was unwise politically. Imagine, if you will, in the weeks and months ahead, should this Court, this Roberts Court, decide to abolish the Affordable Care Act in the midst of this public health crisis--I can't think of anything more catastrophic when it comes to these 20 million families and their health insurance protection and the 100 million-plus who count on this protection against discrimination for preexisting conditions. That is the reality we face, but it is not the only reality. A decision was made this week that is almost impossible to understand. There was a telephone conference call involving leaders from all around the world. These leaders came together to discuss something that we are all praying for--the discovery of a vaccine that will protect us from this coronavirus. They wanted money pledged, some $8 billion. Norway pledged $1 billion. The European Union pledged $1 billion. When they went around the table, there was a chair that was empty. The United States of America wasn't at the conference. The President made a conscious decision that we would not engage in this conversation about the discovery of a lifesaving vaccine. Why? What was he possibly thinking? This notion of America first, which we hear over and over again, has some value, of course, but when it comes to a global pandemic, when it comes to a global challenge, when it comes to the fact that over 90 countries around the world are searching for that vaccine, when it comes to the fact that most of us don't really care where it is found as long as it is found and the sooner the better and that we have access to it for Americans as well as everyone else--that is the bottom line. It isn't about America being first and only when it comes to the vaccine. Even the Senate Republican leader said this morning that we can't retreat from the world. It is so appropriate to have this global vaccine conference. Two Americans were involved in this conference--in this virtual conference call--Bill and Melinda Gates. We know his background, his great success at Microsoft, and his commitment, with his wife, ever since to global health issues. They were at the table speaking for the United States, and I want to personally thank them for being there, but we should have been there as well. The President of the United States should have been on that conference call. He should have said: The United States is going to help find this vaccine wherever it is found in the world. We are going to be at the table when we talk about producing it in quantities that will make a difference for people living everywhere in the world, including the United States, and we are going to be here as well when we apportion those vaccine doses so we make certain that Americans have their fair share and that we can protect our own country. Do you want to reopen the economy, Mr. President? Do you want to liberate America from the CDC suggestion that we shelter in place? Do you want to liberate us truly? Then join in this conference and this conversation among leaders across the world to find this vaccine. I hope we can find it in the United States. We have a lot of talented people searching, but if another country finds it, let's applaud that. If it is an effective and safe vaccine that protects us, let's applaud whatever country finds it--including the United States, of course, but if it is found in another country, we are not going to be part of the conversation as long as this President folds his arms, juts out his chin, and says: I am sorry, the WHO--the World Health Organization--is at the table, and we want no part of them, so we are staying away. Pride cometh before the fall, Mr. President. You can't expect the American people to fall with you because of your own source of pride. We should deal with the reality of what we face in this world. Let me say a word about the State and local governments because as we consider the next round of legislation to help this economy, we certainly want to make certain that unemployment insurance will be available for the millions of Americans--over 30 million Americans who are unemployed. The current round of unemployment insurance is set to expire around July 31. We want to make certain that small businesses that are receiving forgivable loans so they can be poised and ready to reopen and go into business, put people back to work--that is supposed to end around the end of June. I pray that this whole controversy and this crisis will be behind us by then, but we know better. We know it will take some time to get the economy back in gear. Let's make sure that we renew our commitment to the people in this country, the families in this country, the unemployed in this country, and the small business owners as well. But don't forget the others who are counting on us. Don't forget our first responders. How often have we stood up and responded and praised police, firefighters, paramedics, medical professionals, and nurses who stepped up in the midst of this crisis and showed extraordinary courage, some giving their lives in the process? Well, part of their future depends on us in the next bill. Are we going to stand up to make sure that State and local governments, which have been hard hit by this crisis as well when it comes to their own revenue, will get a helping hand? God forbid we reach a point where, because of the shortcomings in the State and local revenue, we have to lay off police, firefighters, healthcare workers, and teachers. Is that what we want to do in this moment? A few weeks ago, when he was asked, Senator McConnell said we should consider bankruptcy--bankruptcy for State and local governments that can't pay their bills. What a disaster that would be. You want to see America cartwheeled into a recession leading to a depression? Bankruptcies from one end of America to the other by State and local governments would do just