Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), Senator from California (Ms. Harris), Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and 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. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Texas, my colleague--and we have worked together and will continue to. For the record, there is something that I think needs to be mentioned. It was a year ago, maybe even longer, that the attorney general from his State of Texas initiated a lawsuit with more than a dozen Republican attorneys general to eliminate the Affordable Care Act--all of it, the protection when it came to preexisting conditions, lifetime limits, allowing members of the family to keep their children on their policy until they reach the age of 26. These States attorneys general, starting with his State of Texas, said: Get rid of all of it. Eliminate it. And then President Trump said: We will join in the lawsuit. Let's eliminate it completely. So when I hear these pleas on the floor that we are all for the principles in the Affordable Care Act, not a single Republican Senator voted for it, and now there is an effort by the attorneys general and the Trump administration to do away with it. Is it because they have a better idea? No. I am sure you remember that moment not long ago when our departed colleague, John McCain, came to the well of the Senate and was the deciding vote to save the Affordable Care Act. The point he made is still valid. The Republicans have no alternative. I want to make sure the Affordable Care Act is better. There are some parts of it that need to be improved, but to eliminate it as this lawsuit would from the Trump administration? That is a step backwards. There are two other points that I would like to make. When it comes to our current healthcare system, it has many positive things: wonderful doctors and hospitals, amazing technology and medicine. But there are also some built-in flaws in the system. Let me give an example, one simple story. I met a woman the other day. Her sister is an OB/GYN. She got married, pregnant, about to have twins, couldn't be happier, but the babies came early. And so this doctor went to the hospital to deliver her babies, her twins, and they needed to be put in the neonatal intensive care unit of the hospital, which of course she did. Good news. Three or four weeks later, they were ready to come home. They came home, and of course, everyone was happy to receive them. But they weren't happy to receive the bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars. What was it for? It turns out that, at the hospital, the doctor was in network for the woman who was delivering the baby. The hospital was in the network for delivering the baby. But the NICU was a separate entity that even this doctor didn't know it wasn't in network. Her babies went to this lifesaving intensive care unit in the hospital, and she received a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars--a surprise bill. Is that right? Of course, it is not. And here is a professional, a medical professional, who frankly could not ask all the right questions, obviously, and became a victim of the system. Let me tell you one other story, when we talk about the current state of the cost of medicine. I go to Rockford, IL, and I meet a young woman, and she introduces me to her mother. Her mother is a waitress, a hard-working lady, never took a day off in her life. But she did have some health insurance, and her health insurance covered her daughter until her daughter reached the age of 26, and then her daughter was on her own. The problem was her daughter is diabetic, and her mother understood that now the cost of insulin, which had been covered by the family health insurance, was an individual personal burden for her daughter to pay, and the cost of insulin had gone up dramatically during the girl's young life. In the last dozen years or so, the cost of insulin has gone from $39 for a vial--one of the most commonly used types of insulin called Humalog made by Eli Lilly--from $39 a vial to $329. The mother was in a panic. Her daughter was working part-time and just getting started, still suffering from diabetes. Her mother was afraid she would not be able to afford the insulin, so her mother, a waitress, was taking her money and putting it aside to buy vials of insulin, so if her daughter started to run short, she would be able to provide her with the insulin. What is the cost of that same product in Canada? $39--$329 in the United States; $39 in Canada. What is the difference? It is the same drug made by the same company in the United States. The difference is the government of Canada stepped up and said: We are not going to let you do this. We are not going to let you run the cost of insulin to the high heavens at the expense of people who live in Canada. And Eli Lilly said: We will play by your rules, if that is what the Canadian Government says. So when I hear Senators, like my friend from Texas, get up and talk about this terrible invasion of government into our rights, that lady, that mother in Rockford would certainly like to have her government-- our government--step up and give her a chance to have affordable insulin so she could have peace of mind for her daughter. It is not too much to ask. The RELIEF Act Mr. President, the reason I came to the floor is because I wanted to respond to my friend--because it is a critical topic--but the reason I came to the floor is to discuss an issue which is not uniquely American, but is truly American. For 528 years now in this place called America, we have immigrants coming to the shores of our Nation. Starting and following Christopher Columbus--if you buy that side of the story, and I do--we have had millions come to our shores and they have become part of America. With the exception of Native Americans and indigenous