Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in 2018, I had the opportunity to visit Venezuela. It was a once prosperous, albeit imperfect, democracy suffering from terrible economic and political decline. I told then- President Maduro that if he rigged the upcoming election, Venezuelans would be even more isolated and endure further unnecessary suffering. It didn't stop him for a minute. He went ahead with a discredited election. The result was as predicted: The economy of Venezuela started descending into chaos. People were literally starving. There was an exodus of millions of people from Venezuela. You might say, if you believe that the United States has no responsibility: What is it our business anyway? Countries are going to have failed governments, and so what? What difference does it make? Well, the difference it makes is the thousands and thousands of Venezuelans who were part of an exodus from Venezuela. Most of them went to Colombia and nearby nations, but many of them came to the United States. I know. I met them. They were the bus people that were sent to Chicago, for example, by the Governor of Texas, overwhelmingly Venezuelans. How many actually came to the United States, I am not sure. I am not sure anybody really knows, but we are talking about thousands. And at this point, imagine what we are suggesting. This man Maduro is still in control in Venezuela, and we are going to go through a mass deportation where we round up the Venezuelans who came to this country and send them back, back to starvation, political oppression. I get it. If you are a dangerous person, you never should have come to this country in the first place. And if you commit a serious crime once you are here, I don't believe you should stay. Just that basic. I don't go as far as the bill we considered a week or so ago. I believe that prosecution and a finding of guilt is still important in an America that is ruled by due process. But having said that, What are we going to do about Venezuela? The same man is still there, and there have been not one, but two rotten, suspect elections in the time since I have been there. Last July, for example, Venezuela held another Presidential election, during which the regime arbitrarily blocked the leading opposition candidates from the ballot and tried to undermine the electoral process. Nonetheless, more than 10 million Venezuelans actually voted. And results meticulously documented by credible election monitors showed a sweeping victory not for Maduro, the incumbent, but for Edmundo Gonzalez, his opponent. I was glad to see that one of the newly confirmed Secretary of State Rubio's first calls was to President-elect Gonzalez, who actually won the election. Despite his sweeping, clear victory, the Maduro regime has refused to give up the office of Presidency and refused to recognize the legitimate election results. Maduro regime announced they won--actually, not true; arbitrarily arrested thousands of opponents; issued an arrest warrant for Gonzalez, which is becoming a common trick by these dictators; and refused to swear him in on inauguration day. So today, I am introducing a short bill terminating U.S. petroleum cooperation and related trade with Venezuela until the legitimate results of the election are respected. It is pretty simple. The entrenched regime clings to power using oil revenues, some of them from the United States. Under my bill, that comes to an end. President Trump and Secretary Rubio could also take this step right now without my legislation, but maybe the bill will be a reminder that this is a good idea. Lastly, I appealed to our democratic allies in the region, including the democracies of the Caribbean, to stand resolute in defense of a sweeping and clear vote by their exhausted Venezuelan neighbors. They cannot sit idly by for another 6 years of regime-inflicted suffering and collapse in Venezuela.

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the U.S. Senate on this Saturday morning is the nomination of Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota to be the Secretary of Homeland Security in the Cabinet of President Trump. I have never met Governor Noem. I had hoped we would have a chance to get together, but that didn't work out. I made a request for a courtesy meeting, but we couldn't schedule it. My vote is not contingent on a person showing up in my office, but I wish we had a chance to meet and talk about the awesome responsibility she is seeking with this Department. The Department of Homeland Security is virtually a creation of 9/11. That is when the term ``homeland'' starting being used in our highest levels of our government in an effort to keep America safe from 9/11 or anything like it happening in the future. Over the years, it has accepted a major responsibility when it comes to the issue of immigration, particularly when it comes to making certain that our border processes are orderly and reach our national goals, serve our national goals and values. It is interesting to reflect on where we are on the issue of immigration. A starting point is, we are a nation of immigrants, period, end of quote. I am the son of an immigrant mother who came to the United States at the age of 2. I have been fortunate enough to be entrusted by my State to represent them here in first the House and now the Senate. I am honored to have that responsibility. If you visit my office here in the Capitol, you will see behind my desk my mother's naturalization certificate. I am very proud of it. Before she passed away, I asked her if she still had it, and although she was in a compromised health position, she jumped out of her chair, was gone 2 to 3 minutes at most, and came in with a battered, old, brown envelope. I opened it, and there was her naturalization certificate, which I display behind my desk. I might also say parenthetically that a little slip of paper came out of that same envelope. I picked it up, and it was a tiny little piece of paper that said the filing fee of $2.50 had been paid. It was stamped ``official.'' I said to Mom: Why did you keep this? She said: If the government ever challenged me, I could prove that I paid my filing fee of $2.50. That was my mom, an immigrant lady who worked hard her whole life; eighth grade education; raised three boys. I think we have tried our best to confirm her confidence in us and do our best to serve this country in various ways. So immigration is personal to me. I am proud of my immigrant roots. On my father's side, the opposite is true. The family dates back to before the Revolutionary War. But that is not unusual in America. We are a gathering of families with many different backgrounds. Immigration is a central part of who we are as Americans. The question, of course, before us is, What are we going to do about problems in immigration? I can tell you that the problems predated Joe Biden, predated my arrival in Congress, and go back many years. If you look at the history of immigration in this country, it is a mixed review. There are times when we embraced immigrants to build transnational railroad lines and the like, and there are times when we shunned them and said they were not welcome in this country. It goes back and forth. We are now in a period, everyone knows, where immigration on our borders is a central issue raised in the last Presidential campaign and certainly on the minds of many voters. I was fortunate enough a few years ago, in 2013, to join what was known as the Gang of 8, four Democrats and four Republican Senators who sat down and said: Let's write a comprehensive immigration reform bill. And we did. In that group were Senator John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham, Senator Flake, and Senator Rubio, our new Secretary of State. On the Democratic side were myself, Senator Schumer, Senator Menendez, and Senators from various States joined. Senator Feinstein was one of those who worked toward reaching a goal. We brought a bill to the floor, a comprehensive bill--I think a good one. It passed with over 60 votes. Unfortunately, after it was sent to the House of Representatives, it died without even being debated. We missed an opportunity there. It tried to address some fundamentals which I believe should be part of any immigration system in America. I can tell you what my fundamental values are. I certainly identify myself as embracing immigration, but when it comes to the process of immigration, there are certain things that I think are absolutely essential. I think most Senators of both political parties would agree, although some would have variations on this theme. Central to immigration reforms, as far as I am concerned, is an orderly process at the border, which means that, except in rare circumstances, people who come through that border gate in an orderly fashion are to be reviewed and carefully scrutinized before they go a step further as to their presence. Secondly, I accept the premise, and I think every American probably joins in it, saying we never knowingly want to allow a dangerous person to come into this country, period, end of quote. Secondly, if an immigrant to this country is involved