that, and the damage it would do to first responders who would be laid off as a result of it, the police and the firefighters and the teachers, is incalculable. We can't let that happen to America. A bankrupt America is an America headed for a depression, and when Senator McConnell suggested that, I thought to myself, he hasn't thought this through. He cannot be saying that to the teachers of Kentucky and the police and the firefighters and the medical professionals who count so much on our support. At this point, there are things we can do and must do. My checklist would include hazard pay for those I mentioned, including the healthcare workers, and most importantly, a dramatic increase in testing. We have about one-third of the test kits we need to put America back to work. We look at situations like the ones facing us in meat-processing facilities. It has created a real hardship on consumers across America. But don't forget the producers of livestock in South Dakota and Illinois and Tennessee. They are producing pork and beef to be headed to the processing plants, and the plants are closed down. It is a downturn in demand for sure but also working conditions, which need to be addressed directly so there is safety in the workplace for all American workers. When the Senate Republican leader comes to the floor and talks about how we don't want anybody held responsible or liable for their conduct or misconduct during the course of this, I think he is not thinking through clearly what he is talking about. In this situation, you certainly wouldn't want to deny to nurses, who were seeking protection with protective equipment--masks, gloves, and gowns--you wouldn't want to deny them a day in court, if necessary. You wouldn't want to say to workers who were in dangerous situations in the workplace that they can't collect workers' compensation even if they are injured or sick. But when I hear the Republican leader talk about COVID-19 lawsuits-- both the lawsuits I just described relate to COVID-19, and both call for simple fairness when it comes to protecting workers and families over large corporations. The Senate leader has come to the floor so many times and said that the real enemy here are the lawyers of America. Really? At this moment in history, that is the fight we want to pick? It is time for us to come together, not to make something like that a redline against continued bipartisan cooperation. I stand here today in the hopes that we will come back to session--if we do next week--to truly address the COVID-19 crisis. We have wasted a week here when it comes to that crisis. We could be doing so much more. I hope the Senate Republican leader, who sets the agenda for the Senate, will go home to Kentucky, and as he goes home to Kentucky and talks to the families there--and I will in Illinois--we will both come back with the realization that the No. 1 priority in this dangerous world is the danger at our doorstep. Let's get this under control and protect the families and individuals across America so that we can resume the path to greatness this country has been on since the beginning. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are here today to ensure the Senate fulfills its constitutional duties in having the sole power to send U.S. troops to war. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is explicit in saying the power to declare war is an explicit power of the Congress. Congress overwhelming reaffirmed this Constitutional provision when it passed the War Powers law in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon after the American people were lied to by both political parties about that war. Under the law, the President has the authority to approve military attacks as a response to an imminent threat or with the expressed authorization of Congress. Neither of these was the case with President Trump's decision to kill Iranian General Suleimani in January, a decision that led to a horrific missile attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and only further added to ongoing tensions with Iran. The majority leader has argued that the War Powers law is somehow only relevant to thousands of troops being deployed to a Vietnam type situation, not a military action the President argues is simply a deterrence. Well, that is a dangerous rationale argument and exactly what this law had in mind, the reckless or creeping escalation to war without the authorization of Congress. In fact, the recent briefing by the administration on Iran was filled with echoes of the Gulf of Tonkin, vague assertions used to justify stunning military escalation in Vietnam. It raised serious concerns about what we are being told about the justifications for the attack and showed little evidence of an imminent threat and this from an administration whose President has made more than 18,000 misleading or false statements already. Certainly nothing in the briefings offered the Senate convinced me that the administration even thinks it needs congressional authorization for taking escalatory actions. That is why I joined Senator Kaine in invoking the War Powers Act. This Senate should not allow the county to led into another Middle East war without its consent. And the Constitution is clear on this; Article I section 8 states that the power to declare war is an explicit power of the Congress--as it should be, one should never send our sons and daughters into war without the consent of the people. I have made this same argument regardless of who was in the White House, Republican or Democrat. I urge my colleagues to join us in reaffirming this body's constitutional role in matters of war by overriding the President's veto.