people, they have come from every corner of this earth to be part of what we call the United States. You would think, with that history, that we would have a pretty clear idea of what our policy should be when it comes to immigration. Sadly, you are wrong. We have the most broken immigration system imaginable. I have studied it for years and continue to. It is almost impossible to understand all of the twists and turns in our immigration system. Seven years ago, there were eight of us--four Democrats and four Republicans in the Senate--with the leadership of Senator McCain, Senator Schumer, and many others, who came together and rewrote the entire immigration code, the entire immigration body of law. It took us months of meeting every single night, hammering out compromises, agreeing to provisions. Then we went to the Judiciary Committee, and hundreds of amendments were offered. Senator Sessions of Alabama, I think he offered dozens by himself. He wasn't too happy with the bill. But we went through that lengthy process, came to the floor of the Senate, and faced even more amendments. At the end of the day, though, it passed. I believe it was 68 votes on the floor of the Senate. We passed comprehensive immigration reform, sent it to the House of Representatives, and unfortunately, the Republican leadership would not even consider it. They didn't even bring it up for a debate or for an amendment. So we are stuck today with a broken system, and we are also stuck with a system that is rife with politics. I would say, and I think no one would contradict us, no President before Donald Trump has really made such an issue of immigration--no one. It has been an issue in the past, but this President, from the beginning of his campaign until the current time, has hammered away at immigration constantly, calling those that came from Mexico murders and rapists and so many other things that he has done--I can go through the long litany of things that have happened. It is pretty clear that, when it comes to the policy of immigration, that this administration has fallen down and falls short when it comes to immigration. Today, I want to address one aspect of this. I am the ranking Democrat on the Immigration Subcommittee. Coincidentally, the chairman of that Subcommittee in Judiciary is the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, who just left the floor. So far this year, 10 months into this year, our Subcommittee on Immigration, despite all the problems, all of the challenges, has had one hearing--one hearing. It is a good thing that we are not paid for the work that we do because, frankly, we have done little or nothing. The Senate Judiciary Committee in the same period of time has only voted on one immigration bill. The Republican majority limited debate to only 1 hour and didn't allow a single amendment to be offered. It is hardly an ambitious effort to make a body of law better. It is time for the Immigration Subcommittee to go back to work. Today, I sent a letter--joined by every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee--asking the Republican Chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, to hold a hearing on one serious problem in our immigration system: the green-card backlog. In our broken immigration system, there are not nearly enough immigrant visas--legal visas known as green cards--available each year. As a result, many of the immigrants to this country are stuck in crippling backlogs for years, sometimes decades. Close to 5 million future Americans are in line waiting for green cards. Many are living and working in the United States on temporary visas, while many are waiting abroad, separated from their families who are living in the United States. Under current law, only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards are available each year. Children and spouses of lawful permanent residents count against these caps, which further limits the availability of green cards. The backlogs are really hard on families who are caught in immigration limbo. For example, children in many of these families ``age out'' because they are no longer under the age of 21 by the time the green cards are available. That is why I have asked the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, to hold a hearing on this issue to consider several pending bills dealing with this green card backlog. I have asked him repeatedly. I have asked Senator Graham, and I have asked Senator Lee, who is engaged in this debate. This will help the Senate to understand the impact of each of these proposals before us, to try to reach an agreement. That is how the Senate, incidentally, is supposed to work, where the committees gather, bring in witnesses, have an open debate, agree on a bill, move it forward to the floor, open it to debate on the floor. In 2013, as I mentioned, I was part of a bipartisan group that showed it can work. We need to show it again. Then, our bill went through extensive hearings and debate. Unfortunately, the senior Senator from Utah, my friend, Mr. Lee, has tried to avoid regular order on this question. He does not want it to go to committee. I hope he will reconsider. He has come to the floor several times to attempt to pass his legislation, S. 386, without any debate or chance to offer any amendments. Because he has chosen this approach, I have come to the floor today to speak about his legislation and mine. My concern with Senator Lee's bill is simple. The solution to the green-card backlog is obvious: Increase the number of green cards. But S. 386, Senator Lee's bill, includes no additional green cards. In fact, it has carve-outs for special interests--which are not in the original version of the bill that passed by the House--and that will cut the number of green cards that are available to reduce the backlog. Without any additional green cards, S. 386 will not