Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I submitted page 257 of the amendment to be placed in the Record and you gave unanimous consent for that to happen. I have now been instructed that the personnel at the Senate cannot read this page the way it is currently written. Could I have this entered in the Record just as written with the handwritten notations on the side? Could I enter it as a graphic or artwork or something like that? I ask the Presiding Officer, does that mean if the amendment has this page in it, that the amendment cannot be filed?

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask a further parliamentary inquiry. Why didn't they accept page 257 after I received consent to put it in the Record?

Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry. This page, which is part of the tax bill, 257, as written, cannot be filed in the Senate because no one can read it; is that correct?

Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry. Why can't this page be filed in that form?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the Senate staff, and I am not trying to say anything negative about them. I was hoping that this could be entered into the Record, and I asked for unanimous consent to enter it, believing that the handwritten portion would show up in the Record. I have since been advised that there will have to be translators and interpreters who will have to decide exactly what this says before it is actually part of the Congressional Record. I think that I have made my point as to where we stand in preparation of tax reform for America. Thank you.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Ms. Dee Braden on her retirement from the Coles County Council on Aging, CCCoA, after more than 41 years of service. One of Illinois' finest advocates for older residents, Dee started with CCCoA in 1976, as the RSVP volunteer recruiter and was quickly promoted to be its first executive director in 1978. Under Dee's leadership, CCCoA flourished and received the 2008 Governor's Award for Unique Achievement for its vision, innovation, and collaborative public and private partnerships in Illinois. To understand Dee's tireless commitment to Illinois' older population, one need only look at her long service record. Dee developed and orchestrated the first successful passage of a county- wide property tax referendum in Illinois to fund senior services and advocated for decades to enhance the quality of life of older adults in Coles County. For 10 years, she also fundraised for the LifeSpan Center, a 25,000-square-foot multipurpose intergenerational facility in Mattoon, IL. Dee devoted herself to bettering the quality of life for our older Illinoisans. Dee's many years of leadership and contributions to the elderly made her the deserving recipient of several awards, including the Coles County Zonta Woman of the Year Award for Community Service, the Epsilon Sigma Alpha Diana Award for her service, and the Illinois Governor's Award for Unique Achievement after she developed a countywide Elder Abuse Task Force. This year, the East Central Illinois Area Agency on Aging awarded Dee the Dr. Arthur H. Larsen Leadership Award for her outstanding leadership in advancing programs, services, and opportunities for older persons in east central Illinois. These are just a few of Dee's many accomplishment. A full rendering of her achievements would take much longer than these few moments. I will end by saying that I visited the CCCoA several times, and I can tell you firsthand that the work Dee has done in the community is nothing short of remarkable. Dee's generous heart is as big as Illinois. I don't know a better volunteer who has given so much to helping people. I wish Dee a happy, relaxing retirement and the best of luck in her life's next chapter. She has certainly earned it.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me thank my colleague from Ohio for raising this important issue. It comes down to a very basic question for the Senate. We have a tax code that creates incentives and penalties for certain conduct. We encourage Americans to give to charities, and we give them a deduction. We encourage Americans to own homes, and we let them deduct the cost of interest on their mortgage. We encourage them in so many different ways and discourage other conduct. Why shouldn't we encourage American businesses to hire American workers? Why shouldn't we reward American businesses that keep their businesses in America and not move them overseas? Why shouldn't we incentivize businesses and corporations to pay a decent minimum living wage to their employees, to provide basic benefits when it comes to health insurance and healthcare, and a good retirement plan? Why shouldn't we incentivize American companies to hire veterans? Why don't we put in our Tax Code incentives that create stronger, better, patriotic American corporations? I am going to wave the flag here. I think there are a lot of great corporations, companies in America that really do care for this country. Some don't, and I don't think they should be rewarded for turning their backs on America--but we do. In the current Tax Code, if you decide to ship your jobs off overseas, send your factories overseas and put Americans out of work, do you know what the Tax Code says? Be my guest. The provision says you can deduct the cost of moving so we incentivize and reward companies that want to leave America. What Senator Brown and many on this side of the aisle believe, as I do, is why don't we incentivize the companies that want to stay in America? Why don't we incentivize those who say: We want to hire American people and pay them a decent wage. I think that is what a tax code is all about, to create incentives for good things for the American economy and discourage bad things, and so I introduced this bill several years back. Congresswoman Schakowsky of Chicago joined me in that effort. We have had this bill there. Senator Brown has been such a leader in this area. I was proud to stand with him today to do this jointly and offer this as part of the tax plan. So it is a basic proposition for President Trump and for the Republicans. Do you believe--do you believe American businesses that stay in this country deserve a break? Do you believe American businesses that pay a decent wage to their employees deserve a tax break? Do you believe American companies that put together health insurance and retirement plans that are fair and just for their workers and their families deserve a break in our Tax Code? Do you think we ought to give a helping hand to those companies that will hire a veteran, put a veteran to work? Do you think our Tax Code should also recognize that some companies are going to hire disabled people and give them a chance of a lifetime? Do you think all of those are good conduct by corporations that deserve not only a pat on the back but a helping hand when it comes to the Tax Code? That is what this is about. It is very basic. That is what I believe. I think that is what most of the people in Illinois believe. I think that is what President Trump might have been speaking to during the course of his campaign, about creating jobs in America. This President and those who are in his party now have a chance to put a vote on the board and show they believe that too. If you vote against this, how in the world would you explain it when you go home? Oh, yes, I voted against patriot corporations. I don't think we ought to reward American companies that hire American workers and treat them fairly. How do you explain that? This Tax Code is loaded with incentives. It is loaded with special interests. The special interest we are focusing on are American workers and their families with this amendment. We are focusing as well on the companies that respect them, treat them fairly, pay them a decent wage, and give them a fighting chance to make it in America. It sounds to me like a middle-class issue. It sounds to me like a middle-income issue. It sounds to me like a good economic growth policy, not just to increase corporate profits by reducing their taxes but to make sure the company's business model is based on what is good for the future of America and what is good for our economy. Yes, I am waving the flag here. I am proud to do it. I want to wave a flag at every company that respects American workers and treats them the way they deserve, and I think this is a good way, a good step in that direction. I thank Senator Brown.