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I spent 5 weeks in my home in Springfield, IL, following orders--good ones--to suggest that I had to get out of circulation and so should everyone else. It was an interesting moment. My wife and I think it may have been the longest stretch we had ever spent under the same roof together. We got along, which is good, and I got to field the neighborhood a little more than I usually do as I travel back and forth almost every week. I got to know the people a little more, waving from a distance. I looked around and noticed that almost every lawn had a sign on it saying: ``We love healthcare workers.'' Many people had signs in their windows to back that up too, and we should. These doctors, these nurses, and these people who work in nursing homes caring for the elderly and making certain they are in a good, safe environment are important, and they are risking their lives for the people whom we love. We thank them over and over. But there is one part of that group that I would like to highlight for just a few moments on the floor of the Senate. I want to spend a few minutes talking about one special group of healthcare workers--immigrants. One in six healthcare and social service workers--3.1 million out of 18.7 million--are immigrants. When they come on television and give us a breakdown of what is going on in emergency rooms and the likelihood of our success in communities in dealing with this coronavirus, you must notice so many times and think that they may be newcomers to the United States. Many of them are. These immigrants are playing a critical role in the battle against this pandemic. Yet the President of the United States and many around him continue to disparage immigrants, falsely claiming that they are just a drain on society, that all they are doing is taking our jobs away and we really wouldn't miss them if they were gone. So I came to the floor today to tell a story about one of them, an immigrant health hero. I will be joined by some of my colleagues who have similar stories to tell. We are inviting people to share their own stories on social media using the hashtag ``immigranthealthheroes.'' I will put up the hashtag here so that if anyone wants to check in, they can do so. Many of these healthcare workers are young immigrants who came to the United States as children. They are known as Dreamers. They are American in every way except for their legal immigration status. They were brought here at an early age by parents who didn't give them a vote on the decision, grew up in the United States, went to our schools, sometimes all the way through college and professional school, want to make a life in this country, have no criminal record, and are just looking for a chance. It was 9 years ago when I joined Republican Senator Dick Lugar on a bipartisan basis asking President Obama to use his executive authority to protect these Dreamers from deportation. He responded and created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. DACA provides temporary protection from deportation for Dreamers if they register with the government, pay a substantial fee, and go through a criminal background check. More than 800,000 Dreamers came forward and received President Obama's DACA protection. DACA unleashed the full potential for these Dreamers that they never dreamed they would have, and they started contributing to America as soldiers and teachers and small business owners. More than 200,000 DACA recipients are now categorized as ``essential critical infrastructure workers''--``essential critical infrastructure workers.'' Who came up with that name? It is the definition of President Trump's own Department of Homeland Security. One out of four of these DACA protectees are essential critical infrastructure workers, and among these essential workers are 41,700 DACA recipients in the healthcare industry. They include doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, and respiratory therapists. But on September 5, 2017, President Trump repealed DACA. Because of that action by the President, hundreds of thousands of Dreamers face losing their jobs, but, more importantly, they face being deported, many to countries they barely remember, if they remember at all. The courts stepped in and blocked the President from enforcing this DACA decision, but he took on the appeal of that decision, and now it is in the Supreme Court, just across the street. I was proud to lead 172 current and former Members of Congress on a bipartisan brief asking the Supreme Court to rule against President Trump's repeal of DACA. These young DACA recipients are being protected while the case is being considered by the Supreme Court, but a decision could come down any day--could come down any day--that basically makes these young people subject to deportation and takes away any legal right they have to work. If the Court rules in favor of President Trump on DACA, 200,000 essential American workers will be sidelined and deported, even as we fight this pandemic. Last month, I sent a letter to the President--37 of my colleagues joined me--urging him to extend the work authorization for DACA recipients, not to make their future depend on what happens in the Court. The President has the authority to say that, at least until the end of the calendar year--or beyond, I hope--we are not going to deport these young people, and we are not going to take their jobs away, particularly those in the healthcare industry. But if you consider President Trump's attitude toward immigrants, you know he is likely to forge ahead with his decision to deport the Dreamers. That means we have to do our part. I worked with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to include a provision to automatically extend work authorizations for DACA recipients in the CARES Act that Congress just passed a few weeks ago. We presented it to the leaders on a bipartisan basis. We had the approval of Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, but not the Republican leader in the Senate. He stopped