in dangerous conduct to the rest of the people who live in this country, we don't want them. They can go back to where they came from or some other place, but they can't stay here in the United States. The third reality is one that is tough because it is easy to say and hard to live with, and that is, we cannot accept everyone who wants to come into America tomorrow. It just has to be done in a thoughtful, orderly way that is in the best interest of our Nation and the people who live here first. We have, for example, to allow people to come into this country if they bring skills that are necessary for our future, but we have to offer opportunities to people who are already in this country, citizens and those legally in America, for an economic opportunity in the future. They are our highest priority and should be. Having said that, the Department of Homeland Security, which Governor Noem is seeking to lead, is now embarking on a new era, the new Trump 47 era, where ``mass deportation'' is the catchphrase of the day. Let me give you an illustration of what mass deportation could mean. We don't know for sure how it will be implemented, but I am very concerned. We had a hearing this week with President Trump's Agriculture Secretary, Ms. Rollins from the State of Texas. I asked her a question which I think raises a valid concern about mass deportation. Currently, we know that we need immigrants and migrant labor as a critical part of agriculture. When the Illinois Farm Bureau comes to meet with me, they frequently raise the issue of immigration. In what way? Well, for example, a member of the Farm Bureau has a dairy operation in northwestern Illinois. She said to me that it was the third generation of her family with that dairy operation. If you know anything about dairy operations, they are labor- intensive. Those cows have to be milked twice a day, and you better be ready to do it and do it with frequency if you want to continue a successful dairy operation. It involves a lot of manpower. It used to be--there was a time when dairy families in my State and others had a bunch of kids because the kids were all ultimately going to be part of the family operation. Those kids are not sticking around dairy farms as much as they used to, and so those who want to keep the dairy farms in operation need workers. It is almost virtually impossible to find American workers on these dairy operations because it is such tough work, and so migrant labor becomes a critical part of the operations in dairy. I can recall this lady said to me: If I can't get migrant laborers to work on my dairy farm in northwestern Illinois, this is the end of it, Senator. We can't continue. I don't have enough family members, and certainly there are not kids or anyone--workers in town--who is anxious to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning and start milking cows. That is part of my lifestyle. Similarly, a lady from the Illinois Farm Bureau said: Well, now that we are on the subject, I have an orchard in Southern Illinois. We grow peaches and apples. I will tell you that I have given up the thought of hiring any local young people to work in my orchard operation. They just won't do it. She said: I have even got a fruit stand out by the highway. I have enclosed it, I have air-conditioned it, and I still can't get young people to man the cash registers and sell the apples and the peaches on the side of the road. They just don't like doing it. So I rely every year on migrant labor to come pick the crop and even to work the fruit stand out by the highway. That is the reality. She said: I am done if I can't get migrant workers. So let's put that into context of mass deportation. We estimate that 40 percent of ag workers today are undocumented. That means that literally they are working, in most cases--in many cases, I should say--without legal authority. They come regularly from Mexico usually or other countries nearby to work in the fields and go back home at a certain point. They are illegal while they are here, but they are doing valuable work. They are paid for it. It is back-breaking work, things that people just don't ordinarily want to do. Now let's put that in the context of mass deportation. If the Trump administration decides to use the Department of Homeland Security, which Governor Noem is seeking to head, to enforce mass deportations, what is going to happen in that orchard? What is going to happen on that dairy farm? What is going to happen in so many agricultural pursuits where migrant labor, undocumented labor, is critical to the operation? Well, I can tell you, in many instances, they will be removing the very workers who pick the crop. So what does that mean to Mr. and Mrs. America? Go to the grocery store, to the produce section, and look at the selection you have today. Mark it in your mind because it may not be there tomorrow if the people who pick the crop, who grow the crop, who man and provide resources for the dairy operations are gone. Many of these farm operations will be gone with them. I asked Ms. Rollins, who is seeking to be the Secretary of Agriculture: Are you going to warn the people in agriculture States, like Illinois and Texas, that mass deportation is a threat to their workforce? She said: Of course. She wouldn't answer that directly. I wasn't surprised by that, but it is an indication of the complication of mass deportation. Take what I have just said and apply it to so many other industries. The hospitality industry is a good indication. How many people are cleaning those hotel rooms that you stayed in last night who are undocumented? A lot. Another area that I think is really critical is when it comes to caregivers. When you leave your child or grandchild at the daycare center in the morning and head off to work or to whatever your assignment may be for the day, you entrust the most precious part of your life--that little child or grandchild--in many instances, to an undocumented worker. They don't get paid as much as most, and they have an awesome responsibility. I think every parent and grandparent would agree. You want to make sure they are good and talented and qualified and show up to work. The same is true when it comes to caregivers for those seniors. Your mother or your grandmother went down to breakfast this morning at the care facility and luckily had by her side one of the workers or caregivers who escorted her carefully back to her room. We all know that, at a certain age, a fall can be literally deadly and cost a person's life, so you count on that worker. Now, if you go into mass deportation and start removing the undocumented workers from childcare facilities and senior facilities and nursing home facilities, how many people will be prejudiced and hurt by that? I am afraid very many. So this notion of cleaning the ranks and ridding ourselves of undocumented people in this country we have to give some thought to. If they are dangerous, if they have committed a crime, no questions asked, they have to go. And it has to be a serious crime, not just an arrest for shoplifting, for example. I personally believe they should not only be charged with a crime but prosecuted. But if that happens, they are gone, period, and I think most people would agree with that. So Governor Noem's aspiration to head this Agency comes at a critical moment in history. The economy in this country is about to change with mass deportation. We estimate there are roughly about 11 million people in this country undocumented, meaning that they are here not in legal status. How did they get here? In a variety of ways. They overstayed visas in most instances. Some of them came across the border--that is for sure--but many of them came into this country as students or tourists and stayed, and they comprise the largest share of the 11 million undocumented people in this country. I think we dealt with this issue in a responsible way in the bipartisan comprehensive bill. Here is what we said, and I want to make it clear that I think this is a thoughtful and sensible way to approach it on a bipartisan basis: If you are undocumented in this country, under our bill, you are required legally to step forward, to identify yourself, to pay a fee to remain in this country. You would then be registered by the government. We would know who you are, where you are. You would pay your taxes while you are working and make your contributions to Social Security and other funds. It would be enforced by something called E-Verify, where every employer in this country would be required to check and make sure that the person who is working and undocumented was, in fact, registered with the government. That, to me, is a thoughtful way to make sure that we are safe, that we still have the workers we need, and to say to those who are here in an undocumented status: You may stay. We are not guaranteeing your citizenship, although I personally believe that they should be given a path to citizenship, but it is a starting point and a sensible one. We would say to those workers at the dairy farm in northwestern Illinois: Keep working, but now you are going to have your own Social Security