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, I come to the floor today to speak about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. DACA, an Executive order of President Obama, provided temporary, renewable legal status for immigrant students if they registered with the government, paid a filing fee of $500, passed a criminal and national security background check. About 780,000 young people stepped forward and did something they had been warned their entire lives never to do. Their parents knew they were undocumented. They knew that they had been brought to this country at an early age. They knew that they weren't technically legal, and their parents had warned them: Stay away from cops and government. All that can happen is that they will discover you are undocumented and deport you and maybe your family as well. Be careful. So President Obama stepped up and said: If you will step forward, tell us who you are, and let us do a background check on you, we are going to give you a chance--a chance to earn your way to legal status in America--and 780,000 young people took that chance and signed up for DACA. Just this last Monday I was up in New York City, and I went to Hunter College, which is part of the City University of New York, and there were about five young people on a forum with me to discuss this bill and the issue of Dreamers and immigration. It was interesting because each one of them--bright students, impressive young people--before they would say anything, they would introduce themselves by saying something like ``My name is Isadora, and I have 465 days.'' And the next one would say, ``My name is Evelyn, and I have 270 days.'' They were telling me how much time they had left, protected, to continue on as students. They know that President Trump's decision on September 5 to abolish DACA means that their protection is going to end as of March 5 next year, and then they face some terrible possibilities. The first is deportation. These people have turned themselves in. They have stepped up and identified themselves to our government with the belief that our government would not hold it against them, and now they worry that has changed. They are worried about what will happen to their family because they had the courage to come up and sign up for this program. These are very real, lifetime problems and challenges these young people face. If you look through the list of those who could be affected if DACA disappears, as President Trump has called for on March 5, there are some heartbreaking stories. Do you know there are 900 DACA-protected young people who have volunteered and now serve in the U.S. military? That is right. Even though they are undocumented because of DACA, they were allowed to sign up for a program known as MAVNI, which is a specialized program for those who have talents that are needed in our military, and they literally signed up. Think of that for a moment. Here they are, illegal in America, undocumented in America, willing to risk their lives for America. Why? Because it is the only country they know. They have lived their whole lives here. They have gone to school here. They have pledged allegiance to that flag every day in the classroom. That was their flag, their national anthem, their country. But because they were brought here as children, toddlers, infants, necessary papers were not filed. They have no legal status in this country. Well, I hope we can change that. When I asked President Obama to create this program by Executive order, he waited and worked for a year before he came up with it, and I thought it was a good program. It was controversial, but at least for these young people, it gave them a temporary renewable status, and that made all the difference in the world. When Attorney General Sessions announced the end of DACA on September 5, the President challenged us. He challenged the Senate and the House of Representatives. He said: Do something about this. Pass a law. Take care of this problem. I think DACA was legal, but I am not going to argue that point anymore. The new President does not, but I accept his challenge, and I think we all should. What can we do that is fair to these young people and gives them the chance they are asking for that is consistent with a good immigration policy for America? That is why, years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act and why I still believe it is the right approach. The notion behind it, of course, is if you were brought here as a child, you have no criminal record of any serious nature, you have completed your education, you have a chance to earn your way into legal status and then ultimately into citizenship, and that is what we are working on now. A number of us are getting together and talking about it on a bipartisan basis, and we have little time left. This has to be done this year, before the end of December. Why do I say that if the program expires in March of next year? Well, because I have been around the Senate for a few years, and I know in January and February there is little, if any, heavy lifting. There are few bills that have to pass, and we tend to put things off. So far this year, we really wouldn't get gold stars for our performance on the floor of the Senate in generating legislation and that is why I want to get that done--the whole Dream Act and DACA done--in the month of December before we leave. If we don't do it, if we fail--and I pray that we won't--but if we fail, as of March 5 of next year, 1,000 of these young people will lose their protection under the law every single day for 2 years--1,000 a day. I mentioned those serving in the military. There are 20,000 under DACA who are teachers. As of March 5 next year, they will lose their jobs. School districts all around America will have to fill those vacancies because the teachers can no longer legally work for the school districts, and there are many others who face that as well. We have almost 90 percent who are engaged in some type of job. Many are students who work because they, as undocumented students, don't qualify for Federal assistance. So they hold down jobs to pay for their college education. I have met them. Some of them break down in tears and say: Senator, I am so close to graduating, but what's the point if I am going to be deported the day after? What's the point? That is what we are up against, and that is what we face. What we need to do is take a look at the real-life stories. I want to introduce to you a person who is a friend of mine. He is an amazing person. This is Cesar Montelongo, as shown in this picture. Cesar was 10 years old when his family brought him here from Mexico. He grew up in New Mexico, where his academic achievement was quickly recognized. He graduated from high school with a grade point average above 4.0. He was ranked third in his class. He was a member of the Chess, French, Spanish, Physics, and Science Clubs. He even took college classes during the last 2 years of high school. Cesar went on to New Mexico State University, where he had a triple major in biology, microbiology, and Spanish, as well as two minors in chemistry and biochemistry. He is one smart fellow. He graduated with distinction in the honors track with a 3.9 GPA. He then earned a master's degree in biology. He earned a master's degree in biology because his dream was to go to medical school. But before DACA, it was impossible. He could not apply for medical school. The medical schools of America were not accepting the students who were undocumented. He knew if he went to medical school anywhere and didn't have a legal right to work, he couldn't complete a residency at the end of medical school. So he got a master's degree in biology and a minor in molecular biology and worked as a teaching assistant. Then DACA came along. Today, Cesar is the first DACA student who is enrolled in the MD-PhD program at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine. He is entering his third year of this highly competitive program. They accept only a handful for an MD-PhD. On completion, he will receive a medical degree and a doctorate degree in science. He is one of more than 30 DACA recipients at this medical school, which I am so proud of, in Chicago. It was, in fact, the first medical school to admit students with DACA status, beginning in 2014. DACA students don't get special treatment--no quotas. They have to compete. But amazingly bright, young people like Cesar were just waiting for a chance to compete. In order to finish their education at this medical school, they borrow from the State of Illinois government, which gives them a loan for their medical education. For every year that they are given a loan, they pledge to serve 1 year as medical doctors in an underserved area of our State. It is a win-win situation. He is now doing amazing research. He is researching how bladder viruses shape bacteria populations and the potential implications for urinary infections and disease. He is a member of the pathology medical group. He is a Spanish interpreter at the local clinic, and a mentor to other medical students. I asked Cesar: What drew you to medicine? Here is what he said: When I was very young, my father became ill and then was bedridden for months. He was the primary breadwinner and I saw him as our protector. Watching him immobilized and screaming in pain had a huge impact on me. Years later