us from extending this protection. I don't know what his situation is in Kentucky, but I can tell you that in Illinois, we need every one of these healthcare workers we have today. We can't afford to lose them. To think that 41,000 DACA recipients and another 11,000 TPS critical healthcare workers would be deported would mean that many Americans who count on these great professionals are going to get less care and perhaps terrible results. As Congress debates the next legislation to address the COVID-19 pandemic, I will continue pushing for this provision. It is not too much to ask that if these people simply want to be working in ERs and hospitals, risking their lives for all of us, that they at least have the peace of mind to know that they can stay until the end of the calendar year. That is all I am asking for. Is it too much to ask? Some of them are suffering, and their families are suffering too. All they want is the authority to stay here. Last year, the House of Representatives passed the Dream and Promise Act, based on the Dream Act, with a strong vote. Senator McConnell has refused to call it in the Senate. It could help us. I wish he would consider it. I have come to the floor over 100 times and told the stories of Dreamers. I don't think there is any better way to make the case--meet them, know them, realize what they brought to America and what they bring each day. Today, I want to tell you the story of this man. His name is Manuel Bernal. He works in the emergency department at the Advocate Christ Medical Center. Manuel was brought to the United States when he was 2 years old. He grew up in Memphis, TN. He always wanted to become a doctor. He wrote me a letter, and he said: Early on, I developed an appreciation for the medical profession when I witnessed the compassionate care received by a loved one at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. Manuel graduated in the top 10 percent of his hospital class. He was a leader of several high school honor societies. In his spare time, he was a swimmer, a football player, and volunteered at the St. Jude Club and the Key Club. He continued his education at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He graduated summa cum laude in biology with a minor in chemistry. In college, he worked as a medical scribe for doctors in the emergency room at a small community hospital in Chattanooga. After this experience, he decided he wanted to go all the way. He wanted to become an emergency room physician. He continued his education at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine. Allow me a few seconds to praise this wonderful school. He was one of dozens of DACA recipients at Stritch, which was the first medical school to admit DACA students. They do not receive any special treatment in the selection process, and they are not eligible for a penny in Federal financial assistance. Many of them borrowed money from the State of Illinois to complete their medical education in the hopes that once they are licensed, they can come back and practice in our State, which they promise to do. Here is what Manuel says DACA means to him: DACA has undoubtedly opened up many doors for me. It meant allowing me to obtain my dream of serving others through emergency medicine. If DACA ended, I would be forced to stop doing not only what I love doing but what I trained so hard to do. Today, Dr. Manuel Bernal is an emergency room resident at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Chicago, one of the busiest trauma hospitals in our city. His supervisor told him he did not have to treat COVID-19 patients because he is only a resident, but he stepped forward and volunteered to do it anyway. Manuel's DACA is set to expire in October, 5 months from now. Will America be stronger if this doctor leaves? Will they be better at Advocate Christ Medical Center, the trauma hospital, if Manuel was forced to leave this country? I can't imagine anyone would answer yes. Manuel and hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers are counting on the Supreme Court to reject President Trump's abolition of DACA and counting on us who serve in the Senate to solve this crisis President Trump alone created. As long as I am a U.S. Senator, I will continue to come to the floor of the Senate to advocate for Manuel and for thousands of others who simply want a chance to prove themselves to earn their way into America's future. It would be an American tragedy at this moment when we face this national emergency to lose these brave and talented young people. They are saving lives every day, and they are risking their own to do it. Can we ask anything more of anyone else in this country? We must ensure that Manuel and hundreds of thousands of others in our essential workforce are not forced to stop working when their services are needed now more than ever. Ultimately, we need to pass legislation that is just common sense, that says these young people who came here as kids and have worked doubly hard under the greatest of pressures and have made a success of their lives, like this young man, can stay in America and be part of our future. He is truly a healthcare hero, and he is an immigrant. He is an immigrant healthcare hero, and there are thousands just like him across America. We need them now more than ever. I see that Senator Cortez Masto is here. I know she wants to speak on this subject. I yield the floor to her.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Nevada. Anna's story is so touching. This young girl, concerned about her own future, worried about deportation, gets into a giving, caring profession and risks her life in caring for those who may be suffering from COVID-19. To think someone would question whether we want that kind of person in America's future is beyond me. Thank you for telling that story. It is an important part of the Record