Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was honored today to attend the second hearing I have attended in the Supreme Court of the United States. If you stand right here on the floor of the Senate and look east through these glass doors, you can almost see the Supreme Court buildings directly across the street. The Supreme Court is, many times, the last stop when it comes to human rights and civil rights. After all the work that has been done by the Congress, by the President, many times, it is the Supreme Court that has the last word. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when the Supreme Court held that segregation was constitutional, that last word was a disappointment. And Korematsu v. The United States, when the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, that was another disappointment. But other times, the Supreme Court has risen to the challenge: The famous case of Brown vs. Board of Education, which finally struck down the concept of separate but equal; Obergefell vs. Hodges, where the Supreme Court recognized the right to marriage equality. Well, today, the Supreme Court faces another human rights issue involving another group. Just a few hours ago, the street between the Capitol and the Supreme Court was literally filled with thousands and thousands of demonstrators. The issue before the Court today was the fate of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This measure, DACA, is one that I have worked on for many years--many years. Nineteen years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act. Before that, the term ``Dreamer'' was hardly ever applied in the conversation about immigration, but now, it has become standard and really defines this group of Americans, people living in America. In their case, they came to the United States, brought here by their parents, when they were children. They may have had legal entry into the United States, but at some point in their lives, they no longer were legal. They became undocumented, in the words of the law. Most of these young people never knew that status until they reached their teenage years and their parents finally told them the truth of their legal condition. They had no control over the decision of their parents to come to this country or file the necessary papers. Frankly, many of them were shocked to learn that they were undocumented. They went to school with our kids. They grew up in our communities. They played on the sports teams. They probably attended the same churches and temples and synagogues as our own kids. They were just part of the group. But they knew--they privately knew they were not. They knew that they were one knock on the door away from being deported from the United States. It was because of one of these young people that I decided to introduce that DREAM Act legislation 19 years ago. Her name is Tereza Lee, brought to the United States at the age of 2 from Korea by her parents to Chicago. She grew up in a family that struggled to make ends meet. Her father wanted to be a minister, but never quite put that church together. Her mother worked in a dry-cleaning establishment to feed the family. She went to public schools, and as luck would have it, there was a program at one of these schools called the Merit Music program that gave her a chance to learn how to play the piano. She started playing, and she followed her father around to these churches. Then she took it seriously, and she became an amazing pianist to the point where, when she finished the public high school, she was offered an opportunity to go on for music education at the Manhattan Conservatory of Music. When she filled out her application and reached the point where they asked her nationality and citizenship, she asked her mom: What am I supposed to put on here? Her mom said: I am not sure. We better call Senator Durbin's office. They did, and we checked the law, and the law is very harsh. For Tereza Lee--who had lived 15 or 16 years in the United States, beat the odds by finishing high school and developing this great talent at the piano--the law told her that she had to leave the United States for 10 years and apply to return. That is the law. It seemed unfair to me that a young woman, brought here at the age of 2, should face that as her only legal choice, so I introduced the DREAM Act. It said, if you were brought here as a child, raised in the United States, went to school, and had no criminal record of significance, that you should be given a chance--the chance to make it in the United States to earn your way to legal status and citizenship. That is what the DREAM Act was all about. We passed it in the House and in the Senate, but never in the same Congress, so it is still not the law of the land. It was 8 years ago when I appealed to my former colleague in the Senate, Barack Obama, as President, to try to help, and he did. By Executive action, he created DACA, which said that young people like Tereza Lee could apply, go through a criminal background check, fill out the necessary forms, pay the filing fee, and be allowed to stay in the United States for 2 years at a time, renewable, not to be deported, and be able to legally work. After President Obama came up with DACA, over 780,000 young people came forward and became protected by DACA. It really changed their lives. For the first time in their lives, they had some government- recognized status. They were no longer just undocumented. Then amazing things happened. They went on and pursued an education, a career, a life, a future. They started realizing their dreams. It was a good and positive thing all around. Then, President Trump came into office. Initially, he was very complimentary of Dreamers, saying positive things about them, but, unfortunately, over a period of time he changed his attitude about this issue. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced he was going to end the DACA Program, end the protection for these young people. It was a sad day and a challenge for us to decide what to do, to try to pass legislation in the Congress that would protect these young people, and we rolled up our sleeves and put together several bipartisan measures in the Senate. President Trump rejected every single one of them. He wasn't going to have it. He was opposed to our enacting legislation that dealt with it. That repeal of DACA has created uncertainty for hundreds of thousands. A lawsuit was filed in an effort to try to protect them, and the courts said their protection would continue while the case was being argued. The case worked its way through the courts and ended up, this morning, at the U.S. Supreme Court across the street. I was proud to lead 172 current and former Members of Congress on a bipartisan amicus brief in support of DACA. Now it is clearly up to the Justices in the Supreme Court to follow the law and to reject what I consider to be President Trump's illegal repeal of DACA, but only Congress can provide a permanent solution for Dreamers. The U.S. House of Representatives has responded to President Trump's cruel decision to repeal DACA by passing the Dream and Promise Act on a strong bipartisan vote of 237 to 187. This legislation is based on the DREAM Act I originally introduced 19 years ago. This bipartisan legislation would give Dreamers a chance to earn their citizenship. The bill passed the House. It is here. It is now up to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to call the Dream and Promise Act for a vote in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I want to make a unanimous consent request in relation to that measure and ask for a consent after we debate my UC request to complete my remarks. I see a Senator on the floor who I believe is here to object. I want to be courteous to her because she has been in the Chair for a while. Can I have a unanimous consent to return to the debate after I make my unanimous consent request?