we would find out that my father suffered from diabetic myopathy and neuropathy. Learning that both his illness and our family's suffering could have been prevented by education and relatively inexpensive medication was heartbreaking. But at the same time, it made me realize the potential of medicine. What is Cesar's dream for the future? To become a practicing physician and a scientist and to develop new and improved clinical diagnostic tools so that doctors can diagnose and treat diseases better. Close to 70 Dreamers are enrolled in medical schools around the United States. Why is DACA important to him? Any student like him who is in a medical school today and wants to go on to a residency has to be able to work. Residents work long hours in hospitals while they are learning. If he didn't have DACA, he wouldn't have legal permission or legal authority to work in this country. No medical school will accept him for a residency unless he has that DACA protection. Why in the world would we let this young man's vigorous pursuit of education and brilliance be wasted? We need him. We need him in Chicago. We need him in Illinois. We need him in America--and many others just like him. The Association of American Medical Colleges reports that the Nation's doctor shortage will rise to 40,000 and even to 105,000 by the year 2030. Both the AMA and the Association of American Medical Colleges have warned that ending DACA will hurt when it comes to this physician shortage. They want Congress to do something. Listen to what the AMA says: Estimates have shown that the DACA initiative could help introduce 5,400 previously ineligible physicians into the U.S. healthcare system in the coming decades to help address [physician] shortages and ensure patient access to care. . . . Removing those with DACA status will create care shortages for rural and underserved areas. . . . Without these physicians, the AMA is concerned that the quality of care provided in these communities will be negatively impacted. I know the Presiding Officer is from the State of North Carolina. In my State of Illinois, we have some great big cities, and we have some great small towns. Many of the best small towns and rural areas from my end of the State are desperate to make sure they have good doctors at their local hospitals and people available in the community. We can't afford to lose Cesar. We can't afford to lose the thousands of others the AMA tells us are poised to become doctors and to fill our need across America. This aging population of our country is going to need doctors and nurses and physical therapists more than ever. If these young people can answer that call, they will not only be serving our Nation, but they will be serving their own goals to be part of our Nation's future. Now it is up to us. We are supposed to leave here in a matter of days. That means those of us who are serious about this issue have to do something meaningful and important, and do it quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week many things will happen in Washington, but the focus in the Senate Chamber later in the week will be the Republican tax plan. It is a plan that has come upon us really quickly--in a matter of weeks--and it literally will affect the economy of the United States and virtually every taxpayer. There is hardly a measure we can entertain that has such broad and far-reaching impact on the future of this country and its economy. What we are trying to do now is to analyze this plan. It has been put on a fast schedule. I can guarantee, as I stand here, that because of this hurry-up approach on tax reform, when it is all said and done, if anything is enacted into law, we can look back with regret for not having taken the time to do this carefully, not having measured the impact of any tax changes on individuals, families, and the economy, and, certainly, on our national debt. So far we have a plan that was considered and passed by the House of Representatives, also on a fast schedule, and one in the Senate as well. The one in the Senate will be up for consideration this week. It is going to be a procedure, which was established in the Senate years ago, called reconciliation. For the outsider, it is a long word, which, by Senate definition, means that a simple majority vote is all that is necessary to pass this measure. It will not be subject to the traditional filibuster in the Senate nor to the need for 60 votes, as in most instances. It was designed, in its inception, to be a way to reduce the budget deficit. Ironically, what we will see happen with the proposed Senate tax plan is an increase of our national debt instead of a reduction. But that seems to be the intent of the sponsors, and it is what we will consider. We took a look at some of the proposals in the Senate Republican plan. It is no secret that this plan would bankroll massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America and the largest corporations, and it would raise taxes on middle-income families. If that seems like contrary thinking to what most Americans were looking for, it is. Time and again we are told that the average American needs a helping hand. I certainly understand that in Illinois and across the Nation. This tax plan by the Republicans will not help working families. At best, it gives them a temporary tax cut, which later ends up as a tax increase. However, if you happen to be among the wealthiest of Americans, there is good news in the Republican plan. There will be substantial tax cuts in permanent law. So the help for working families is temporary, the help for wealthy families is permanent, and the help for corporations is permanent. To put it in perspective from the corporate point of view, we can understand those who argue that lowering taxes on businesses will incentivize them to expand their businesses. Yet there are a couple of things we have to acknowledge. As a percentage of the gross domestic product, corporate profits in America have never been higher. As a percentage of gross domestic product, corporate taxes paid have never been lower. Profits are at their highest, taxes are at their lowest, and the Republicans come to us and say: Well, clearly, what we need to do is to cut corporate taxes again. I disagree. I asked Secretary Mnuchin at a hearing: Shouldn't our goal be to not only have a growing economy but to have more fairness in the economy for working families who continue to put in the hours and put in the work and watch their own wealth and their own income really fall behind against the expenses they face? Well, he agreed with my conclusion, but he couldn't explain how the Republican tax plan would meet that goal. I don't think it does. I do not exaggerate when I say that this is a tax cut by the Republicans for the wealthiest. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation analysis of the Republican bill shows that by 2027, as corporations are enjoying a huge tax cut, on average, taxpayers who earn less than $75,000 a year will see their taxes go up under the Republican plan. You think: Oh, that must have been a press release from the Democratic National Committee. No, it was an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan group that we turn to in order to measure the impact of tax legislation. It is not the wealthy taxpayers, not a few taxpayers, not a couple of unfortunate exceptions; on average, taxpayers at every income bracket earning less than $75,000 would see their taxes increase under the Republican plan. How would the wealthy fair? Well, it is no surprise that under the Republican plan, the largest tax cuts under the bill go to the wealthiest households. I get a lot of letters and emails, telephone calls and contacts. There aren't a lot of rich people calling me and saying: We need a tax break, Senator. They are not asking for it. But they don't have to ask for it when the Republicans are writing a tax bill. As Republicans throw huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, here is what they do: They eliminate the alternative minimum tax, they lower the top income tax bracket, and they double the exemption for the estate tax. They go straight after a deduction that helps one-third of all taxpayers lower their taxes--the State and local tax deduction. They cut that, but they give these tax breaks to people who are already millionaires many times over. The Republican plan would eliminate the State and local tax deduction--a deduction that helps millions of middle-income families avoid being taxed twice on their hard-earned income--once at the State and local level and again at the Federal level. The State of Illinois is an example--and most other States--where people pay a State income tax. Currently, taxpayers can deduct that State income tax paid from any Federal tax liability. The premise is simple: You shouldn't be taxed on a tax. The Republicans turn that upside down. They would tax the tax you paid at the State and local level. Eliminating this vital deduction makes it more expensive for families to fund local services such as schools, police departments, fire departments, and local roads and bridges. In my State, which has the fifth highest number of taxpayers claiming this deduction, nearly 2 million Illinoisans would no longer be able to claim more than $24 billion in State and local tax deductions, as they did in 2015. So what is the Republican motivation