eliminate the backlogs for the immigrants, particularly those from India--and there is a large number, over half a million, the nationality with the most people in the employment backlog. It will dramatically increase backlogs for the rest of the world if we go by Senator Lee's bill. Ira Kurzban is one of the Nation's experts on immigration law. He took a look at Senator Lee's bill, and he said the backlogs will be longer and larger because of it. In fact, over 165,000 Indian immigrants currently in line for these visas will still be waiting 10 years from now. Mr. Kurzban has also made it clear that the Lee bill puts some Indian immigrants to the front of the line--because they have been waiting the longest--at the expense of every other country. From 2023 until well into 2030, there will be zero EB-22 visas for the rest of the world. None for China, South Korea, Philippines, Britain, Canada, Mexico, every country in the EU and all of Africa. Zero. It would choke off green cards for every profession that isn't IT--healthcare, medical research, basic science, all kinds of engineering; chemists, physicists. That is why dozens of national organizations representing many immigrant communities oppose the bill introduced by Senator Lee. Groups representing Arabs, Africans, Asians, Canadians, Chinese, Greeks, the Irish, Italians, Koreans, South Asians, and many, many more have come out in opposition to the Lee bill. More than 20 of these groups sent a letter in opposition. In light of this attempt to pass the Lee bill and the problems it has run into, I am offering an alternative to this legislation. My alternative is basic and straightforward. It would eliminate the green card backlog and treat all immigrants fairly. The RELIEF Act, which I introduced with Senator Pat Leahy and Senator Mazie Hirono, will treat all immigrants fairly by eliminating immigration visa backlogs. The RELIEF bill is based on the same comprehensive immigration bill I described earlier. It would lift green card country caps, but, unlike S. 386, the RELIEF Act would increase the number of green cards to clear the backlogs for all immigrants waiting in line for green cards within 5 years. Compare that to S. 386, the Lee bill, where more than 165,000 Indian immigrants currently in line will still be waiting 10 years from now. The RELIEF Act will also keep American families together by treating children and spouses of legal permanent residents as immediate relatives, just as the children and spouses of citizens are, so they won't count against the green card cap. My bill would protect aging-out children who qualify for legal permanent resident status based on a parent's immigration status. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2603 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged of S. 2603, the RELIEF Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the time with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am sorry for this objection. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for coming to the floor on behalf of the Senator from Utah. I have been in communication with the Senator from Utah. I hope he will join me in asking for a hearing. This is an issue which literally affects hundreds of thousands of people living in this country, many of whom have been here for years and decades. Practicing physicians in my hometown of Springfield are affected by this debate. They want to know what their future will be and the future of their children. I am trying to find a reasonable way to work out a compromise on this, and I stand ready to do so. I hope Senator Lee will join me in asking Senators Graham and Cornyn to have a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. I want to extend this invitation to Senator Lee to join the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats who signed a letter with me today requesting this hearing. I am happy to sit down and discuss this issue with the senior Senator from Utah or any other Senator. If we work together in good faith, I believe we can reach a bipartisan agreement on legislation that can pass both Chambers and be signed into law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. Mr. President, Mount Sinai Hospital opened its doors in 1919 as a place where Jewish physicians could train and treat the immigrant community of Chicago's West Side. Founded by Lithuanian Jewish immigrant Morris Kurtzon, Mount Sinai kept its mission as a community hospital even as it evolved into a regional medical trauma center. This month, Sinai celebrates a century of helping everyone who come through its doors. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, German and Eastern European Jews immigrated to Chicago by the thousands, fleeing religious persecution. Chicago lacked quality healthcare for these immigrants, especially in Chicago's South and West Sides. Maimonides Kosher Hospital of Chicago opened in 1912 to fill the healthcare gap, particularly the lack of kosher hospitals, and to serve this immigrant community. However, Maimonides struggled financially and closed after only four years. Morris Kurtzon, a board member of Maimonides, was determined to keep the dream alive. Kurtzon was born in Lithuania in the 1870s and came to Chicago as a child. Before the end of the century, he established the Garden City Plating and Manufacturing Company. He was a pillar of the community, and with his $50,000 contribution, Maimonides Kosher Hospital reopened as Mount Sinai in 1919. Within 5 years under Kurtzon's leadership, Mount Sinai had five floors, a nursing school, and had grown from 60 to 220 beds. Kurtzon retired in 1950, but the hospital continued its growth. Mount Sinai established what is now the oldest home healthcare program in the State of Illinois in 1953. It became a major community anchor as the largest employer in Lawndale. Mount Sinai established