number and your own requirement for paying taxes on a personal basis, as an example. So it is a little bit different than what President Trump has envisioned. His sounds a lot different in many respects. But it is an indication of the awesome responsibility that Governor Noem will have if she becomes the Secretary of Homeland Security. Our border must be secure, and we certainly, as I said earlier, must deport any dangerous individuals who are here illegally. The approach that I have heard--it will remain to be seen what happens by President Trump and his DHS Secretary nominee, Kristi Noem--is not just targeted at criminals; it is aimed at legal migrant immigrants and immigrant families who have lived in our country--many of them--for decades and are pillars of our community. Without fail, I can predict what is going to happen if President Trump pursues his approach. In community after community in Tennessee and in Illinois, we will discover undocumented people to our surprise. I didn't know that that man from Mexico, running the restaurant in southern Illinois--the popular restaurant that people love to go to on Friday and Saturday nights--I didn't know he was undocumented. I can't believe they are going to deport him. We are going to hear stories like that over and over again of people we sit next to at church, count on every day in our business dealings, see at the nursing homes, see at the daycare facilities, who will be subject to deportation. It is not just those who are undocumented. Many times, it appears to be, they are going to say to their children, who were born in the United States and who are legal citizens under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, that they have to leave as well. There is no basis for that to happen in law or in the Constitution, and yet I am afraid that might be the future. We have already seen President Trump suspend the Refugee Admissions Program, which provides a safe haven for those fleeing oppressive regimes around the world, including people from Afghanistan who literally risked their lives to help American soldiers survive in that wartime context. Some of those people are being threatened now with exclusion and deportation. Many refugee applicants wait decades to come to the United States lawfully, and all of them go through rigorous vetting. I am talking about not months but years of background checks before they can be considered as refugees in this country. When they have waited so long under difficult circumstances, that seems fundamentally unfair. The Trump administration has already canceled flights for over 1,600 Afghan refugees who are scheduled to come here, including the families of Active-Duty U.S. military personnel and those who are at risk because they fought for the United States--on the side of the United States in Afghanistan. I have a particular situation in Chicago, which I am honored to represent. We have a section of that city--one of my favorites. It is known as Ukrainian Village. It goes without saying that so many people from Ukraine have family and relatives in the Chicagoland area. There are great restaurants and bakeries and churches and schools. It is a vibrant part of the city of Chicago. This is something most people don't know: When the Governor of Texas decided to send thousands of undocumented people to the city of Chicago, it caused a lot of upheaval and change overnight, and many of those people had to be helped by units of government--the State of Illinois, the city of Chicago, and others. At the same time, those 50,000 people were being slowly integrated into the local economy. Most of them now don't live in any government-sponsored facility, but they have their own lives, and they are working at this point. At the same time that happened, another 50,000 came into Chicago from Ukraine. Because of the war in that country and the displacement of people in that war, we were offered an opportunity under the Biden administration for those Ukrainians to come to the United States under two conditions. First, they have a sponsoring family, and second, they have a job waiting for them. They wouldn't be dependent on government programs for their survival. We did that, and almost no one noticed. These Ukrainians had become part of the community in the Chicago greater region and have become part of the economy. They have been accepted and embraced. Now they face the real prospect of mass deportation as well. Where are we going to send them? Where are they going? This war in Ukraine makes it virtually impossible for them to return to what was their home. So I hope that, as we reflect on mass deportation, we realize there are complicating factors in many of these circumstances. Stopping the flights to America will not make life any easier for those who have applied for refugee status, and it sends a message in Afghanistan to our allies and troops around the world that we will not stand by and support and be friends with those who risk their lives for our soldiers. President Trump has announced his plan to attempt to deny citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. I don't know if I have a copy at my desk here that I am supposed to have. Oh, here it is. I would like to read to you the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. I hope everyone gets a chance to take a look at it for themselves on this whole question of whether someone can be born in the United States and become a citizen. That has been the law in this country for over 140 years. It really is a provision of the Constitution which is explicit. Here is what the 14th Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. That is the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. So when President Trump says that he is opposed to birthright citizenship and challenges it, it was no wonder that the court issued an injunction or a temporary restraining order and stopped him immediately, saying--and this was a judge who was appointed by Ronald Reagan--that the Constitution is explicit. We have to make sure that our policy when it comes to immigration is consistent with our Constitution and consistent with our values. For many years in this country--over 100 now--that has been very clear, that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. Kristi Noem, the Governor of South Dakota, has said she wants to end birthright citizenship. She has described the southern border as a war zone and called unauthorized immigration an ``invasion.'' Governor Noem was the first Governor to deploy the National Guard to the southern border and sent them a total of eight times during her tenure. I was disappointed she refused my request to meet as I wanted to ask her a few questions about those decisions. As I said before, we need to secure our border, so I worked for years to pass bipartisan legislation. But we also need to protect millions of noncitizens who Americans rely on each and every day. Immigrants make up 40 percent of our agricultural workers and 40 percent of our home health aides. They are an outsized percentage of the childcare workforce and farm workforce in America. If they are gone, the cost of daycare for families is going to go up because there will be fewer workers. Immigrants have been a key part of the American success story. Our Nation, I believe, needs them more than ever, in a thoughtful way. Remember the three elements that I stand for, and I hope most people agree: One, we need an orderly process at the border; No. 2, no dangerous person should ever be allowed knowingly into this country or allowed to stay if they are seeking permanent immigrant status; and, No. 3, we cannot accept every person in the world who wants to come to America tomorrow. It has to be a thoughtful, orderly process, consistent with our values and consistent with our obligation to American families. They do not deserve--those who are here--to live in fear each day. Any real solution to immigration challenges must give them stability and a future that they can count on. Americans deserve a real fix to our broken immigration system that protects American workers and treats immigrants fairly. This pending nomination is a critical one. It may be the hottest topic in Washington today. I look forward to the opportunity to meet Governor Noem at some point to hear more about her intentions. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the United States continues to face a host of serious challenges around the world that demand serious leaders. This is recognized by members of both political parties, where country rises above party politics. In fact, over the last three decades alone, every single Senate-confirmed Secretary of Defense, but one, has received broad bipartisan support. I would like to take a moment to share my reservations about the nomination of Pete Hegseth to serve as our next Secretary of Defense. From the outset, he has failed to position himself as someone with a strategic plan to face the threats of our Nation, to equip our warfighters with the technologies of the future, or to support them and their families with the benefits they have earned and deserve. Aside from serving in the National Guard for some years, Mr. Hegseth lacks the necessary qualifications to lead the Department of Defense. Imagine the size of that responsibility: more than 3.5 million servicemembers and civilian employees, a budget of $900 billion a year, and hundreds of thousands of platforms and assets. He has, over the years and even during his confirmation hearing, disparaged women serving in the military and questioned their right to adequate healthcare. He advocated for pardons for war criminals and questioned the rules of engagement that are designed to protect civilians from harm. And he exhibited a stunning lack of basic knowledge on the threats our country faces. This is to say nothing of the numerous, troubling personal allegations against him relating to the use of alcohol, personal misconduct, financial mismanagement, and more--all of which raises questions about his fitness and vulnerability to serve in this high position. This is an unusual situation. I would say the Armed Services Committee and the Department of Defense are two of the most bipartisan efforts I have seen in my time in Washington. It is customary to have both political parties in lockstep together working for the defense of this Nation, as they should. But for some reason, Mr. Hegseth has decided that he would break with tradition and not meet with the Democratic members of the Armed Services Committee, aside from the ranking member, Jack Reed of the State of Rhode Island. That is unfortunate. The bipartisanship should be honored, even if it is difficult and challenging. Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth did not agree with that position. It is for these reasons that every Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee voted against advancing his nomination, and I will oppose him on the floor. (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 229 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, after the Great Fire destroyed much of central London in 1666, the city was rebuilt with even grander and stronger buildings than before. The most majestic building of all in the new London was St. Paul's Cathedral, designed by the great architect Sir Christopher Wren. There is no monument to Wren. But on the dome of St. Paul's, written in Latin, is an inscription. It says: ``If you seek his memorial--look around you.'' Daniel Levin was a visionary real estate developer, civic leader, and generous philanthropist who loved Chicago, its neighborhoods, and its people. Sadly, he died earlier this month. There is no monument to Dan Levin, either. But if you want to see what he meant to Chicago--and what Chicago meant to him--just look around our great city. Over half a century, Dan Levin's real estate development and management company, the Habitat Company, built structures that redefined Chicago's skyline. Drive into Chicago on the Kennedy Expressway and you will see the Presidential Towers, four soaring skyscrapers of upscale condos and apartments in the West Loop. Take a cruise along the Chicago River and you will pass the East Bank Club, one of the finest health and fitness clubs anywhere in America. Follow the river to where it meets Lake Michigan and you will come to Cityfront Plaza, another tower of apartments and condos surrounded by a bucolic green oasis of a park. He created other landmark buildings including South Commons, Columbus Plaza, ONE333, and many others. But Dan Levin didn't build and manage only luxury properties. His faith in Chicago's people and their extraordinary potential led to Habitat's creation of nearly 25,000 rental housing units for people of all incomes. His ``North Star,'' his family says, was his belief that all people deserve to live in a home and a neighborhood they can he proud of. He described his business philosophy this way: ``No project is only an investment in real estate. It is an investment in the future of the community and the lives of the people who live and work there.'' His confidence and his love for Chicago led him to take risks and to invest in parts of the city that others overlooked. And time after time, those risks paid off. His buildings attracted other new investments that transformed once blighted areas into vibrant neighborhoods. Dan had a rare gift to see potential where others saw only problems. The Presidential Towers, for example, stand on what was once Chicago's Skid Row. The East Bank Club was built on the site of an abandoned railroad yard. In a once-gritty neighborhood that many Chicagoans feared to drive through even during the day, Dan created a world-class fitness club and an outstanding restaurant, where he loved to host Seders every Passover. You never knew who you would see at the East Bank Club. You might find yourself in a Pilates class with Oprah when she was member. Years ago, Dan became friends with a young law professor from the University of Chicago who used to come to the club to play basketball. That young hoopster-professor went on to become President of the United States, Barack Obama. Dan Levin was a ``social entrepreneur'' decades before anyone had ever heard that term. He believed that he could make money and do good, and that is exactly what he did for 50 years. He almost certainly would have made more money if he had concentrated exclusively on upscale buildings. But Dan Levin wasn't in business to make a killing; he wanted to make communities. Probably his biggest professional challenge came in 1987 when a Federal judge appointed the Habitat Company to serve as a receiver for the then-bankrupt and badly mismanaged Chicago Housing Authority. The job was massive: Manage all of Chicago's public housing, except senior housing, and rehab or replace thousands of dilapidated housing units. The receivership lasted 23 years--23 years. By the time it ended, hundreds of blighted apartment buildings across the city had been torn down, including highrises that had become towers of poverty. With Dan as chairman and Valerie Jarrett as the company's CEO, Habitat replaced the highrises with townhouses, and replaced concrete with green spaces. All told, the company built or rehabbed 4,000 units of public housing. Many developers might have been intimidated by such a massive undertaking. But Dan Levin saw it as a civic responsibility and a chance to give back to a city that had given him so much. You see, Dan wasn't born in Chicago. He was born and grew up in Detroit, the grandson of Jewish Ukrainian immigrants. His father was a judge. One of his brothers became a Federal judge, and another became a justice on the Michigan Supreme Court. And two of his cousins, whom he thought of almost like his brothers, became distinguished Members of Congress, Senator Carl Levin and Representative Sander Levin. Dan assumed he would follow in the family footsteps. He graduated from the University of Chicago law school and went to work as legal counsel for a Detroit real estate developer that constructed many buildings and homes designed by Mies van der Rohe, one of the giants of 20th century architecture. In 1960, the founder of that company, Dan's mentor, died in a plane crash. Dan stepped in to finish the project his boss had been overseeing, another van der Rohe building--and he discovered that he loved creating buildings. So he left the law and became a developer. A short time later, he moved to Chicago, the birthplace of skyscrapers and other architectural marvels. His buildings now stand shoulder to shoulder with some of the great architecture of the 20th and 21st centuries. In addition to his work, Dan loved classical music. He was a devoted supporter and board member of WFMT, Chicago's classical music station. He was also a trustee of WTTW Public Television, vice chairman of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, and a generous supporter of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and the Harris School of Public Policy at his alma mater, the University of Illinois. He was kind, modest, and generous with a happy spirit and a twinkle in his eye. He was equally at ease speaking with Uber drivers as with Presidents. He was devoted to his family: his son Josh Levin; his daughters Jil Deheeger and Betsy Bernardaud; and their spouses; his 11 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren; and his step-children Alyssa Rapp and Jeffrey Rapp. Most of all, he adored his wife and partner, former Ambassador Fay Hartog-Levin. The only time they were separated was when Fay served as U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, and even then, Dan crossed the ocean many times to be by her side. Loretta and I offer our deep condolences to Fay and all of Dan's family in this sad time. Daniel Levin was a good man, a visionary leader, and a true mensch. Loretta and I and the people of Chicago will miss him. But, as I said, if we want to see his legacy, all we have to do is look around. We are a better city because Dan Levin lived among us.