for eliminating this deduction that is so important for middle-income families? Well, that is how they pay for the tax cuts for those at the highest income levels, and that is how they help the largest corporations cut their tax bills. This is wrong. If there was ever a question about who the Republicans are writing this plan for, look no further than the changes made during the committee session when they decided that they wouldn't stop at merely raising taxes on millions of middle-income families in order to pay for permanent corporate tax cuts, but they also were willing to raise families' health insurance premiums. It is not bad enough that tax bills are going to go up for most middle-income families. Under the Republican plan, they have devised a way to increase health insurance premiums at the same time. What a breakthrough. Republicans can't help themselves. Even in the face of opposition from the American people, hospitals, patients, nurses, seniors, and faith leaders, their tax bill would pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent by repealing part of the Affordable Care Act. This change alone means that 13 million Americans will lose their health insurance, and it means that the health insurance premiums paid by many others will increase by at least 10 percent a year--perfect. Not only are they going to raise taxes on working families, but they are going to raise the cost of health insurance for those buying policies and eliminate health insurance protection for 13 million Americans. Thirteen million Americans lose their health insurance, and millions more see their premiums spike--all to give corporations and the wealthiest people in America a tax cut. To my Republican colleagues I ask: When is it enough? Haven't we helped the wealthy enough? At least for a day or two, shouldn't we focus on middle-income families? Sadly, the threat to working families doesn't stop with a hike to their tax bill. In order to find even more money to fund tax cuts for corporations and the highest earners in America, Republicans agreed to add $1.5 trillion to the national deficit--$1.5 trillion. How many times have we heard Members of Congress--usually on the Republican side of the aisle--come to the floor and pose for holy pictures when it comes to the national debt? Well, they certainly have a lot of sermons to deliver when they have a Democratic President, but they suffer from political amnesia when they have a Republican President. Now they are going to add $1.5 trillion to the national debt to give tax breaks to wealthy people and big corporations. I have served in this body for many years. I have heard lecture after lecture from Republicans, until they are red in the face, about the importance of fiscal responsibility. I have listened to my Republican colleagues speak at length about the need for spending offsets. They wanted spending offsets for food stamps for hungry Americans. They wanted spending offsets for Hurricane Sandy victims when the hurricane hit the New York, New Jersey area. They wanted offsets for Meals on Wheels for seniors. Where are these deficit hawks now? The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Mulvaney, who made a name for himself while in Congress railing against increasing the debt ceiling, is now advocating for the Republican tax plan saying: ``We need to have new deficits.'' Spare me. I have heard the calls from Majority Leader McConnell, who once asked: ``At what point do we anticipate getting serious here about doing something about deficit and debt?'' Those are the words of Senator McConnell. To that Senator and my Republican colleagues I say: How about now? So-called fiscally conservative Republicans are hiding behind widely debunked economic growth projections and the so-called ``dynamic scoring,'' arguing that what looks like a $1.5 trillion increase to the deficit will not actually be one. The appropriately named ``Laffer Curve'' suggested that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, everybody gets well. It didn't work then, when he proposed it. It hasn't worked since, and it will not work now. Yet the Republicans find this as the only refuge for their increase to the deficit. Over the weekend, however, it was announced that the Joint Committee on Taxation wouldn't have the time to produce a so-called dynamic score for the bill before the Senate. So let me understand this. Not only did Republicans vote to explode the deficit, but now they don't want to wait to see whether their weak defense for this fiscally irresponsible plan will actually work? This is hypocrisy. Maybe it is because Republicans know, as well as the American people, just how hollow their promises are on junk economics. Do you want a preview of what dynamic scoring will hold? Last week the Penn-Wharton Budget Model released an analysis that shows that the Senate bill would fail the Republicans' own test, even when using their so-called dynamic scoring. Make no mistake, once this happens, Republicans will waste no time in making up the difference by calling for devastating cuts to America's vital programs. The Republican budget even spells this out for us--where they are going to turn when their approach falls apart. Here is how they are going to do it. They are going to do it on the backs of hard-working Americans, with more than $1 trillion of cuts in Medicaid, and--hang on tight--$470 billion worth of cuts in Medicare. The harmful impact to seniors and low- and middle-income families and some of the Nation's most vulnerable from these budgetary cuts apparently justify to them the $1.5 trillion deficit hole they are going to create with this tax plan helping the wealthiest people in America. Under our current law, known as the pay-as-you-go law, harmful cuts could start as soon as January, if this bill is passed. Republicans are determined to have a ``win'' before the end of the year. That is because if you were suffering from insomnia and following the Senate business over the course of last year, you have to wonder why we were here. In the course of the year, two things happened of any moment. No. 1, there was filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and I will save my analysis of that for another day. No. 2, there was the passage of the Defense authorization bill. That is it--two things, 1 year. So the Republicans, before we leave for the so-called holiday recess, want to have a feather in their cap. They want to be able to point to the fact that they have actually passed something. They are saying to their Members that this is a life-or-death proposal: We have to pass this or we will not be able to point to hardly anything that we did during the course of 1 year under Republican control of the Senate. That is why they are determined to do this, and do it quickly. The Republicans' irresponsible deficit spending under this plan will trigger $150 billion in automatic cuts to mandatory spending each year for the next decade. It includes regular cuts to Medicare. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you just can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be fiscally responsible and then vote for a plan that includes billions of dollars in budget gimmicks that would explode the deficit by up to $1.5 trillion over the first 10 years and beyond, even with this great dynamic scoring theory that you are trying to sell. You can't claim to make a tax plan that prioritizes small business and then spend hundreds of billions of dollars giving huge multinational corporations--already enjoying record profits--a massive tax cut as well. I might add that the Republican tax bill creates incentives-- incentives for American corporations to move overseas, to take American jobs overseas. Why in the world would we create a tax code incentive for that to happen? You can't choose to make the corporate tax cuts permanent at the expense of protecting working Americans and then still claim that this plan is going to help those same families. It is based on nothing more than a wink and a promise to extend half a trillion dollars in middle- income tax cuts that no one wants to pay for. You can't pretend to be above special interest and then include a provision in this tax bill--in the tax bill--that would open drilling leases for 800,000 acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--one of America's last pristine, untouched wilderness places, home to more than 200 wildlife species, and deserving of preservation. I have come to the floor over the course of many years in debate about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Senator Ted Stevens used to sit in that chair, and he couldn't wait until I finished my speech. He would stand up and say: The Senator from Illinois--he would point at me--doesn't even know where the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is. He has never been there. He has no idea what is going on up there. So he should not stand up on the floor and say things that he can't back up with his own personal experience and knowledge. What I did at that point was that I decided I was going to call his bluff. So I picked up and went up to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I took a bush plane in and camped out overnight in the refuge. I trekked around. I took a look for myself so that I could back up some of the things I said on the floor. We were right on the Canning River. You