the Midwest's first in-vitro fertilization clinic in 1983. The following year, the Midwest's first rehabilitation hospital, Schwab Rehabilitation Hospital, became part of Mount Sinai. Today, it is among the Nation's top programs for physical medicine and rehabilitation. In 2012, Mount Sinai found an unlikely partner in Holy Cross Hospital. When Mount Sinai merged with Holy Cross, they found a way to preserve their different faith traditions while committing to the same goal of serving the community. In 1990, Mount Sinai was designated as a Level 1 Trauma Center, the highest level of surgical care for trauma patients. Today, Sinai is one of the unsung heroes in treating and working to prevent the gun violence epidemic plaguing Chicago. From supporting the Gun Violence Research Collaborative and community engagement programs to providing world-class emergency treatment and trauma care, Sinai is working tirelessly to treat both the physical and emotional wounds that violence causes, and survivors are putting their lives back together at the Schwab Rehabilitation Hospital. I am proud to work with Mount Sinai on the Chicago HEAL Initiative, which is another example of Sinai's continued commitment to serving the community. Under the HEAL Initiative, 10 major hospitals that are normally competitors are collaborating to use their economic footprint and community engagement to reduce violence and improve health in their neighborhoods. Mount Sinai has embodied the Jewish values of ``tikkun olam,'' meaning repairing the world, and ``hachnasat orchim,'' meaning the welcoming and caring for a stranger, for a century now. The names and the community have changed, but the values have never changed. Mount Sinai is still repairing the world and caring for strangers every day. Congratulations on a century of helping people, and here is to another century. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to comment on an incident that occurred late last week on the floor of the Senate regarding temporary protected status, known as TPS, for people from the country of Venezuela. TPS can be provided by the President to nationals of a country when that country is experiencing violence or a catastrophe that makes returning to the country unsafe. This is a protection offered by America under many different administrations to help those who might be in the United States when a calamity occurs in their home countries. It has often been granted for countries suffering outbreaks of war or natural disaster, which leads me to the issue of Venezuela. Currently, the United States is working with regional partners to foster an end to a disastrous dictatorial regime still claiming power in Venezuela. I was there last year, and I saw what was heartbreaking, considering that this was once a proud Latin American democracy. People are literally starving in Venezuela. They faint in the workplace from lack of nutrition. Hospitals don't have electric power or the most basic medicines. I visited a children's hospital in Caracas, and they told me they didn't have any antibiotics or the basic cancer drugs necessary for the children who came to their hospital. Millions are fleeing Venezuela as refugees into neighboring countries. There is brutal political repression. Opposing the dictator, Maduro, is a virtual guarantee of house arrest or worse. Staggering government corruption and a systematic dismantling of that country's democracy are taking place on a regular basis and resulted in election results which were incredible and not believed by anyone in the region when they were announced a few months back. I have been supportive of this administration's efforts to work with other nations to support the interim Presidency of Juan Guaido and provide assistance to millions of fleeing Venezuelans. While I fear this issue has escaped President Trump's attention, one simple step he can take is to grant temporary protected status to Venezuelans currently in the United States. Some are here as students and others are here on work visas, but they are on temporary status. What I am asking the President to do is to give them temporary protected status so they will not have to return to Venezuela while the danger still lurks. Despite repeated requests by myself and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, President Trump has repeatedly refused. He goes to audiences in Florida and talks about confronting the Venezuelan dictatorship, then he turns around and refuses to give protection to the Venezuelans in the United States who need this protection. Ironically, while the President's Department of State has issued travel warnings advising Americans not to visit Venezuela because of the danger, this President still will not protect Venezuelans within the United States who are afraid to return. I have met many such Venezuelans in my home State of Illinois, and I can tell you they are desperately worried about returning to the chaos, violence, and hopelessness of the current Venezuela. Since the White House refuses to act, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill granting temporary protected status to Venezuelans this last July by a 272-to-158 margin. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Marco Rubio of Florida, and I have introduced a similar Senate bill, but the majority leader, Senator McConnell, refuses to bring up any bill that might not meet the approval of President Donald Trump, even a bill offered by leaders in his own political party. Senator Menendez and I have tried to call up the House bill for passage only to face objection repeatedly from Senate Republicans. Last week, to deflect blame from President Trump and the Senate Republicans who object to our bill, the junior Senator from Florida came to the floor with his own approach. He blocked the bipartisan House Venezuela TPS bill from passing and offered a dubious amendment, undermining TPS for others as the price for helping the Venezuelans. In other words, he said: Well, perhaps we can help Venezuelans as long as it is at the expense of others who are in similar status from other countries. His proposal would in fact significantly weaken the entire temporary protected status. For example, his proposal would require congressional approval of any extension of TPS beyond the original period, and it would limit such extension to an arbitrary 18-month period. Ultimately, the proposal from the junior Senator from Florida is using the plight of Venezuelans to basically gut the existing Temporary Protected Status Program. We have seen folks on the other side of the aisle resort to this when it came to DACA--Republicans in the Senate trying to use a vulnerable population, such as the young people who were raised in the United States and want a chance to work their way to citizenship, as bargaining chips for an anti-immigrant agenda. Once again, these Members are simply refusing to stand up to the President when he fails on these issues. The solution, indeed, is simple. This administration should grant temporary protected status on its own to the Venezuelans, but it refuses. Senate Republicans could pass the bipartisan House bill to grant Venezuelans temporary protected status, but the Senate Republicans refuse. Let everyone be clear where the real failure to help Venezuelans actually rests. Order of Business Madam President, at the request of the Republicans on the Senate side, later today, I will be making a unanimous consent request relative to the healthcare issue, which was raised by Senator McConnell earlier. I am told they are not quite ready this morning, so I am going to defer that offer until later in the day when they will be ready, and we can have a colloquy on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my honor to come to the floor to speak on an issue that is important for so many Americans. Let me start at the outset--before I move to unanimous consent on a specific piece of legislation--by saying that I believe that the change in the Affordable Care Act, which prohibited discrimination against people because of preexisting conditions, is one of the most fundamental changes in health insurance in America. Who among us doesn't have a member of their family or a friend with a preexisting condition? There was a time, of course, when because of that, people were denied any coverage or charged exorbitant amounts of money. Overwhelmingly, we understand that if we are going to have a health insurance system that really serves the entire Nation, we cannot allow health insurance companies to pick and choose. Prior to the Affordable Care Act's passage in 2010, health insurers used to charge people with preexisting conditions higher monthly premiums or simply deny them coverage all together. Health insurance companies used to impose annual lifetime caps on what they could pay for. These arbitrary limits disproportionately hurt people with preexisting conditions who often needed ongoing intensive medical care, and insurance companies before the Affordable Care Act used to refuse coverage for certain healthcare services that people with preexisting conditions needed--prescription drugs, hospital visits, mental health and substance abuse treatment, maternity and newborn care. The Affordable Care Act changed all of that. There are no more denials or higher premiums for preexisting conditions, which is an amazing breakthrough. There are no more annual or lifetime caps on benefits and no more refusals to cover maternity benefits or doctors' visits. Ten years ago, every single Democrat--I was one of them--voted in favor of the Affordable Care Act, and I would do it again today. It was a law that ensured these protections for people with preexisting conditions really meant something and were enforceable. Ten years ago, every single Senate Republican voted against the Affordable Care Act. Since it has been signed into law, House and Senate Republicans have voted more than 100 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Their efforts have failed. There was one most dramatic effort, which many of us can recall happened just a couple of years ago, right here in the well of the Senate when the late Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, came to the floor in the middle of the night and cast a ``no'' vote. He believed, and I think he was right--I am sure he was right when he said: You can't be just against something; you have to be for something. The Republican side of the aisle has no alternative to the Affordable Care Act. They are just against it. They don't like it. They don't like the name of it. They don't like ObamaCare. They don't like Obama's administration. They just vote no over and over again. Right now, there is a pending lawsuit that even would try to eliminate the entire Affordable Care Act, including the protection for people with preexisting conditions. Eighteen Republican-led States, including the State of Texas, brought the suit after congressional Republicans eliminated the CRA's individual mandate. President Trump's Department of Justice supports this bill to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. If this lawsuit is successful, nearly 20 million Americans-- 600,000 of them living in Illinois--could lose their health insurance, and nearly 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions--3 million in Illinois--could once again be at risk of discrimination by health insurance companies. As if that weren't bad enough, President Trump has also proposed new rules that would allow States to discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions. This week, the Senate will be voting on a Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Trump administration's latest assault on Americans with