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as President Trump begins his second term, I am concerned about his immigration policy, pardons for violent insurrectionists of January 6, and the grifters seeping into the White House. In each of these areas, I am prepared to fight with every tool at my disposal to stop abuses that harm Americans. But I also believe we must find areas of agreement where we can, and one of those areas could be addressing the astronomical cost of prescription drugs, a real-life issue facing American families. Thankfully, last week, President Biden announced 15 new drugs that Medicare will now bargain for, to lower prices for seniors across the America. Remember, those savings are only possible because of the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which did not receive a single Republican vote. There is more work to do though. On average, patients in the United States of America pay four times more--four times more--than people in similar countries for the exact same drugs. What is going on here? A drug is made in America and sold at four times the cost in America as is charged by the same companies overseas. Why is the United States such an outlier? One reason is advertising. Have you noticed any ads for drugs on television lately? If you haven't, you don't have a TV. The United States is one of only two industrialized countries in the world that allows pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television. What is the other country that allows this? New Zealand--the United States and New Zealand. You know these ads I am talking about--catchy jingles, flashy images; patients rock climbing, swimming, dancing. Big Pharma spends--get this now--$6 billion every year to flood the airwaves about the latest wonder drug. Why do they spend so darn much money on drug ads? Because it increases their profits. Big Pharma thinks, if they can pummel you with enough ads, not only will you be able to spell Xarelto, but you will be able to tell your doctor this is the blood thinner you have been waiting for. Don't take my word for it. Here is what the American Medical Association says about these ads we are inundated with every single darn day on our televisions: Direct-to-consumer advertising inflates demand for new and expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate. So when President Biden announced a list of 15 drugs that will be negotiated for discounts, I imagined most Americans already recognized many of their names: Ozempic, Trelegy, Ibrance, and Otezla. Manufacturers spend hundreds of millions of dollars encouraging you to just ``ask your doctor'' about these drugs. The result? Medicare spent $22 billion last year on those very same four drugs that were heavily advertised medications. A recent headline in the New York Times read: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants to Ban Drug Ads on TV. It Wouldn't Be Easy. It discussed the First Amendment challenges Pharma would raise as a result of that. While I have strong concerns with President Trump's health nominee, I am glad this administration wants to join me to tackle these promotional ads. We already have an incredible strategy on the table. For the last 8 or 9 years, I have introduced bipartisan legislation to crack down on these drug ads on TV and other places. Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, has been my partner. When you turn on the evening news--get this--one-third of all commercial time is for prescription drugs. Do you think you are seeing a lot of ads? One-third of all commercial time is for prescription drugs. Try to avoid it, if you wish. But the average American sees nine drug ads a day. I will bet it is more. It seems like more. With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information. All of this information is being tossed at you, most of it at a mile-a-minute gibberish. But they do keep in the darkness one important factor: They never mention the cost, the price of the drug. In 2023, Illinois company AbbVie spent $315 million on TV ads for Rinvoq. I have an ad here. Rinvoq is an eczema and arthritis drugs. However, in the commercial, they don't tell you one thing. The cost of this drug is $6,100 per month. My staff just corrected me before I came to the floor and said: You missed the latest increase. It is now up to $6,400 a month for Rinvoq. Hang on. I am sure you will see one of those ads in no time at all. Senator Grassley and I think it is time to end the big secrecy on the cost of these drugs. If they are going to advertise it and rattle off gibberish--I love the one that says: Don't take Otezla if you are allergic to Otezla. That never would have dawned on me. That is part of their ad. If you are looking at the ads and hearing the gibberish they throw at us, they tell you everything under God's green Earth, except a basic honest issue: How much does it cost? That is why today we are introducing bipartisan legislation to require price disclosures in direct-to-consumer drug ads. Our plan is simple. It actually passed the Senate once before, in 2018, and 88 percent of the American people support this kind of disclosure. In fact, after we worked to advance this measure, Donald Trump, then President of the United States, said this, and I want to make sure the quote is accurate. This is from his first term in office: Big announcement today: Drug companies have to come clean about their prices in TV ads. Historic transparency for American patients is here. If drug companies are ashamed of those prices--lower them! I may disagree with the President on many things, but I certainly agree with this statement there. Big Pharma hates being honest with patients about the true prices of their drugs. They fear it might cut into their colossal historic profits. With the support of President Trump and Senator Grassley, I believe this will be the year we finally pass bipartisan legislation to bring sunshine to these ads and to actually lower health costs.

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, as President Trump begins his second term, I am concerned about his immigration policy, pardons for violent insurrectionists of January 6, and the grifters seeping into the White House. In each of these areas, I am prepared to fight with every tool at my disposal to stop abuses that harm Americans. But I also believe we must find areas of agreement where we can, and one of those areas could be addressing the astronomical cost of prescription drugs, a real-life issue facing American families. Thankfully, last week, President Biden announced 15 new drugs that Medicare will now bargain for, to lower prices for seniors across the America. Remember, those savings are only possible because of the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which did not receive a single Republican vote. There is more work to do though. On average, patients in the United States of America pay four times more--four times more--than people in similar countries for the exact same drugs. What is going on here? A drug is made in America and sold at four times the cost in America as is charged by the same companies overseas. Why is the United States such an outlier? One reason is advertising. Have you noticed any ads for drugs on television lately? If you haven't, you don't have a TV. The United States is one of only two industrialized countries in the world that allows pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television. What is the other country that allows this? New Zealand--the United States and New Zealand. You know these ads I am talking about--catchy jingles, flashy images; patients rock climbing, swimming, dancing. Big Pharma spends--get this now--$6 billion every year to flood the airwaves about the latest wonder drug. Why do they spend so darn much money on drug ads? Because it increases their profits. Big Pharma thinks, if they can pummel you with enough ads, not only will you be able to spell Xarelto, but you will be able to tell your doctor this is the blood thinner you have been waiting for. Don't take my word for it. Here is what the American Medical Association says about these ads we are inundated with every single darn day on our televisions: Direct-to-consumer advertising inflates demand for new and expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate. So when President Biden announced a list of 15 drugs that will be negotiated for discounts, I imagined most Americans already recognized many of their names: Ozempic, Trelegy, Ibrance, and Otezla. Manufacturers spend hundreds of millions of dollars encouraging you to just ``ask your doctor'' about these drugs. The result? Medicare spent $22 billion last year on those very same four drugs that were heavily advertised medications. A recent headline in the New York Times read: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Wants to Ban Drug Ads on TV. It Wouldn't Be Easy. It discussed the First Amendment challenges Pharma would raise as a result of that. While I have strong concerns with President Trump's health nominee, I am glad this administration wants to join me to tackle these promotional ads. We already have an incredible strategy on the table. For the last 8 or 9 years, I have introduced bipartisan legislation to crack down on these drug ads on TV and other places. Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, has been my partner. When you turn on the evening news--get this--one-third of all commercial time is for prescription drugs. Do you think you are seeing a lot of ads? One-third of all commercial time is for prescription drugs. Try to avoid it, if you wish. But the average American sees nine drug ads a day. I will bet it is more. It seems like more. With billions in targeted spending, patients are bombarded with information. All of this information is being tossed at you, most of it at a mile-a-minute gibberish. But they do keep in the darkness one important factor: They never mention the cost, the price of the drug. In 2023, Illinois company AbbVie spent $315 million on TV ads for Rinvoq. I have an ad here. Rinvoq is an eczema and arthritis drugs. However, in the commercial, they don't tell you one thing. The cost of this drug is $6,100 per month. My staff just corrected me before I came to the floor and said: You missed the latest increase. It is now up to $6,400 a month for Rinvoq. Hang on. I am sure you will see one of those ads in no time at all. Senator Grassley and I think it is time to end the big secrecy on the cost of these drugs. If they are going to advertise it and rattle off gibberish--I love the one that says: Don't take Otezla if you are allergic to Otezla. That never would have dawned on me. That is part of their ad. If you are looking at the ads and hearing the gibberish they throw at us, they tell you everything under God's green Earth, except a basic honest issue: How much does it cost? That is why today we are introducing bipartisan legislation to require price disclosures in direct-to-consumer drug ads. Our plan is simple. It actually passed the Senate once before, in 2018, and 88 percent of the American people support this kind of disclosure. In fact, after we worked to advance this measure, Donald Trump, then President of the United States, said this, and I want to make sure the quote is accurate. This is from his first term in office: Big announcement today: Drug companies have to come clean about their prices in TV ads. Historic transparency for American patients is here. If drug companies are ashamed of those prices--lower them! I may disagree with the President on many things, but I certainly agree with this statement there. Big Pharma hates being honest with patients about the true prices of their drugs. They fear it might cut into their colossal historic profits. With the support of President Trump and Senator Grassley, I believe this will be the year we finally pass bipartisan legislation to bring sunshine to these ads and to actually lower health costs.

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, yesterday, I met with Kash Patel, President Trump's nominee to serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We all know the FBI. It plays a critical role in keeping America safe from terrorism, violent crime, and other threats. The person who is in charge of our Nation's leading law enforcement organization, the FBI, should be someone who is nonpartisan, solid, reliable, with a demonstrated skill in law enforcement. We were reminded of this on 9/11, that the FBI is the leading Agency that we, in America, rely on to keep us safe. The 30,000 professionals at the FBI have the skills and resources to do the job. They deserve a leader who understands the gravity of their mission. After meeting with Kash Patel, I have grave concerns about his fitness for the role of FBI Director. Mr. Patel has neither the experience, the temperament, nor the judgment to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is a staunch political loyalist who has repeatedly peddled false conspiracy theories and threatened to retaliate against those who have slighted him personally and politically. Start with January 6. I was here in the Senate that day. I will always be grateful to the U.S. Capitol Police and DC police officers who defended everyone who works in this building from an angry mob that was egged on by President Trump. You have seen the videos. You know what I am talking about. But Kash Patel, the man who claims he should lead the FBI, actually says the FBI ``was planning January 6 for a year''--``planning January 6,'' the FBI. And he posted on social media: ``Jan. 6 never an insurrection.'' Then he said: ``Cowards in uniform'' exposed. Let me say those words again: ``Cowards in uniform.'' That is what Mr. Patel said. I asked him about that statement in my office yesterday. He couldn't explain it. Who were these so-called cowards in uniform when the mob stormed the Capitol Building on January 6? Who were these people? Were they the Capitol Hill police and the DC police Officers who literally risked their lives to protect us and the Vice President? In light of the deaths and serious injuries they faced, Mr. Patel should not even suggest the possibility that these were cowardly acts. These were acts of bravery and courage. Many of them risked their lives for us, as they do every single day. To the people who have gathered in the balcony here to observe the Senate in session, to the thousands of visitors to this building, look around you. Quietly standing guard are men and women in uniform, Capitol Hill police, who are ready to step in and protect you if necessary. On January 6, they did it at a great cost. So what are Mr. Patel's plans for the FBI, who he said was actually planning January 6? He said he wants to ``shut down the F.B.I. Hoover Building on Day 1 and reopen it the next day as a museum of the `deep state.' '' And he said: We're going to come after the people in the media. . . . We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly. . . . we're putting you all on notice. This is the man who wants to head up the FBI, and I am quoting exactly what he said. He has even published an enemies list of 60 people whom he calls ``government gangsters.'' It is in writing. The playbook is there. The list of all 60 names is spelled out in detail. Who is included on this list of people that would be his enemies, the so-called government gangsters? Well, members of both political parties that Mr. Patel has identified, including former Trump administration officials, like Defense Secretary Esper. And then there is Bob Mueller. Bob Mueller is an extraordinary man, a patriot, a Republican, who has been called on repeatedly to serve this country, and he has done so willingly. He enlisted in the Marine Corps out of college. When one of his dear friends was killed in Vietnam, he decided that he had to serve and had to fight too. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a lieutenant and received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Even after he was injured and received a Purple Heart, he returned to battle. He is an extraordinary person. I came to know him a few days after 9/11, when I reached out to see if there was anything I could do to help the FBI and its new leader, Mr. Mueller. We struck up a friendship and a relationship over the years. I respected him so much. What does Mr. Kash Patel think of Bob Mueller, this man who served our country in so many different ways? He calls him an ``utter swamp creature.'' And then there is Paul Ryan, former Congressman from the State of Wisconsin, former Republican Speaker of the House. I count him as a friend--not a close friend but a casual friend, someone I like. We didn't have a lot in common when it came to politics, but I thought he was a good public servant, and he served our country well. What does Kash Patel, who wants to head up the FBI, say in his book, in writing, about Paul Ryan? ``Total failure and a coward''--Paul Ryan, ``total failure and a coward.'' Then there is GEN Mark Milley, who is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He served our country in so many different capacities. He led our troops in battle and distinguished himself time and time again. What does Kash Patel say of GEN Mark Milley, who served under President Trump's leadership? He calls him the ``kraken of the swamp''--the ``kraken of the swamp.'' Does this sound like the resume of a person who should lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the world's preeminent criminal investigation Agency? And I asked him a practical question as well: There are 30,000 people in law enforcement in the FBI. What do you think is the morale of that group after President Trump's pardons the other night of the people who were involved in the January 6 violence? Well, Mr. Patel went on to tell me that he didn't, in any way, approve of violence against law enforcement officers. And I asked him: Will you say that publicly, that you don't think they should have been pardoned if they were guilty of violence against police officers? He said he would have to take it up the chain of command. Presidential Pardons Mr. President, let me say, for a moment, we should reflect on these pardons and the people who received them. I want to make sure I put these details in the Record, without any question of their veracity. Some of the people convicted of violence, on January 6, here in the U.S. Capitol Building, who received full, complete, and unconditional pardons from President Trump, the day he was sworn in: David Dempsey, convicted of repeatedly assaulting police officers with pepper spray, a metal crutch, and wooden and metal poles. ``For over one hour, defendant David Dempsey viciously assaulted and injured police officers,'' Federal prosecutors charged. Metropolitan Police Department Detective Nguyen testified that after Dempsey pepper sprayed him, he was knocked down, and ``I thought that's, you know, where I'm going to die. And in my head, you know, I am thinking about my family at that point before anything else.'' Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from President Trump Monday night. Julian Khater pleaded guilty to pepper spraying Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick in the face. Later that night, Sicknick collapsed and was rushed to the hospital. He died the following day. According to the Washington, DC, medical examiner, Sicknick's death was due to ``natural causes''--two strokes--but ``all that transpired played a role in his condition.'' Sicknick's mother Gladys spoke at Khater's sentencing hearing: Lawlessness, misplaced loyalty to a deranged autocratic ideal, and hate killed my son. And I hope you are haunted by your crimes behind bars. Whatever jail time you receive is not enough in my eyes. He was sentenced to 6 years in prison and received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon Monday night. Christian Matthew Manley pleaded guilty to assaulting police with two cans of bear spray and throwing empty canisters at officers. Manley then threw a metal rod at officers. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan told Manley, at his sentencing hearing, that ``there has to be an understanding that participating, taking up arms against law enforcement, taking up arms to basically try and overthrow the government, is going to be met with severe punishment.'' Manley was sentenced to more than 4 years in prison. He received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from Donald Trump Monday night. Patrick Edward McCaughey III was convicted of using a police riot shield to ``crush'' Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges in a metal door frame, leaving Hodges trapped, bleeding, and crying for help. ``If I was there much longer being assaulted in such a way, I knew it was very likely I wouldn't be able to maintain my consciousness,'' Hodges testified. ``Your actions on January 6 were some of the most egregious crimes that were committed that day,'' Federal Judge Trevor McFadden told McCaughey before sentencing him to 7 years in prison. Mr. McCaughey received a full, complete and unconditional pardon from Donald Trump on Monday. Ryan Nichols pleaded guilty to pepper spraying police officers and urging rioters through bullhorn to storm the building. ``This is not a peaceful protest,'' he yelled, according to prosecutors. ``If you have a weapon, you need to get your weapon.'' Later that night, Nichols recorded a video of himself calling for a second American Revolution and stating: ``If you want to know where Ryan Nichols stands, Ryan Nichols stands for violence.'' Nichols was sentenced to more than 5 years in prison and received a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from the President Monday night. Christopher Quaglin was convicted at trial of ``viciously assaulting police officers for hours,'' according to Federal prosecutors. ``On at least a dozen occasions, Quaglin stood face-to-face with officers as he screamed at them, pushed with outstretched arms, punched, swatted, and slapped officers; pushed bike racks into officers; and even choked one officer to the ground,'' prosecutors stated. Quaglin was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison. He received a full, unconditional, and complete pardon from Donald Trump on Monday night. Daniel Rodriguez pleaded guilty to using a stun gun and ``plunging it'' multiple times into Police Officer Michael Fanone's neck, in the words of prosecutors, leading Fanone to scream out in pain. ``During those moments, I remember thinking there was a very good chance that I would be torn apart or be shot to death with my own weapon,'' Fanone testified to Congress. Rodriguez was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison. Daniel Rodriguez was given a full, complete, and unconditional pardon from Donald Trump. Peter Schwartz was convicted of stealing pepper spray from police officers, distributing the canisters to other rioters and ``indiscriminately'' spraying law enforcement, according to prosecutors. Court documents from the Justice Department described him as ``a welder by trade and a felon who has racked up numerous convictions from drugs, weapons, and violence over the last three decades.'' The day after the riot, he allegedly posted on Facebook: ``What happened yesterday was the opening of a war.'' He was referring to January 6. ``I was there and whether people would acknowledge it or not we are now at war.'' Schwartz was sentenced to more than 14 years in prison. He received a full, unconditional and complete pardon by the President on Monday night. These are the instances that I wanted to highlight. For those who suggest these are just casual tourists to the Capitol, they should read the details of the attacks these individuals made on police officers who stood to guard us, the Vice President, and any visitors to the Capitol that day. They risked their lives for us and the pardons from the White House are impossible to explain under those circumstances. I raised those with Kash Patel. I said: You want to be the head of the largest Federal law enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. What do you think those pardons are doing to the morale of police officers across the country? He said he did not condone violence against police officers. I wanted to make sure I made that clear for the record. I said: Would you say anything publicly about that? He said: I have to take it up the chain of command before I would say anything public. In 1976, Congress passed a law limiting the FBI Director to a single term of 10 years, intended to insulate this position from political influence. But President Trump repeatedly tried to bend the FBI Director to his political agenda. He fired his first FBI Director, Jim Comey. He forced out his second FBI Director, Chris Wray, when he refused to do his bidding. Now President Trump has nominated a proven loyalist in Kash Patel. In a 2019 meeting, Patel reportedly told President Trump, in the Oval Office, he wanted to expand his portfolio to ensure White House personnel were ``completely loyal to the administration.'' Loyalty of police officers on a political basis is not the basis for sound judgment when it comes to law enforcement. We find loyal police officers in the countries with autocratic rulers throughout our history. We don't want that in the United States. Mr. Patel's political grievances make him a favorite of the MAGA world. But they have not prepared him to work night and day to keep America safe from violent crime, drug trafficking, terrorism, and other threats. Mr. Patel's endless list of political grievances, well- documented threats of retribution are disqualifying; and they are spelled out in graphic detail in his own book, which I have read. The FBI is a critical Agency keeping America safe. Mr. Patel is not the person for this life-and-death assignment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are certain things we all agree on, I believe. No. 1, our border must be secure, and, No. 2, we should deport any dangerous individuals who are here illegally, period. But the Executive order signed by President Trump last night did not target criminals or even those who entered our country without authorization. For example, the President suspended the task force on the reunification families created in the aftermath of his disastrous family separation policy of his first Presidency. Over 1,000 families remain separated today--in other words, children who don't know where their parents are. This task force was created to reunite them--simply that--and, now, it has been suspended. Stopping this task force does not make us a safer Nation and certainly doesn't help these children. The President also suspended the Refugee Admissions Program, which provides a safe haven for those fleeing oppressive regimes around the world. They include Afghans, Afghan women, Uighurs, and Rohingya. Many refugee applicants wait decades to come to the United States lawfully, and every single one of them must undergo a rigorous vetting, more than any other group of immigrants coming into the United States. I have worked in and with these refugee camps. They literally stay in tents and temporary shelters for months and years, going through background checks before they are even considered eligible for coming to the United States. Yet the Trump administration has already canceled flights for over 1,600 Afghan refugees scheduled to come here. Who are these people? Many of them are families of Active-Duty U.S. military personnel and those who are at risk because they fought on our side, defending our troops in the Afghan theater. Stopping these flights