could look across the river at parts of the Refuge that were managed by the State of Alaska. On this side of the river where we camped, it was managed as a national wildlife refuge. There was a dramatic difference. Roadways had been built on the State side but not on the Federal side. We had a pristine refuge area. The net result was really beautiful and impressive. I couldn't wait to get back to the floor to debate Senator Stevens since I had been there. I came back for the next debate. He never raised the question again about whether I had been there. So I didn't get to give the speech on the floor. To give up all of this land to drill for oil at a time when we are saying to the Middle East that we don't need their oil as much as we have in the past, to drill for gas when fracking is finding natural gas in areas all over the continental United States hardly makes sense. It certainly doesn't if you have ever been there and seen this beautiful piece of real estate. I think the American people know what the Republicans had in mind with this plan. It really does help their deep-pocketed donors. Some Republicans in the House have been very open about this. One New York Republican Congressman said: Our donor said don't come back unless you give me a tax break. He is very honest about that, but, as far as I am concerned, that shouldn't be the motivation for passing tax reform. One of the Republican donors I referred to--and I quote him directly--said: ``My donors are basically saying, `Get it done or don't ever call me again.''' Another one said: ``Financial contributions will stop'' if the Republican tax plan doesn't pass. Thank goodness for their honesty and candor. There are special interests that will do well under this Republican plan, and wealthy people as well, but I think it is time for us to look at this plan, look at it clearly, and understand the negative impacts it is going to have on working Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Greg Katsas to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, but I want to begin with some general observations. This year, the Republican-controlled Senate has repeatedly fallen short when it comes to serving as a meaningful check and balance in our constitutional system. Senate Republicans have abandoned longstanding norms of due diligence and careful scrutiny, all in the name of advancing the agenda of President Trump. We saw this when Senate Republicans voted in near lockstep to confirm President Trump's Cabinet nominees. Republicans simply looked the other way when nominees failed to pay all of their taxes, did not disclose millions in assets, had conflicts of interest, or could not even answer basic questions at their hearings. Senate Republicans have repeatedly tried to rush through partisan bills in the dark of night. Remember when they revealed the text of the TrumpCare bill just a few hours before the Senate voted on it? Now Senate Republicans are trying to pass massive tax cuts for the largest corporations and wealthiest Americans, by ramming through an enormous bill with little debate and public scrutiny of how the bill would explode the deficit and raise taxes on many in the working class. This pattern, of the Senate abandoning its responsibility to do basic due diligence when it comes to the agenda of President Trump, has also infected our process of considering judicial nominees. When it comes to President Trump's judicial nominees, we are seeing the Senate's constitutional responsibility of ``advice and consent'' turn into ``rush through and rubberstamp.'' All year, Senate Republicans have been removing guardrails that help ensure that judicial nominees have the qualifications, temperament, and integrity that we need for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. Don't just take it from me. Take it from the conservative Wall Street Journal. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a November 20 article from the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Checks on Trump's Court Picks Fall Away'' at the conclusion of my remarks. This article talks about the series of procedural changes Senate Republicans have made this year to expedite Trump's judicial nominations--most recently, the November 16 announcement by Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that he would hold hearings on nominees who do not receive positive blue slips from both home-State Senators, something that never happened under the Obama administration. The article begins by saying: The Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee has curtailed one of the last legislative limits on a president's power to shape the federal courts, giving Donald Trump more freedom than any U.S. president in modern times to install his judges of choice, legal experts said. Consider the other changes Republicans have already made in just the first year of the Trump administration. First, President Trump subcontracted the selection of Supreme Court nominees out to rightwing special interest groups like the Federalist Society. President Trump publicly thanked the Federalist Society for assembling a list of candidates from which Justice Neil Gorsuch was selected. The White House even asked Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society to call Justice Gorsuch to let him know he was a candidate for the job. Never before had a President credited a special interest group with serving as a de facto selection committee for the Federal judiciary. For anyone who wonders what the Federalist Society is all about, I urge you to watch the video of this group laughing and applauding at their convention a few weeks ago when Attorney General Sessions joked about meeting with Russians. It was shameful. Senate Republicans also changed the rules of the Senate in order to get Neil Gorsuch confirmed. He couldn't get 60 votes on the Senate floor, so the Republicans changed the rules to make 50 votes the threshold for appointments to the Supreme Court. When it comes to lower-court nominees, the Trump administration and Senate Republicans are doing half-hearted vetting at best. We are constantly learning information that nominees initially failed to disclose. For example, Alabama District Court nominee Brett Talley failed to disclose that his wife was an attorney in the White House Counsel's Office and that Talley had apparently posted online comments defending the early KKK and calling for shooting death row inmates. Court of Federal Claims nominee Damien Schiff failed to disclose that he had called Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy a ``judicial prostitute'' in a blog post. North Carolina District Court nominee Thomas Farr reportedly failed to fully disclose his role in an African- American voter suppression effort during the 1990 campaign for Senator Jesse Helms. Yet all of these nominees were reported out of the Judiciary Committee on party line votes. There are other changes that Republicans have made to the nominations process this year. Republicans have decided not to wait for the American Bar Association to do their nonpartisan peer review of a nominee's qualifications before holding a hearing. When the ABA unanimously finds nominees not to be qualified, Republicans still support the nominees anyway. Republicans have also begun regularly holding hearings on two circuit court nominees at a time. Why? Apparently, they are afraid to let each of their nominees stand on their own two feet and face questioning from Senators individually. The circuit courts have the final word on tens of thousands of cases every year. Every single lifetime appointment to these courts deserves to be scrutinized on its own individual merits. Furthermore, Judiciary Committee Republicans are looking to relax the standards for nominees with a history of past drug use. Republicans repeatedly blocked judicial candidates proposed by President Obama who had smoked marijuana in the past, but Republicans now want a more lenient standard for Trump nominees. I am open to a different standard, but it must not be a double standard for Democratic versus Republican nominees. That takes us to the changes to the blue slip. Republicans now want to disregard this 100-year-old tradition--meaning they will ignore the vetting that home-State Senators do for nominees from their State. Remember, blue slips were respected throughout the Obama administration. Republicans sent a letter in 2009 asking President Obama to respect blue slips, and he did. Republicans then proceeded to block 18 Obama nominees by withholding blue slips. Now, Republicans have announced that they are doing a 180-degree turn for Trump nominees and that they will disregard blue slips whenever they feel like it. Why are Republicans abandoning so many longstanding traditions and guardrails when it comes to judicial nominations? It is because many of President Trump's nominees simply wouldn't pass muster under the traditional ground rules. Many Trump nominees have minimal experience, a history of ideologically biased statements, serious questions about their temperament and judgment, or a lack of independence from President Trump. Senate Republicans want to rubberstamp these nominees anyway--and confirm them as quickly as possible in their effort to pack the courts. Just look at some of the judicial nominees who have already been confirmed this year--like John Bush, confirmed to sit on the