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for clarity, I ask unanimous consent to bring to the floor the Dream and Promise Act for a vote in the Senate-- a measure which would address the very issue that is before the Supreme Court today. I am making this on behalf of Senator Schumer, Senator Leahy, Senator Rosen, Senator Tim Kaine, Senator Menendez, and Senator Cardin. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 112, H.R. 6; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the record, how many pieces of legislation did we consider in the Senate last week? None. The week before? None. How many months has this measure been sitting in the Senate, the Republican-controlled Senate? Five months, and for five months the Republican leader has not considered it worthy to even bring it before the Senate for debate. I don't control the agenda. Senator McConnell does. He has decided this measure is not worth debating on the floor of the U.S. Senate. When I come and make a unanimous consent request to bring this measure to the floor, it isn't as if we are taking away an option, which the Republican leader is using. He is not. When we look back to the debate or at least the effort to find a compromise with President Trump on this issue, it is next to impossible. He is surrounded by people who are completely against DACA and Dreamers. Stephen Miller is a good illustration of one. It used to be Jeff Sessions. He is no longer with the administration. Every time the President starts to lean toward DACA and the Dreamers, these people intervene and stop him, and negotiations come to an end. It is time for us in the Senate not to wait for a permission slip from President Trump to pass legislation. I am prepared to bring this matter to the floor and to accept the decision on the amendments on the floor. We are in the minority. We will lose some of these amendments. So be it. Let's let the Senate be the Senate and deliberate these measures. To argue that I shouldn't be asking to bring it to the floor because it has to go through regular order, the obvious question is: When is Senator McConnell going to pursue regular order on a measure that has been sitting here for 5 months? Let me say a word, if I can, while we are on the subject, about the people who are involved. We can talk about Senate procedure and law all we wish, but what we should do is discuss the real people who are involved. In 1,000 days in office, this President has issued 11,000 tweets. No surprise, is it? There are 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 a day. He issued one this morning about the young people who are in question here. I would like to read President Donald Trump's tweet from this morning, as the case was headed to the Supreme Court. Here is what he tweeted: Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ``angels.'' Some are very tough, hardened criminals. President Obama said he had no legal right to sign order, but would anyway. If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay! May I address one particular aspect of the tweet of the President of the United States on this subject affecting the fate of 780,000 young people living in the United States? Probably the best thing is not to do it generically but to talk about specifics. Let me tell you a story about two DACA recipients, both attending Loyola University in Chicago--the city I am honored to represent. They both came to Washington, DC, today, and sat in the Supreme Court during the argument. I am going to leave it up to my Members and colleagues in the Senate, as well as those who are following this debate, to reach their own conclusion about these two whom I am about to tell the story of. You decide whether this man is a tough and hardened criminal. His name is Cesar Montelongo. He grew up in the State of New Mexico. He was a pretty good student. In fact, he was an excellent student. He graduated from high school with a grade point average of 4.0 and ranked third in his class. He went on to New Mexico State University, where he was a triple major in biology, microbiology, and Spanish, as well as two minors in chemistry and biochemistry. Cesar graduated with a 3.9 GPA. This hardened criminal then went on to earn a master's degree in biology, with a minor in molecular biology, while working as a teaching assistant. Then DACA came along. For the first time in his life, he had a chance to apply for medical school. He never thought that could happen. He applied and was accepted at Loyola University's Chicago Stritch School of Medicine. It is quite an achievement. The Presiding Officer, who is also a medical doctor, I am sure understands that, but he did one better. He enrolled in the M.D.-Ph.D. program at Loyola University. He was just in my office upstairs, and he told me that in a matter of 2 or 3 years, he will have completed his Ph.D. in microbiology, and then he can go on to complete his medical degree and his residency. This tough, hardened criminal--according to the President--has designs on becoming a medical researcher in the United States of America. When he completes this highly competitive program, he will have a medical degree and a doctorate degree in science. He is one of dozens of DACA recipients at the Stritch School. My hat is off to Loyola University. They have admitted more DACA students to their medical school than any other medical school in the United States. They are amazing students. I have met them. Many, if not all of them, have promised to come back to my State of Illinois, having had this chance to go to medical school in Chicago, and serve in underserved areas after they have become practicing doctors. Loyola doesn't give them any special treatment in the selection process. They are not eligible for any Federal financial assistance. I just want to thank them and say to the President of the United States: Before you put out a tweet calling Cesar Montelongo or people like him hardened criminals, Mr. President, take a minute and meet these young people. While you are at it, meet this young lady too. She was just in my office. Her name is Fernanda Herrera Vera. When she was 2 years old, her family brought her from Mexico to the United States. When she was 7, her family was forced to leave Guntersville, AL, when her father lost his job due to his immigration status. The family settled in Gadsden, AL, where Fernanda attended a private Catholic school on a scholarship. When she was 10, her parents opened a restaurant. Every day after school, she went to the restaurant to wait tables and help