preexisting conditions. Senator Warner of Virginia has offered a resolution of disapproval, cosponsored by every single Senate Democrat. If any Senator on the Republican side really wants to help people with preexisting conditions, join us. Make this a bipartisan effort to tell President Trump and his administration it is wrong. We should not discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. I hope that Senate Republicans will consider supporting a piece of legislation known as the MOMMA's Act. I am cosponsoring it; in fact, I am the lead sponsor in the Senate. The House sponsor is Congresswoman Robin Kelly of Illinois. It would ensure that all pregnant women get the care they need. Why is this important to raise in a modern country like America, with our great natural and medical resources? Because the United States is 1 of only 13 countries in the world where maternal mortality rates are worse now than they were 25 years ago. I want to repeat that because it is an incredible statement, though true. The United States is 1 of only 13 countries in the world where maternal death rates are worse now than they were 25 years ago. Fortuitously, the Presiding Officer is a medical doctor. I know he has devoted a good part of his professional career to serving people of low income, limited means. You think when you hear that number about maternal mortality in the United States, it cleverly must be associated with economic levels, income levels, wealth levels, education levels. It turns out it is not. Nationwide, more than 700 women die every year as a result of pregnancy, and more than 70,000 suffer near-fatal complications. More than 60 percent of maternal deaths are preventable. Sadly, the tragedy of maternal mortality is even more pronounced when it comes to mothers of color. In the United States, women of color are three to four times more likely than White women to die as a result of pregnancy. In Illinois, they are six times more likely than White women to die. When I researched this, I went to the University of Chicago and asked the OB/GYNs there to look into the stats, look into the studies, and tell me what is behind this. They said: Senator, there is no correlation among income, education attainment, and this death rate among women. It is only a question of color. We are losing new moms, and, sadly, we are losing babies as well. Every year, more than 23,000 infants die in the United States, largely due to factors that could be prevented. Black infants are twice as likely to die as White infants--a disparity that is greater than it was in the year 1850 in this country. That is why Representative Kelly, my colleague Senator Duckworth, and I introduced the MOMMA's Act. First and foremost, our bill would expand the length of time that a new mom can keep her Medicaid healthcare coverage. Currently, Medicaid has to cover women only for 2 months postpartum--after the baby is born. Our bill would expand that to a full year. Next, the MOMMA's Act would improve access to doulas, as well as improve implicit bias and cultural competency training among healthcare providers. Too often, Black women are just not listened to or taken seriously by healthcare providers. Doulas can provide education, advocacy, and support for women whose voices are being ignored. Lastly, our bill would improve hospital coordination reporting on maternal healthcare outcomes. Leader McConnell has made it clear that he has no intention of allowing the Senate to debate and pass legislation, instead, rendering the Senate to what has been characterized as a ``legislative graveyard.'' Senator McConnell says with pride that he will be the Grim Reaper--his words--the Grim Reaper. Nothing will pass in the Senate. But I hope he will make an exception for the MOMMA's Act, which is currently moving through the House of Representatives. Whether you are pro-choice or whether you are right to life, shouldn't we all stand together--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--and say: Let's do something to eliminate this unacceptable level of maternal mortality in the United States. Let's do something to save these babies. Let's agree on that part if we can't agree on anything else. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 960 and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration; 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. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Iowa is my friend. We throw that word around here on the Senate floor, and it usually doesn't mean much, but it is true. We are friends. I respect him very much. I think he is a good father, good grandfather, and I think the time will come--and I hope soon--when we can sit down and take his proposal and my proposal and put them together and make a bill we will both be proud of. We have done that before, even to the point of getting the President to sign the bill into law. For the time being and because his proposal cuts some Medicaid benefits that are a great concern to me, I am going to object in the hope that we can use this opportunity and this moment as a basis for sitting down and finding a bill we can agree on. I object.