Sixth Circuit, who blogged about the false claim that President Obama wasn't born in the United States and said at his hearing that he thinks impartiality is an aspiration for a judge, not an expectation; or Stephanos Bibas, now a judge on the Third Circuit, who wrote a lengthy paper calling for corporal punishment, including putting offenders in the stocks or pillory and applying multiple calibrated electroshocks. Now, consider DC Circuit nominee Greg Katsas, who is before us today. Mr. Katsas works in the White House for President Trump. He is a Deputy White House Counsel. He testified that he has been personally involved in many of the Trump administration's most controversial policies, ranging from the Muslim travel ban to the creation of the Pence-Kobach election commission, to ending the DACA program, to the Trump administration's rollback of protections for LGBTQ-Americans. Mr. Katsas also said that, while working for President Trump, he has given legal advice regarding the Emoluments Clause, advised on the administration's efforts to cut off Federal public safety funds to cities because of disagreements over immigration enforcement, and even provided legal advice on the Special Counsel's Russia investigation. This is a laundry list of Trump administration controversies that Mr. Katsas has been personally involved with. It is likely that many of these issues will end up in litigation before the DC Circuit. I don't think appointing President Trump's staff lawyer to the DC Circuit will strengthen the American people's confidence in the fairness of our justice system. Instead, we need nominees with a strong track record of independence and good judgment. Let me talk for a minute about Mr. Katsas's judgment. At his hearing, I asked Mr. Katsas some simple questions about the torture technique known as waterboarding. I was deeply troubled by his answers. I asked him if waterboarding is torture. He said, ``I hesitate to answer the question in the abstract, not knowing the circumstances, the nature of the program.'' I asked him if waterboarding is cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. I noted that Senator John McCain, the author of the 2006 law that made it clear that cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is illegal, has said ``waterboarding, under any circumstances, represents a clear violation of U.S. law''--so did all four Judge Advocates General--the top lawyers in the military--during the Bush administration. But Mr. Katsas responded evasively, saying ``anything that is cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment would be clearly unlawful.'' I then asked Mr. Katsas is waterboarding illegal under U.S. law. He said ``to the extent it constitutes either torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, yes it is.'' What a pack of weasel words. Mr. Katsas's tortured logic about waterboarding is unacceptable. Mr. Katsas should have said, with no equivocation and no uncertainty, that waterboarding is illegal, that it is cruel, inhuman, and degrading and that it is torture. That is the law, and a Federal judge should know it. I am concerned that Mr. Katsas's refusal to give those answers reflects a troubling ideological viewpoint when it comes to questions of torture and interrogation techniques. My concerns were amplified by a speech Mr. Katsas gave in April 2009 when his speech notes said ``high bar--a lot of coercive interrogation does not equal torture.'' This is a clear-cut issue for me. I have voted against nominees in the past who gave the wrong answers to questions about waterboarding, and I will do it again. In my view, Mr. Katsas has not demonstrated the independence and judgment that we need for the critical position of DC Circuit judge. I cannot support his nomination. Here is the bottom line. Before I was a Senator, I was a lawyer in downstate Illinois, and I looked up to Federal judges. I thought that, to get that job, you had to be a cut above. Otherwise, you wouldn't make it through the Senate's rigorous advice and consent process. Sadly, this Republican Senate is turning advice and consent into ``rush through and rubberstamp.'' Republicans want to pack the courts with judges who will support President Trump's agenda, and so they are hurrying to confirm as many of his picks as possible--even if they are unqualified, ideological, hiding things from the Senate, or too close to President Trump. Our Federal judiciary is being diminished as a result. I wish my Republican colleagues would stand up for an independent judiciary and a meaningful advice and consent process. We should fill this vacancy on the DC Circuit with someone who is independent of President Trump, not one of his staff attorneys. We should choose nominees who are unafraid to say what the law is on torture, instead of what they might wish the law to be. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Katsas nomination.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Democratic leader. His strong support of the Dream Act encourages me but, more importantly, gives hope to the Dreamers across America: young men and women, just like the one he described, who are living in fear, fear that their time in America is coming to an end. This is the only country they have ever known. They have stood in classroom after classroom and pledged allegiance to the American flag, the only flag they have ever known. They sing the national anthem. They believe they are part of America, but as Senator Schumer has reminded us, they are missing the paperwork. Their parents brought them here as infants, toddlers, children and never filed the paperwork, never made them legal, and here they are in this country, searching for an answer, searching for some hope. My best basic question to the U.S. Senate and to my colleagues is: Why do we make this so hard? Why is this so difficult? Don't we all fundamentally agree on the premise that no young person should be held responsible for the actions or decisions of their parents? That is what is happening here. These young people didn't make the key decisions in their lives; their parents did. Let me quickly add, because many of the Dreamers say: Senator Durbin, understand that our parents were doing everything they could to help us. I couldn't agree more. From a moral viewpoint, their parents were determined to help their children and were prepared to incur great risk, even legal risk, to do it. I understand that. I would do the same thing, and I am not being critical or negative. But the simple fact and reality is that these young people, because they don't have the paperwork, don't have a future in America. The circumstances they face are bleak. Imagine, if you will, the challenge of college, the challenge of going from high school on to an education at a university, with no help whatsoever from the Federal Government. You don't qualify for a penny in Pell grants; you don't qualify for any help when it comes to government loans. Think about the challenge of college and higher education without that help, without the fundamental assistance that millions of young Americans count on. Dreamers get no help--none. They have to fight their way forward on their own, and they do it in remarkable and heroic ways. Over the last break, I was down at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale--deep southern Illinois, 300 miles or more away from the city of Chicago--and I sat down with a group of these Dreamers who were at the university. One young woman had worked so hard to get through community college and now through the university at Carbondale and still had two semesters left before graduation. She was telling me about her struggles--taking time off to work a job, save the money, go back to school, and here she was where she could see the finish line. As she sat there and described it to me, she stopped and broke down in tears. She said to me: Why am I doing this? Because of the announcement by President Trump, I don't have any future in this country. After all these years and all this effort, I really don't have a future here. I don't believe that, and I begged her not to believe it either. She has a future, an important future in the United States and in the State of Illinois. She has proved through her determination and hard work that she is an extraordinary young woman. She is going to get that bachelor's degree, and I pray that we in the Senate and the House--with the President--will give her a chance to be part of America. President Obama did. He created DACA. I had introduced the DREAM Act years and years ago--16 years ago--when President Obama was my colleague in the Senate from Illinois. He was the cosponsor. I joined with Senator Lugar, a Republican Senator from Indiana, writing to President Obama, saying: Find a way, if you can. Find a way to protect these Dreamers from deportation until we pass a law that needs to be passed. And he did it. He created the DACA Program, where young people could come forward, pay the fine and fee of almost $500 or $600, submit themselves to a criminal background check to make sure there were no problems in their background, show proof that they had graduated from high school, and then--only then--would they be allowed to stay in the United States for 2 years and not be deported and legally be allowed to work. Well, President Obama created by executive order the DACA Program. At the end of the