run the restaurant, doing her homework in her spare time. During Fernanda's junior year of high school, Alabama passed the harshest anti- immigration law in the country, which forced her family to close down their restaurant. Alabama barred Dreamers from attending even public colleges, but thanks to DACA, Fernanda was able to attend a private school, Samford University in Birmingham, AL. Her parents worked hard to pay tuition. She qualified for no Federal financial assistance. Her dad worked 80 hours a week at a chicken plant so that she could go to college. She graduated from Samford in 2017, and her experience has driven her to become an immigration activist. She worked at the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice. After President Trump repealed DACA in 2017, Fernanda came to Washington for a 4-day hunger fast with other DACA recipients on the Capitol lawn. Last year, Fernanda was admitted to the Loyola University Chicago School of Law. But this spring, her mother was pulled over in Georgia for driving with a broken taillight. Her mother is now in deportation proceedings. It is tough enough to go to school without Federal financial help. It is tough enough to work your way through it. It is tough enough not to know how the Supreme Court is going to rule tomorrow or the day after and whether it will change your fate. It is tough enough to know that any knock at the door could mean deportation for members of your family. Yet she has persevered. A hardened criminal, Mr. President? Fernanda's dream is to become an immigration lawyer. She wants to help people just like her mom. Without DACA, Cesar Montelongo will not become a doctor. Fernanda Herrera Vera will not become an attorney. Will America be a better country if they are forced to leave, if they are deported? I don't think so. Cesar, Fernanda, and hundreds of thousands of other Dreamers are counting on the Supreme Court to do the right thing and reject President Trump's repeal of DACA. They are also counting on those of us who serve in the Senate to stop making excuses and solve this crisis. A bill has passed the House. I tried to bring it to the floor of the Senate, and there was an objection today. It isn't because we are overwhelmed with work. As you can see, we spend a lot of time making speeches. Since Senator McConnell refuses to take any action to address the plight of the Dreamers, I am going to continue to make this unanimous consent request. Next week, I don't want the excuse to be that we are not following regular order, but in the meantime, I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up this measure, as they have so many times over the last 15 years or so, and bring it to the floor of the Senate. Once and for all, could we be the U.S. Senate for a week? Could we actually consider a piece of legislation here that addresses an issue that is critically important to hundreds of thousands of people living in the United States of America? What a relief it would be to see this Senate actually as a Senate, to see Members on the floor debating issues. I am not going to win every debate. Every amendment I want is not going to pass, but I am prepared to accept the outcome. Let's do what the Senate was elected to do. I am sorry there was an objection today. As long as I am a U.S. Senator, I am going to continue to come to the floor of the Senate to advocate for Cesar, Fernanda and all of the Dreamers. It would be an American tragedy to deport these two promising young people. Now it is in the hands of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, to give the Dream and Promise Act a vote and to say to those 780,000 who do not know what their future will be just days or weeks from now that there is an answer: We want you to be part of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on behalf of the corn and soybean farmers in my State, I object to ``small refinery relief language'' in the fiscal year 2020 Interior appropriations bill that suggests that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, disregard Department of Energy determinations on small refinery hardships. The provision encourages EPA to continue allowing refiners to stop blending biofuels with no transparency or evidence of hardship. Fourteen years ago in this Chamber, I helped enact the renewable fuels standard, RFS, which required petroleum-based vehicle fuels to include a minimum volume of ethanol and biodiesel in them. Both fuels are produced from corn and soybeans, driving economic activity throughout Illinois and the Midwest. The law has been a tremendous success. We have created new markets for corn and soybeans and helped supply motorists with affordable fuel. We have provided a greener alternative to MTBE and other additives. And now the United States is the world's largest producer of ethanol, generating commerce and creating jobs, both on and off the farm. In fact, I can hardly think of a national policy in this generation that has achieved greater success for rural economic growth than biofuels. In the wake of the gasoline shortages of the 1970s, the farm financial crisis of the 1980s, the clean air discussions of the 1990s, the oil price spikes of the 2000s, and rural economic conditions of today, biofuels became part of the solution. For more than 40 years, farmers and policymakers built an industry unique to the heartland of this country. Yet in just 2 years, President Trump has wrestled American biofuels to its knees. He singlehandedly has delivered one crippling blow after another. Each action he has taken contributes to the gradual dismantling of this enterprise. With his involvement, or outright neglect, ethanol prices, profits, and blending are the lowest in history, and thousands of rural jobs have been lost. The President claims his support for ethanol and biodiesel is strong. I say: believe it when you see it. Because when this President issues declarations of victory on biofuels, facilities stay shuttered and the markets stay stalled. Congressional frustration on this topic is bipartisan and growing, although some farm State lawmakers and interests still stare at their shoes while a President who shares their political affiliation burns this industry to the ground. Long after the alarm bells were ringing and klaxons were sounding, those who should have known better at the outset, whose earlier responses were accolades, now find themselves at path's end, hoodwinked. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I pressed the EPA to approve E15, a 15 percent blend of ethanol in gasoline, for year-round sales as soon as possible. And I applauded that final decision in June. For Illinois, E15 could boost 14 ethanol facilities and 20,000 downstate jobs. For motorists, E15 could save up to 10 cents per gallon. But pull back the curtain, and the President has allowed EPA to issue 85 secret waivers that allow oil refineries to stop blending biofuels into gasoline. Economists have confirmed that shatters demand for E15. Waivers mean that E15 is a fake victory by President Trump. After increasing pressure and outcry, on October 4, President Trump publicized an agreement ostensibly designed to restore the lost ethanol demand caused by his waivers back to the 15 billion gallon floor--even 16 billion gallons, claimed the President. Ten days later, the Trump administration stunned observers by publishing details that watered down these numbers and slashed the ethanol deal by half, while stakeholders were coached that nothing has changed. The language in the Interior appropriations bill suggests that EPA continue to thumb its nose at corn and soybean producers while issuing small oil refinery waivers. Meanwhile, Big Oil is doing just fine. In May, the Department of Energy reported that net income for top U.S. oil companies like Exxon and Chevron has totaled $28 billion, the most profitable in five years. For farmers, however, net income has plummeted 50 percent from its record highs during the Obama administration. For years, farmers and policymakers of multiple backgrounds and persuasions have come together, in good faith, to carefully build a new industry that benefits consumers, farmers, and rural residents. This pioneering innovation is rooted in the heritage of rural values, all in jeopardy of crumbling because the void between this President's words and acts. I urge my colleagues to work to support rural America by ending EPA's efforts to issue these waivers without any concern for transparency or economic impact.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would say that my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, has accurately stated the situation, but let me add a few sentences about the bill that we are trying to couple with his effort. I totally support what he and Senator Blumenthal are trying to do. The end goal we all have in mind is to bring under control or at least restrain the increases in prescription drug prices. The Senators from Texas and Connecticut have their approach. What Senator Grassley--a Republican from Iowa--and I have suggested with this approach is direct-to-consumer advertising. The pharmaceutical industry spends about $6 billion a year on ads on television. If you have not seen a drug ad on television, you clearly do not own a TV. We want to make sure that each one of these ads contain, amid all the other information they give you, one other critical piece of information: the cost of the drug. We think that will be at least an indication to the pharmaceutical industry that we are watching how much they are charging us. I think some people will be shocked when they see the actual cost of Humira and some other drugs. But that is it, a complementary approach. I hope we can do both. I think the American people want to see prescription drugs become more affordable. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I was asked to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I considered it quite an honor. It is an extraordinary committee with a rich history of involvement in some of the most important issues of our time, and that has been the case for generations. Recently, when it was reformed, I was asked on which subcommittee I wanted to serve. I chose the Immigration Subcommittee. I took it for two reasons. First, I am a lucky American. My mother was an immigrant to this country. She was brought here at the age of 2 from Lithuania. Her mother, who brought her, didn't speak English, but my mom was a pretty smart little girl. She spoke English and Lithuanian, and she was the translator for the family. They even called her into a courtroom as a little girl to translate for a person who was being charged so that they understood the law. My mother was an extraordinary woman. She had an eighth grade education, but was one of the smartest people I have ever known. I guess that is a son talking, but you might expect it. I often thought I was lucky that she lived long enough to see me sworn into the U.S. Senate. This immigrant girl, who became an American citizen, saw her son become the 47th Senator from the State of Illinois. That is my story. That is my family's story. That is America's story. That is who we are. We are a Nation of immigrants. But for those blessed to be able to trace back their roots to indigenous people and Native Americans, all of us have come to this country--either ourselves personally, our parents, or grandparents. Immigration means a lot to me because I think the diversity of this country is its strength. The fact that people were willing to sacrifice so much to come to the United States of America tells me something about them. Many of them risked everything. They left everything behind--left behind their families, their places of worship, their language, their culture, their food--and came to a place they had never seen before because they heard what America was all about--a land of opportunity. So I wanted to be on that subcommittee. The second reason I wanted to be on the subcommittee is that the immigration laws of the United States are a disaster. They are terribly broken. They do not serve our Nation, either in terms of security or bringing the diversity we need for our future. I have known this for a long time. It was 6 or 7 years ago that we put together a group of Senators, four Democrats, four Republicans. John McCain was leading the Republicans with Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake. On the Democratic side was Senator Schumer, who just spoke on the floor; Senator Menendez of New Jersey; Senator Bennet of Colorado; and I. We sat down for months, night after night, looking at every section of the immigration law--this broken law--to say: How will we change this? How can we reach political compromises and serve the best needs of this Nation? And we came up with it. We came up with this comprehensive bill and brought it to the floor of the Senate, and it passed with 68 votes. We finally found a bipartisan answer--just exactly what the American people sent us to do. We sent our work product over to the House of Representatives, and they refused to even consider it. They wouldn't bring our bill up for a vote. They wouldn't debate it, wouldn't offer an amendment, an alternative substitute--nothing. And here we sit with this broken immigration system. I want to describe to my colleagues--or at least those listening in the Senate--one of the issues that came up recently. Here is what it comes down to. There are people who come to the United States to work. Many of them come on what is known as an H-1B visa. It is a specialty visa, and it says that in this situation, this company cannot find an American to fill the job and wants to bring a talented person from another company on a temporary visa to work. Thousands come under this program each year. Many of them come from the country of India. They are trained engineers, by and large, but they are also doctors, and they are professionals who are needed in communities all across our country. Well, we have run into a problem because once they are here and have been here for some time, many of them want to stay. That in and of itself is a good thing, as far as I am concerned. If they are productive employees making a business profitable, creating new jobs in the process, I want them to stay. Some of them were actually educated in the United States and are using that education, working here, but now they want to be permanent residents in this country. There is a difficulty in the problem