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. 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. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 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 Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have seen too many Trump judicial nominees in recent years who don't know their way around a courtroom. I suspect some of these nominees never even made it through a ``Law and Order'' episode. The majority leader is now rushing a floor vote on Justin Walker, nominated to be a district court judge in Kentucky. Mr. Walker was just reported out of committee last week. The Walker nomination is leapfrogging a dozen other judicial nominees who have been on the calendar longer. The American Bar Association, which does peer review evaluations of nominees, concluded that--Mr. Walker is not qualified to be a Federal trial judge. This is the eighth Trump judicial nominee to be rated ``not qualified'' by the ABA. Mr. Walker is 37 years old and has been out of law school for only 10 years. He has never tried a case as lead or cocounsel, whether civil or criminal. He has only conducted a single deposition. The ABA said that with Walker, ``it was challenging to determine how much of his ten years since graduation from law school has been spent in the practice of law.'' I find it hard to believe that there is a shortage of experienced, qualified attorneys or State court judges in Kentucky who could hit the ground running as a Federal trial judge. In fact, there is an experienced Kentucky State court judge sitting on the Senate Executive Calendar right now--David Tapp, whose nomination to the Court of Federal Claims I supported in the Judiciary Committee. Why can't we get district court nominees who actually know what they are doing in the courtroom, like Judge Tapp? Rather than gaining actual courtroom experience, Mr. Walker has spent much of his time in recent years making media appearances. In 2018 alone, he appeared on TV or radio 127 times. That is not what we need on the Federal bench. I will oppose the Walker nomination. He simply lacks the litigation and trial experience to serve as a district court judge.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Mueller report made crystal clear that the Russian Government interfered in the Presidential election of the United States of America in the year 2016. They called it a ``sweeping and systematic fashion'' of interference. I know this better than some because, in my home State of Illinois, the Russian intelligence service literally hacked into our State Board of Elections' voter file and gained access to a database containing information on millions of voters in my State. Then the Russians extracted the data on thousands of those voters. They also targeted other State election authorities, county governments, and election equipment and technology vendors. Federal law enforcement and intelligence officers have repeatedly warned us that these interference efforts will continue into the election of 2020. In fact, former KGB Agent Vladimir Putin recently mocked us and openly joked that Russia would definitely interfere again in the U.S. elections. Congress cannot sit back and ignore this threat. We must take action to help State and local election officials prepare for the 2020 elections and those beyond. I am pleased that the leader, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, finally relented on his opposition to any further funding to assist State and local election officials with election security efforts. Yet the $250 million included in the fiscal year 2020 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill is clearly inadequate. We need to boldly invest in our election security. It is literally the cornerstone of our democracy, and we need to provide sustained funding to State and local election officials so they may respond to these threats that are far beyond any State's capacity to deal with. There are 40 of us who cosponsored the Election Security Act that Senator Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, introduced in May. I was proud to join her as one of the original cosponsors. The legislation would provide critical resources to election officials through an initial $1 billion investment in our election infrastructure, followed by $175 million every 2 years for infrastructure maintenance. It would also require the use of voter- verified paper ballots, strengthen the Federal response to election interference, and establish accountability measures for election technology vendors. Let me bring this down to Earth in simple words. If we cannot trust the outcome of an election to accurately reflect the feelings of those in America, we have lost the cornerstone of our democracy. There are nations, including Russia, that have proven they are doing everything in their power to stop us from having safe, accurate election counts. The question for this Senate and for this Congress is, Do we care? Do we care enough to spend the resources so our States can protect the integrity of voters? I am not just talking about blue States from the Democratic side of the aisle. Every State, red and blue alike, would benefit from this legislation. If the Republicans want to demonstrate that they are joining us in putting country over party, they should join us today and protect our democracy by passing this legislation. I have been asked to make a unanimous consent request at this point before I finish my remarks, and I thank the Senator from Louisiana for being on the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is there an objection?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. First, let me say this. I do respect the Senator from Louisiana. We have been cosponsors on important legislation. I hope we will be again. We see eye-to-eye on many things but not on this bill. A billion dollars? The Federal Government spends $1,500 billion every year. Is the integrity of our voting system worth $1 billion? Do you know what it has cost us to reach this point in our history where our democracy is reliable and respected around the world? It has cost more than money. It has cost the lives of men and women who went to war to fight for that, to make sure that we had the last word when it came to the future of our democracy. A billion dollars is an overwhelming number; right? Divide it by 50, and understand what is at stake here. What is at stake here is whether we care enough to invest money in our election process--not with Federal mandates. We say to the States: You decide how to spend it. You