day, 780,000 of these young people stepped forward. It was a leap of faith on their part. Each and every one of them had been raised in America by their parents and carefully schooled in this belief: Don't raise your head. Don't let this government see us. As long as we can live in the shadows, as long as we are not confronted with the legal system, we have a chance to stay. They lived with that looming over their heads every single day. Then, when President Obama said to them: Come forward, tell us who you are, where you live; tell us about your family; and we will give you a chance to stay here legally under this Executive order, they did it. They trusted in their leaders. They trusted in their government. They were prepared to make that leap of faith, at great risk, on the chance that this might be the ticket they were looking for to a life in America, to be part of America's dream and America's future. Then, on September 5, President Trump came forward and announced that he would abolish this program created by President Obama and that it would end on March 5, 2018. He established a standard and said: We will allow those who have to renew during this period of time--their 2-year DACA protection had expired, and they would have to renew--until November 5 to file and to qualify for a renewal period. He picked November 5. For many of them, it was a surprise and a challenge to come up with the filing fee and to get the papers in on time so that their protection would continue until March 5, 2018, or beyond. Some of them did everything they could think of. Some went to attorneys, for example, to make sure they got this renewal of DACA completed successfully and accurately. Now we have learned that something terrible happened in the meantime. They relied on the Federal Government--particularly, they relied on our Postal Service--to mail in their applications for renewal. Who would have argued that that was not a responsible thing to do? I can tell my colleagues that practicing attorneys across the United States use our Postal Service regularly. One attorney sent the renewal to Washington by certified mail so that there would be proof that it was mailed. He mailed it on October 21. The problem was that the Postal Service lost the application. It didn't arrive until a day later, a day past the deadline established by the President. That young person has lost the right to renew unless the Department of Homeland Security comes up with a new ruling on the subject. That is the complexity of the life of these young people who are simply asking for a chance to be part of America's future. That is what that young applicant faced. That is what hundreds of others faced. We believe that some 8,000 were not able to renew in time and lost their protected status. I can't tell you what their future is, but I pray that the Senate, before we leave this year, will decide the right thing for their future. I have come to the floor over 100 times to tell the personal stories of these young people who are asking for a chance to have the Dream Act become the law of the land. Some Republican Senators have joined me in this effort. Notably, Lindsey Graham, the Republican Senator from South Carolina, has been a cosponsor. Three other Republican Senators have joined in sponsoring the Dream Act, and more are interested in helping. The conversations continue on the floor and give me some hope that, at the end of the day, we will do the right thing, before the end of this year. Let me add, too, that having served in the Senate--it has been my honor to be here for some years--I know the calendar determines your fate many times in the Senate. The calendar we face could determine the fate of these Dreamers. Here is what it boils down to. If we don't renew the Dream Act before the end of this year, then it has to be done in January or February. January and February are well known to be months of little activity in the Senate and in the House. So if we wait until then, it is not likely it is going to happen. That is why I am pleading with my colleagues and the leadership of the Senate: We can't go home for the holidays until we do this. We can't talk about dreaming of a white Christmas until we face the Dreamers and the bleak Christmas they face if we fail to act. I am begging my colleagues on both sides to roll up their sleeves and join me, sit at the table, and let's get this job done. There are specific reasons why we should, and I want to tell one of those stories today, as I have done more than 100 times in the past. This young lady's name is Priscilla Aguilar. Priscilla was 5 years old when her family brought her to the United States from Mexico. She grew up in Brownsville, TX. She was a great student. In high school she joined a medical magnet program and graduated in the top 10 percent of her class. Priscilla was a member of the Health Occupations Students of America, where she participated in regional and State competitions in biomedical debate and medical reading. This experience sparked her love for science. Priscilla went off to the University of Texas at Brownsville. She graduated with honors in the winter of 2012 with a bachelor's degree in biological sciences. Remember, as a Dreamer, she didn't qualify for any Federal assistance going to school. She had to work at jobs and borrow money from others to finish her education. After graduation, Priscilla was accepted into Teach for America, a national nonprofit organization that places talented college graduates in urban and rural schools where there are special challenges and shortages of teachers. It is interesting, isn't it, that this young woman who was brought here at the age of 5 not only worked so hard for her own education but was then willing to give 2 years of her life in the schools of America to help less fortunate students. Do you think you have an insight into who she is and what her values are? Priscilla is not alone. Twenty thousand DACA Dreamers are currently teaching across the United States of America, including 190 in the Teach for America Program. Priscilla now teaches biological and medical microbiology at Mercedes High School in Mercedes, TX. She is the head of the Science Department. She oversees a team of nine science teachers. She teaches students of all grade levels and coaches the school's debate team. The team won the district championship last year and participated in the State championship. In 2013, a tragedy struck Priscilla's family. Her mother died unexpectedly. Currently, Priscilla is caring for her three younger siblings, all of whom were born in the United States and are U.S. citizens. In fact, almost 75 percent of Dreamers have a U.S. citizen spouse, child, or sibling. Priscilla wrote me a letter, which I will read into the Congressional Record: Science and learning are my biggest passions and I want to keep pushing myself forward so that I can be better equipped to serve my community and my students. I want to inspire and encourage all students to pursue careers in science. I want to be a role model and mentor to students by succeeding in a science career myself. If I can do it, so can they! But without DACA, and without the Dream Act, Priscilla and 20,000 other teachers just like her will lose their jobs in America. I am not exaggerating. DACA gives Priscilla the legal right to work in America. If she loses that DACA protection on the March 5 deadline, or whenever her renewal comes up, at that point she can no longer work in the United States. This is not an isolated case. I have told the story many times about 28 students at the Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine in Chicago. They are all protected by DACA. They came to that medical school in open competition--no quotas, no special slots. They are the best and brightest. They came from all over the United States because Loyola University--thank goodness--decided they deserved a chance. Young people like them all across America who had given up on a medical education because they were undocumented finally had their chance under DACA. Twenty-eight of them now are dedicated to becoming doctors. They can't borrow money from our Federal Government, as I mentioned before. The State of Illinois, under both a Democratic and Republican Governor, have created loan programs for them in medical school with one condition: For every year the State of Illinois helps to pay for their medical education, they have to pledge 1 year when they finish their medical degrees in service to our State, in areas where we have shortages of doctors--medically underserved areas. So 28 of them now have their fate hanging in the balance, depending on the fate of the Dream Act. Why? Because to become a doctor, you need a residency. A residency is a job. A residency means legally working. If these young people lose the DACA and Dreamer protection, they have to drop out of medical school. They cannot continue their residency and pursue a specialty that they have had their heart set on. That is the reality of our failure to act. That is the reality of losing Priscilla Aguilar as an inspiring science teacher in Texas, of losing 28 doctors who are on their way to graduation at Loyola University, and of literally thousands of others who could make America a better, more prosperous, and a more just Nation. Why do we make this so hard? Why do we make it so difficult for these young people? They have