because we limit the number of people who can apply for what is known as green cards--employment-based visas--each year. The limitation is 140,000. It may sound like a lot, but believe me, there are hundreds of thousands more who are seeking these visas. We have a problem particularly when it comes to those of Indian descent. The problem is the fact that so many of them have come to fill these temporary work jobs and are applying for green cards that there are many more applications for green cards than there are actual cards to be issued. There are only 140,000 total each year for the entire world. There are over 500,000 Indians who have come to this country and are asking for green card status. The law also says that no more than 7 percent can come from any 1 country of the 140,000. If you do the simple math of about 10,000 each year and with there being over 500,000 Indians waiting, imagine what that means. It means that many of them will never live long enough to qualify for a green card. So this has become very controversial. Many of them are desperate, and they should be, for their plights are now so uncertain. It is complicated by the fact that if you come here in an employment- based situation--on a temporary visa, an H-1B--you can bring your family with you, meaning your spouse and your children. Yet, if you stay here for a period of time and if your children reach the age of 21, they can no longer stay based on their parent's visa. Frankly, they are subject to deportation, and some are deported. The other night, I met a large group of these Indians in the State of Illinois who came to me pleading for help. I want to help them. I hope they understand and those who are listening understand as well that when it comes to immigration, I am in favor of border security and of orderly immigration, but I am in favor of immigration and the diversity it brings to this country and the talent it brings to this country. I have a bill before us, known as the RELIEF Act. It would lift that cap of 140,000 so we could absorb more people each year into our country who have been here already or who have been working here already and whose families have been established here already but who just want a chance to, ultimately, apply for citizenship. That is what my bill would do. It would do two other things, and I want to bring these points up for those who are considering my unanimous consent request that I am about to make. I want them to understand how personal and important this is to the people I am talking about. One of the provisions I mentioned relates to the fact that if you bring children to the United States while you are working on those temporary visas, those children are protected until they reach the age of 21, but they are then subject to deportation. I cannot tell you the emotional scenes I have witnessed in the last few weeks as these parents have introduced me to their children and have said to me: Senator, I am in this long line waiting for a green card. My 12-year- old daughter could end up being 21 years old and deported while I am still waiting. I want to take care of her. I want her to have a chance to go to school, and I want her to have a bright future. Yet her fate is tied to the fact that there are not enough green cards for me to stay in this country. One of the provisions in the RELIEF Act that I urge my colleagues to consider when I make this unanimous consent request is that if you apply for a green card as a parent, the age of your children at that moment is basically frozen for legal purposes. Those children cannot age out while you are waiting in line if you applied while they were still minors. This will protect these children from deportation. This is one of the most important and humane things we can do. The second thing is, if we are going to establish any standards or quotas for those who are allowed in this country to have employment- based visas and green cards, we shouldn't count the spouses and dependent children. Let's just count those who are, frankly, going to work as engineers and doctors in our communities. The net result of the RELIEF Act is to create a realistic way to lift the cap in order to allow more to come in each year who are qualified, who have already been vetted, and who have gone through the background checks. It is not to penalize the minor children who might age out while their parents are waiting. We should make sure the spouses and dependent children aren't counted toward any ultimate quota. The RELIEF Act would lift country caps that limit the number of green cards that go to immigrants from any particular country. These country caps have contributed to this terrible backlog that we currently have. Yet lifting these caps alone will not clear the green card backlog. Without more green cards, which is what I am calling for, the current backlog of 800,000 people total--I mentioned 500,000 were from India-- who are waiting for employment-based green cards will actually increase if we don't lift the cap by 300,000 in the next 10 years. The RELIEF Act is not novel or controversial. You will remember that earlier I talked about a comprehensive immigration bill. What I am proposing today is included in it. It is a bipartisan proposal, and it is one that, I think, we should return to in order to solve the problem. The RELIEF Act has been endorsed by many national business, immigrant, and labor organizations, including the New American Economy, the National Education Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, United We Dream, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, South Asian Americans Leading Together, United Chinese Americans, the National Iranian American Council, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, which, incidentally, is the largest Greek-American organization, and the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which is the largest Irish-American organization. In light of the failure of our immigration subcommittee's taking any action to solve this problem, I will ask for unanimous consent to move this bill forward. To those who are considering whether they will accept or reject it, meet with these people in your State. Sit down with them, and hear of the plights they face today. They are trying to follow the law, and the law is not responsive. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 2603 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina and I both serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. What I have asked for is a hearing before the Immigration Subcommittee so Senator Lee can bring his bill forward and so I can bring my bill forward so we can try to work out the differences between us. That is usually how the Senate operates. Unfortunately, last week, on the floor, Senator Lee announced that he was opposed to having any hearing on his bill. He didn't want there to be a hearing and a markup. I think it is unfortunate. It really will not lead us to having a bipartisan agreement that might actually solve this problem. I also think there is a fundamental flaw in Senator Lee's approach. He would take care of the issues facing those from India at the expense of the issues of the immigrants from virtually every other country, for they would be denied the opportunity to apply for green cards while we would be taking care of the backlog from this one nation. I don't think that is the way to approach this. As the Senator from North Carolina said, if we truly believe more legal immigration of those with talents would be good for America, this is our chance to do it. At this point, I am disappointed. I have told these families who come to see me regularly that I will continue to fight for them--to give them a chance to protect their children and to have a future in America. I hope Senator Lee will reconsider and allow for a hearing to take place so we can move this bill forward and not just exchange unanimous consent requests on the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is more to the story. What he just described to you seems pretty obvious: A dangerous person, subject to deportation, why release them into the community? That is a perfectly valid point, one that we ought to be discussing and debating. But there is more to the story, and here is what it comes down to: Why did the major city police chiefs across the United States oppose what the Senator from North Carolina has just suggested? Because they know that if the Federal Government and its immigration authorities are going to use local police to enforce immigration laws, it is going to change their ability to keep communities and neighborhoods safe. Now, why would I say that? Let me give you an example. It was just about 4 months ago when ICE officials pulled over a young woman and said to her: Are you here in the United States legally? She said: I am; I am protected by a program call DACA. They said: We want to go to your home. They went to her home, and her grandmother was there. They asked her grandmother for proof of her citizenship. Her grandmother had overstayed her visitor's visa. They deported her grandmother. So the local police are fearful that if they are now going to be recruited to enforce immigration laws, they will not get cooperation in the community when it comes to fighting crime. Let me give you an example that is timely. On Halloween night, in a section of Chicago, the little kids were out with their parents in a Hispanic neighborhood, walking along, and a little girl, 7 years old, named Giselle Zamago was shot twice. She barely survived. They got her to the hospital, and they saved her life. She is making a miraculous recovery. What is important about this story and relevant to what the Senator from North Carolina asks is the fact that now community members have come forward to the police to help them find the shooter. They have arrested a 15-year-old gang member. This gang member was aiming at a 32-year-old gang rival standing next to the little girl, and he wasn't worth a damn when it came to shooting a gun. This poor little girl was shot. What the police in Chicago are telling me is that we need the community to be willing to talk to the police and not be afraid somebody is going to follow someone home and check whether their grandmother is here legally in the United States. That is why the whole question of sanctuary cities is boiling up and why the police chiefs in major cities have basically said: This is too simplistic. Let's sit down and do this carefully, not as the Senator from North Carolina has proposed. The last point I want to make is this. If you visit the Senate Chamber this week in Washington and want to see deliberation on legislation, you are out of luck. There are no bills--no substantive legislative bills--scheduled to be considered on the floor of the U.S. Senate this week, but it is not an unusual week. We hardly ever take up legislation in the committees and bring it to the floor for debate in the Senate. So the real question I have is why the Senator from North Carolina-- who is in the Republican majority, who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who could ask for a markup of his bill if he wished--has decided instead to bypass the whole process and just say: I want to take this bill straight to the Senate with no debate. He is in the majority. We could bring this bill to the floor for debate and for amendment. We could bring it before the committee for a markup, but he chose not to do that. Sadly, it is a commentary on what has happened to the Senate floor. It has become a legislative graveyard. We just don't do what the Senate used to do--debate amendments, deliberate, agree on things, and compromise. It doesn't happen anymore under Senator McConnell. It is unfortunate. I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the Senator from Iowa who has waited patiently on a separate issue that he and I are working on together and allow him to speak first if he wishes.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Iowa. Senator Grassley and I are friends, colleagues, and we work together on a lot of issues. We come to this body with different political philosophies, but occasionally our ideas converge, and this is one of them. We know that the pharmaceutical industry spends $6 billion a year on television advertising. If you have never seen a drug ad on TV, I know one thing for sure: You don't own a TV. You can't get away from them. Every time you turn around, there is another ad. And what are they telling you in the ads? Don't take this drug if you are allergic to this drug. How are you supposed to know that? You may die if you take this drug. They tell you everything under the Sun, except a very fundamental fact, as Senator Grassley has pointed out: How much does this cost? Xarelto--I know it takes a long time for the drug Xarelto to finally reach the point where the average consumer, the average American, can even spell it, let alone pronounce it, so they can go ask their doctor for it. And do you know how much Xarelto costs--this blood thinner-- each month? It is about $520 a month. But it is not the most heavily advertised drug on television. At least a few months ago, the most heavily advertised drug was HUMIRA. Psoriatic arthritis? Remember that ad that showed the person with the little red spot on her elbow, and they said if you take HUMIRA this may help relieve psoriasis, the patchy skin and such? Now, there are serious cases of psoriasis--don't get me wrong--but the notion that we would take Humira to clear up psoriasis belies reality. Here is the reality. Humira costs $5,500 a month. Now, I am not going to win any bathing suit contests nor have perfectly clear skin, but it is beyond anybody's mind that we would spend $5,500 a month to get rid of the little patch on your elbow. Why won't they tell us what it costs? Because they know it is a stunning number, $5,500 a month. So what Senator Grassley and I did a year ago was to say to the pharmaceutical companies: Go ahead and run your ads, but in the ad, disclose how much your drug costs. I think it is going to create pressure on these pharmaceutical companies when they decide to raise Humira to $6,500 a month. The American consumers are going to know in fact what is going on. We passed it. We passed our bill in the Senate. We sent it over to the conference committee, and it died over in the House of Representatives. But things have changed in the House. There is a new Democratic majority there. I think we have got a better chance of passing it. Later on today, I am going to ask for unanimous consent on this very simple bill directed to consumer advertising to say to pharmaceutical companies: Disclose in your ad how much your drug costs. That is it. Just disclose it. We have come up with the price that they have to declare each year as their standard price for the drug. Disclose that price to the American people. We think that folks will slow down deciding to buy Humira at $5,500 a month to deal with a little red patch on their elbow. It is beyond belief. So later on, I will make this unanimous consent, and I ask for unanimous consent now--since I appear to be the only one on the Senate floor now--to speak on a different topic for a moment.