have the authority over the State election procedure and the color of the curtain on your booth. If you want to mandate that by State law, be my guest. But what it comes down to--and I have to disagree with my friend from Louisiana--is that the money we have sent to the States already has all been obligated, and it is going through the purchasing and procurement policies of each of the States. It isn't as if they can't figure out what to do with it. Upgrading our voting machines to make sure that they reflect technology today makes a difference. Have you bought a new cell phone recently? Have you watched any ads on television talking about the security of your cell phone? Have you listened to anyone talk about the privacy of you as an individual? It is because every single day, every single minute, and every second someone is trying to figure out how to get into your mind and into your life, and we are trying to keep technology up with this reality. Now, what is the reality of the technology we use for voting? In my State, we have paper ballots to verify what is actually cast, but our technology is 20 years old. The Russians know that; the Iranians know that; and the Chinese know that, and they are mocking us. They are laughing. If you were amused by the story of the Senator from Louisiana--and he is the best storyteller in the Senate--think about how amused Vladimir Putin is to listen to this debate. We can't afford to spend the money to ward off Vladimir Putin's next attack in 2020. That is what I hear from the other side of the aisle. I disagree. I think what is at stake here is so basic and so fundamental that shame on us if we will not invest the money to make sure we keep up with the attackers. Now, people say: Well, 2018 went off without a hitch. It was not only the good work of State election officials. It was the hard work here in Washington of our intelligence agencies, and the Senator knows that. We didn't sit back and say: Well, I sure hope they don't hit us again. We went after them. I can't be more specific because we are told not to be more detailed in our response. We invested a heck of a lot of money in stopping them from ruining the 2018 election, and we are bound to do it again, and I hope we do. But to say we can't afford to protect the integrity of our vote--then, what is a democracy worth? What is it worth? It is worth human lives, and it is worth our investment in this generation to make sure that those votes count, whether you live in a red State or a blue State. I am not talking about just sending this to Democratic State officials. I am talking about across the country. I want an election to truly reflect the way the American people feel about candidates and issues that are before them, and that is why I am so disappointed by the Senator's objection. Yes, I will carefully consider his bill. Maybe there is some room here. But when we say $1 billion disqualifies you from being considered seriously, when it comes down to the integrity of our voting system--$1 billion is too much--it turns out the Republican leader has suggested one-fourth of that amount, and nobody blinked. I happen to think $1 billion is more realistic in terms of helping our voting systems across this country. Shame on us if the result of the Presidential election is later found to have been tampered with by our enemies overseas. Shame on us if we didn't do everything we were supposed to do in the Senate, in the House, and in this government to protect that God-given right for a democracy that we cherish so much. The Mueller report made crystal clear that the Russian Government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a ``sweeping and systematic fashion.'' In Illinois, the Russian intelligence service hacked into our State Board of Elections, gained access to a database containing information on millions of Illinois voters, and then extracted data on thousands of those voters. They also targeted other State election authorities, county governments, and election equipment and technology vendors. And Federal law enforcement and intelligence officials have repeatedly warned that these interference efforts will continue in 2020. In fact, former KGB Agent Putin recently mocked us, openly joking that Russia would definitely interfere again in the U.S. election. Congress cannot sit back and ignore this ongoing threat--we must take action to help State and local election officials prepare for future elections. I am pleased that Leader McConnell finally relented on his opposition to any further funding to assist State and local election officials with election security efforts. But the $250 million included in the FY 2020 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill is not nearly enough. We need to boldly invest in our election security--and we need to provide sustained funding to State and local election officials to respond to these evolving threats. That is why 40 of us have cosponsored the Election Security Act, which Senator Klobuchar introduced in May. I was proud to join as a lead cosponsor. The legislation would provide critical resources to election officials through an initial $1 billion investment in our election infrastructure, followed by $175 million every 2 years for infrastructure maintenance. It would also require the use of voter-verified paper ballots, strengthen the Federal response to election interference, and establish accountability measures for election technology vendors. If Republicans want to demonstrate that they are capable of putting country over party, they should join us today and protect our democracy by passing this legislation. I yield the floor.

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 Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) 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 Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.