overcome the odds. They have shown their determination. They have shown their love for this country. Many of these DACA Dreamers are begging to serve in our military, to risk their lives for America. Yet we have failed to act. The President draws a deadline and says: After this point, there will be no more protection for these young people. That isn't what America stands for. That does not reflect our values. I stand here today honored to be the son of an immigrant to this country. My mother was brought here at the age of 2 from Lithuania. That immigrant family fought hard when they arrived, as most immigrant families do. By fate, my mother became a naturalized citizen and her son became a U.S. Senator. That is my story. That is my family's story, but it is America's story. It is a story that has been repeated millions of times over and over. People come here begging for a chance--a chance for a better life, a chance to make this a better nation. These young people and their parents, I might add, deserve that kind of consideration. What we are considering today doesn't affect their parents and the Dream Act, but certainly we should give these young people a chance. I think their parents deserve it, too, but that is a debate for another day, perhaps. We will see. In the meantime, I beg my colleagues to join us. Let's do something right this year, before the end of the year, that reflects our values of who we are. Let's acknowledge the obvious. Justice demands us to step up and stand behind these Dreamers. The moment is about to arrive. Senator Lindsey Graham, my Republican cosponsor of the bill, said that a moment of reckoning is coming. He is right. It is a moment of reckoning as to who we are in the Senate and in the Congress and in the White House. It is a reflection on our view of America as a nation--a nation of immigrants that has embraced diversity and become all the stronger because of it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) 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. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in a few days, Americans will celebrate Thanksgiving, a holiday that is filled with meaning and memories and, if we are lucky, sumptuous meals shared with family and friends. Thanksgiving began as America's national harvest festival, a day to give thanks for our rich and fertile land and the great bounty of food it produces. On this long Thanksgiving weekend, I plan to spend a few hours reading the latest book from one of my favorite friends whose works capture in loving detail life on her family's Wisconsin dairy farm, but even more, the rock-solid values that sustained her family and her life. The book is called ``The Round Barn: Biography of an American Farm.'' As one reviewer wrote, reading it ``is like sitting on the porch of an early 20th century dairy farm and watching an era in American history pass right before your eyes.'' The Round Barn books--there are three of them now--are the creations of Jackie Dougan Jackson, a novelist, poet, professor, mentor to generations of writers, and one of the best-loved residents in my hometown of Springfield, IL. She lives in a big, old home in Springfield which, legend has it, was once visited by another master storyteller, Abraham Lincoln. Loretta and I are lucky to count Jackie as a dear friend of many years. She is a kind, creative soul who never fails to reach out to help others. At the age of 89, she is still filled with energy, empathy and curiosity about nearly everything. The Round Barn books keep a promise that Jackie made to her grandfather W.J. Dougan when she was just 15 years old. She vowed then that one day she would write a history of the dairy farm that W.J. had founded in 1906, the farm on which three generations of Jackie's family lived and worked. Jackie Jackson throws open the Round Barn doors at the Dougan family farm to tell us an American story. She gives us a rich history of farm life at the mercy of the forces of science and the market but grounded in rock-solid Midwestern values. Some of those values were painted onto the silo of the family's round barn. W.J. titled the list ``Aims for the Farm.'' They were: ``#1. Good Crops; #2. Proper Storage; #3. Profitable Live Stock; #4. A Stable Market''--and most important of all--``#5. Life as Well as a Living.'' W.J. Dougan was a deeply spiritual man and a hard worker. He struggled for years to put himself through college and became a Methodist minister, but encroaching deafness forced him to give up the religious life he loved. In 1906, he bought a dairy farm near Beloit, WI. The Round Barn was built in 1911. W.J. chose the unusual shape because he believed that a barn braced on a central concrete pillar was cheaper to build, more efficient for a dairy operation, and less likely to blow away in a tornado. The Round Barn quickly became a county landmark. W.J. marketed himself as ``the Babies Milk Man,'' and he succeeded through hard work, dedication to his customers and community, and an unusual talent for spotting and adopting cutting-edge advances in agriculture. In 1925, he was named a ``Master Farmer'' by a prestigious agricultural organization, one of only 23 Midwestern farmers so honored. Even so, the Great Depression, which destroyed so many family farms and businesses, nearly wiped out the Dougan Guernsey Dairy Farm. In 1930, bankruptcy papers were drawn up but never filed. Jackie was born in 1928, the year before the Great Depression, one of four children of W.J.'s son Ronald and Ronald's wife, Eunice. Jackie was a natural born writer, a prodigy. When she was 8 she wrote a short story that took first prize in a Beloit citywide contest. Her first novel was serialized in the Galesburg Post in Illinois when she was 10. She majored in classics at Beloit College, married, and then moved with her new husband to Ann Arbor, where they both earned master's degrees. The couple had four daughters. Jackie would go on to earn a doctorate in Latin from the University of Wisconsin. She was teaching writing at Kent State University in Ohio in 1967 when her father suffered a heart attack. Jackie went home and sat at his hospital bedside for weeks as he recounted stories of life on the family farm. Back in Ohio after her father's recovery, Jackie became aware of a deep longing within her to reconnect with her rural beginnings. As she described it in one of her Round Barn books: There has been another clock within her. She didn't set it nor place it there. It's been geared not to hours but to cycles; the daily precession of milking and bottling, feeding and cleaning the yearly procession of planting, cultivating, harvesting. It's been set to sun, moon, health, cold, wet dry. But now if there's a heavy spring freeze, she puts on a coat without sensing the loss of crisp that might result from too-late planting. If the sky lowers black, she takes an umbrella without feeling the sway of the hay wagon racing to reach the barn before the cloudburst. Her dailiness is not this class, that lecture, the next trip to the stacks. . . . It was the ground she'd stood on, the air she'd breathed. She had no special moment, no epiphany to explain the realization of loss that came over her. She only knows that something elemental is gone and has been gone for some time. That it's probably irretrievable, unless she changes the path she's treading. So that is what she did. Jackie Jackson changed her life's path. She moved to Springfield, IL, and accepted a position teaching literature and writing at an innovative university that was just opening, Sangaman State University, now the University of Illinois at Springfield. For years, she had been collecting stories and recollections about the Round Barn, her family, the dairy's customers, and the townspeople. Her trove of tales included her own notebooks, stretching back to when she was 8, the stories her father had told her from his hospital bed, letters and notes left by her grandfather, and much more. She became a sort of detective, finding more letters tucked into framed pictures, stuck to the attic floor in the old family home all sorts of unexpected places. Each letter or scrap of paper became a piece of the family puzzle. In 1976, she began to fashion the notes and letters into the first Round Barn book. The book published this month, ``The Round Barn: Biography of an American Farm' is the fulfillment of her promise to her grandfather, her magnum opus, a detailed and loving portrait of a way of life that no longer exists. The Dougan Guernsey Dairy Farm ceased operating in 1967, just as agribusiness and large corporate farms were beginning to redefine American farming. In 1979, the Round Barn was added to the National Registry of Historic Places. By 2012, the dilapidated old structure had become a safety hazard, and it was torn down, but thanks to Jackie Jackson's beautifully detailed biography of her family's farm and the people who lived and worked there, generations from now readers will still be able to visit the magical world of the Round Barn. As this Thanksgiving Day, this American harvest festival, approaches, I am thankful for the Round Barn books that capture a bygone day of American farming like holograms, and Loretta and I are grateful to our friend Jackie for giving the world such a gift. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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