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue that is important in my State and I think in every State. Illinois, which I represent and am proud to represent, is a State with the great American city of Chicago but with many other towns and cities of a variety of different sizes. I actually was born in downstate Illinois, 300 miles away from Chicago. Between the great city of Chicago and the rest of our State, there are many small towns and rural areas. When you go into these areas and talk about the quality of life and living in a small town or rural America, there are a lot of challenges. Just a few weeks ago I was in Calhoun County, one of the smallest in our State. We had an assembly of kids in middle school and grade school, and we announced that the local electric cooperative, the Illinois Electric Cooperative, was finally going to bring that level of access to the internet for which Calhoun County--the people who live there and those students--have been waiting for a decade or longer. It took longer for it to reach there. I am glad the electric cooperative led the fight. Historically, the electric cooperatives literally brought electricity to rural America. Now they are bringing high-speed internet to rural America, and it is critically important for students to learn, along with all of the other services that many people living in big cities take for granted come with the internet. That is one example, but another one you run into all the time is the comments of people in smalltown America about access to healthcare. You see, across our State we have millions of people who live in smaller towns, rural towns, who don't have the same quality healthcare nearby, whether it is a hospital or a doctor or even a dentist. Across Illinois, 5 million people live in areas with shortages, and 2 million live in areas without a dentist. Almost all of them live in an area without access to mental health providers--counselors, psychologists. The consequences speak for themselves. Only 1 in 10 people with substance abuse disorders get the care that they need in these areas, and 43 percent of rural Americans do not have access to dentists--43 percent. Well, there is a Federal program that has been addressing it for a long time, and, coincidentally, the Presiding Officer from Tennessee is the cosponsor of legislation I am going to address at this moment. Today there is a Federal program in place called National Health Service Corps. It provides loan forgiveness to entice doctors and other healthcare professionals to serve in places with healthcare needs. In total, 10,000 doctors, dentists, behavioral health specialists, and nurses use the National Health Service Corps and treat 11 million Americans each year in hospitals and community clinics. We entice them to come to these underserved areas by paying off their loans. As you probably know, doctors and dentists and nurses and others end up graduating with a lot of student loans. Illinois has more than 550 of these National Health Service Corps clinicians, but fewer than 75 of them serve in rural areas. As we face an opioid epidemic that touches every corner of America--no city too large, no town too small, no suburb too wealthy to have escaped it--we need that kind of professional healthcare across the board in urban areas as well as rural areas. That is why I have teamed up with the Presiding Officer, Senator Blackburn of Tennessee, on a bipartisan piece of legislation that we call the Rural America Health Corps Act. Our bill will expand the current Corps program to provide new loan forgiveness funding for providers who will serve in rural areas in Tennessee, in Illinois, and across the Nation. It provides funding for 5 years rather than the usual 2 to ensure that doctors, dentists, and nurses plant their roots in rural America. With the National Health Corps up for reauthorization this year, Senator Blackburn and I are pleading with our friends, Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Ranking Member Patty Murray of Washington, to promote this rural focus. It isn't the only thing I have looked at when it comes to rural America. I recently introduced a bill with Senator Roberts of Kansas. Senator Roberts is chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and he agreed to include in the farm bill something called the SIREN Act. The SIREN Act provides funding to support rural fire and EMS agencies with training and recruiting staff and purchasing equipment--everything from naloxone to power stretchers. I recently visited Nauvoo, IL. Students of history may recognize the name of this town, but Nauvoo, IL, is where a man by the name of Mr. Kennedy came forward and told me about the need for new, modern equipment on their ambulances in this rural Hancock County area. Because of what he told me, I introduced the bill. It passed as part of the farm bill, and we are going to start making money available in rural parts of America for these emergency management specialists to have the right training and the right equipment to respond when needed. These bipartisan bills are important for rural healthcare, but we also have to maintain the structure of our key health programs. Thankfully, Illinois has expanded the Medicaid Program through the Affordable Care Act, which has provided a funding lifeline to keep many of our rural hospitals from the brink of closure. It also expanded health insurance to 1 million people in Illinois. Ten years ago, when we passed ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, too many Americans did not have health insurance. If you have ever been in a moment in your life when you were the father of a sick child who desperately needed medical care and you had no health insurance, you will never forget it as long as you live. I know. I have been there. It made an impression on me as a young father that I have never forgotten. So when this bill, the Affordable Care Act, passed and I saw so many Americans finally getting health insurance, I knew it was giving them peace of mind and access to affordable, quality, accessible healthcare. This week marks the beginning of the open enrollment period to sign up for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act, which ends on December 15. It is vital to make sure that everyone signs up at ``healthcare.gov'' if you are not currently covered and you want to know what is available to you. Most patients will find the premiums are less than $100 a month, and if you are in certain income categories you will get a lot of help in making the premium payment. But the No. 1 thing that I hear from constituents--and it has nothing to do with what I just mentioned. I listened to my friend from Iowa, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, on the floor a few minutes ago talking about an issue that each of us runs into in every State in the Union. Here is the question: If you ask the American people what is the issue that you are concerned about from an economic viewpoint that you think the Congress can do something about, 90 percent of Democrats, 90 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Independents all come back with the same answer. Do you know what it is? The cost of prescription drugs. People understand that these prescription drugs are so expensive, they are beyond the reach of many people who desperately need them. Now, there was a Senator from Wisconsin years back named William Proxmire. He used to issue monthly recognitions of the most flagrant, excessive examples of waste in the Federal Government. He called it the ``Golden Fleece.'' Earlier this year, I launched a series of awards to carry on Senator Proxmire's work, with the focus on the pharmaceutical industry, the people who make the drugs. This month, I had this sign produced. This month, the Pharma Fleece award is going to the drug industry's trade group, PhRMA, and the Trump administration, I am afraid, for a giveaway in the new NAFTA trade bill. What does a trade bill have to do with PhRMA or the price of prescription drugs? It turns out that PhRMA--boy, they are good-- managed to slip in a provision in this trade bill that most Members of Congress are not even aware of. This new trade agreement, as you might expect, involving Canada, Mexico, and the United States, covers a wide range of issues. My farmers are very excited about it. The men and women in labor unions are concerned about it. But it falls far short when it comes to labor and environmental protections. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. But the one provision that I want to highlight today is tucked inside this sprawling document. It is a provision that guarantees monopoly protection for pharmaceutical companies by blocking competition, generic drug competition. It means that these companies can continue to call for sky-high prescription drug costs. This is just another example of an issue that the President said during his campaign was a high priority and we all talk about on the floor of the Senate that is being sneaked into this new NAFTA trade bill. Let's remember, the top four drug companies avoided paying $7 billion in taxes last year--$7 billion--and were able to buy back another $30 billion in stock thanks to President Trump's tax reform package. It was very kind to PhRMA, not that they needed it. Americans already pay, incidentally, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, four times what is paid in Canada or Europe. So why would the administration agree to put a provision for PhRMA to guarantee high prices into the new NAFTA trade bill? Listen to the story. In 2017, for example, Canadians can purchase a year's supply of Humira--recognize the name? You should. It is the most heavily advertised prescription drug on television, Humira, made by AbbVie, a company in Illinois--it is used for a disease called psoriatic arthritis. Canadians can buy a year's supply for $20,000--not cheap. You know what Americans pay for exactly the same drug they buy from exactly the same company? Over $40,000, more than twice as much as the Canadians. Why? The Canadian Government cares. They said to AbbVie and to Pharma: We are not going to let you overcharge Canadians. We are going to protect our Canadian families and our Canadian healthcare system. The United States doesn't. Often, Big Pharma charges as much as it can get away with by manipulating our patent and exclusivity rules to avoid competition. Drugs known as biologics, like Humira, Rituxan, and Remicade, are medicines made from living organisms. They are known as biologics. They make up 2 percent of all the prescriptions sold, but they count for 37 percent of the cost of prescription drugs--very expensive drugs. Those three biologics have all been on the market for more than 17 years, and yet they are still the top seven highest grossing drugs in America due to the fortress of monopoly protections that Pharma has created. Now, listen closely. Under U.S. law, biologics like the ones I mentioned--Humira is one of them--are given a 12-year exclusivity period once the FDA approves their application. What does that mean? No one can compete with them. They own the market. They set the price. That means that a cheaper generic competitor cannot be approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States for more than 10 years, while the brand-name company is free to charge whatever it wants. Wonder why prices are high? There is no competition. I believe the standard is too high and have cosponsored legislation to reduce this period to no more than 7 years. Canada's exclusivity period is 8 years. Mexico does not have one. But now let's go to the new NAFTA trade agreement and look closely at the fine print that PhRMA included in that. The administration wants to enshrine our Pharma-friendly laws by setting a 10-year exclusivity floor for all three countries. It is a virtual guarantee that PhRMA, when it comes to biologics, will be able to charge whatever they wish for 10 years or more in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Why is that in the trade agreement? If all of us agree that prescription drug prices are too high, why are we putting in the NAFTA trade agreement a sweetheart deal for PhRMA so that they can charge higher prices, not just in the United States, but in Canada and Mexico? This new NAFTA has provisions that will encourage drug companies to obtain excessive numbers of secondary patents that delay generic competition and keep prices high. So when my farmers come to me and say: Why are you not for NAFTA? And I say to them, if it was just about farmers, it would be one thing. But it is about American families, Canadian families, families even in Mexico paying higher prices for prescription drugs because of the trade agreement that the President wants us to approve. We should be working to bring lower-cost products to market sooner, not allowing Pharma to sneak in a payday into a trade package at the expense of American families. It should come as no surprise that the main coalition running ads supporting the approval of NAFTA is the pharmaceutical industry of the United States. In fact, PhRMA and BIO, the two largest pharmaceutical associations, have already spent $30 million lobbying Congress to pass this new NAFTA. Now, we know why. For all the President's talk, this provision in this trade agreement is a Trojan horse giveaway for Big Pharma at the expense of American patients. I guess we should not being surprised, but I will say this: If Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, are listening to the people they represent back home about the cost of prescription drugs, they will not fall for this new Pharma fleece. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.