of friendly refugees coming to America, after having helped us and risked their lives to help us, doesn't make America safe. It sends a message, sadly, to allies supporting our troops around the world that we may not be there to support them when they need us. The President also announced his plan to attempt to deny citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. I ask anyone who is interested in this issue to do something very basic: Read the first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It is in clear violation of our Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship. It does nothing to make our country safer--nothing. We need to secure our border. That is why I worked for years to pass bipartisan legislation that fixes our broken immigration system. Mr. President, before you came to the Senate, we considered comprehensive immigration reform on a bipartisan basis. I was part of an eight Senators task force--Democrats and Republicans, equal numbers. We wrote a bill, brought it to the floor, and got over 60 votes for the bill. Unfortunately, the House, under Republican control at the time, wouldn't take up the issue. We had an approach that still ought to be considered when it comes to changing our immigration system to make it safer for America. But we also need to protect millions of noncitizens who Americans rely on each day. All across America this morning, many parents headed off to work and stopped to drop their kid off at daycare. They handed their child over to an undocumented person who works during the course of the day to keep your child safe and to make sure they are there at night when you return to pick them up. The same thing is true about nursing homes and a lot of care facilities. Parents and grandparents are being carefully watched every minute of every day by undocumented people who are working there, whose wages aren't the greatest, but these people are willing to take on this job. For most people, it is a critically important job for their family. They want their mom to not only go to breakfast with a smile but to be escorted back to her room safely. They need undocumented people for that to happen. A high percentage of those who work in these facilities qualify as undocumented. Immigrants have been a key part of America. I know that, and I say that as a son of an immigrant to this country. Our Nation has always needed immigrants. It still does. They put food on our tables, they care for our kids, and they help care for our parents and grandparents. What would we do without them? They don't deserve to live in fear every single day that they are going to be part of a mass deportation. Any real solution to our immigration challenge must give them stability. Americans deserve a real fix to our broken immigration system that protects America, protects American workers, and treats immigrants fairly. Mr. President, 13 years ago, in response to a bipartisan request from myself and the late Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, President Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or the DACA Program. DACA has protected from deportation over 800,000 young people, all of whom arrived in our country as children, some as young as a few months old. These young kids are known as Dreamers. I know a little bit about that. I was the sponsor of the original DREAM Act, over 20 years ago. They grew up alongside our kids, with the same hopes and ambitions. They stood up in a classroom every morning and pledged allegiance to that flag, believing it was their flag too. Many have gone on to serve our Nation as servicemembers, doctors, and first responders. They believe in the American dream just as much as we do. Without permanent legal protection, these young people have been forced to live in uncertainty. They have to renew their DACA status every 2 years, go through a background check, and pay a filing fee. In December, President Trump committed to work with Congress on a plan to protect Dreamers. I am looking forward to that. I worked with the President in his first term, and I am ready to work with him again. Let's get this done as part of immigration reform. But, last Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the DACA Program illegal again. The decision left in place protections for current DACA recipients, while the appeal is pending, but left other Dreamers in limbo. The time to act is now. I urge the President to come to the table to negotiate a solution for Dreamers as part of immigration reform. January 6 Pardons Mr. President, on another matter, on January 6, 2021, I was seated in the chair right here on the floor of the Senate. A solemn constitutional proceeding was disrupted when a mob of thugs attacked and trashed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election. I remember it well. Vice President Pence was sitting in the chair that you are occupying now. The Secret Service came in and, literally, physically removed him, out that door of the Chamber. They then announced to us to sit tight. This was going to be a safe room in the Capitol. There was a mob that was descending on the Capitol at the moment. We are going to keep everybody safe. They warned us that there were a lot of people coming into this Chamber to line the walls because they wanted to be kept safe from this mob that was coming into the Capitol. Ten minutes later, a Capitol Hill policeman stood up and said: New plans. We are all leaving immediately. Get out of your chairs and go out that door. We will lead you to another safe room. That was the circumstance of January 6, 2021. I remember it well. I saw the mob as we went outside. It was growing in size, thousands of people descending on the Capitol. That was the grim reality of that day. At the end of the day, the mob confronted the Capitol Hill police and the DC police who were here, trying to keep this building and keep us safe as Members of Congress who were doing our constitutional duty. The subsequent deaths of five of our law enforcement officers because of that mob and the injuries to approximately 140 others are a matter of fact, many of whom still pay a price day for what happened on January 6, 2021. And now the attackers have been pardoned by President Trump, who literally sent them from a rally to come up here, and what happened happened. Consider the following individuals who received their pardon yesterday from President Trump: David Dempsey was one of them. He was convicted of assaulting police officers by using ``his hands, feet, flagpoles, crutches, pepper spray, broken pieces of furniture, and anything else he could get his hands on'' as weapons. Shane Jenkins was another one, convicted of using two tomahawk axes to break into the Capitol and assaulting police officers by throwing a wooden desk drawer and flagpole at them. Kyle Fitzsimons was convicted for five separate assaults against law enforcement, including one that caused career-ending and life-altering injuries to U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell. And Kenneth Bonawitz, a member of the so-called Proud Boys, assaulted at least six officers, including placing one officer in a chokehold and lifting him up by the neck. Bonawitz injured one officer so severely that the officer has been forced to retire. All of these people were among the roughly 1,500 January 6 insurrectionists who President Trump pardoned last night. What happened to claims by a party of being in favor of law and order? Even President Trump's own Vice President said last week--the Senator from the State of Ohio: If you committed violence on [January 6], obviously you shouldn't be pardoned. That didn't apply last night. All the people I just described were pardoned by President Trump for their actions in harming law enforcement in the Capitol on January 6. Last week, I asked President Trump's Attorney General nominee, Pam Bondi, about pardoning January 6 rioters who assaulted police officers. She said: ``I condemn any violence on a law enforcement officer.'' Don't we all? One of my Judiciary Committee Republican colleagues actually criticized me last week for even asking that question. Here is what he said: I find it hard to believe that the President of the United States . . . would look at facts that were used to convict the violent people on January 6th and say it was just an intemperate moment. . . . it's an absurd and unfair hypothetical. The action by President Trump is unfair, but, unfortunately, it is no longer hypothetical. These law enforcement officers risk their lives for us--literally, all of us, not just the elected officials but the thousands of visitors who come to this Capitol. They stand quietly by, watching to make sure that nothing goes wrong, but they are literally risking their lives for us every single day. What was the message last night of pardoning the people who assaulted them on January 6, 2021? Some people died as a result of that attack. Every American should be appalled. I am very unhappy that these men and women who give us so much every single day are taken for granted so much that the President pardoned those who attacked them. That was wrong. We should stand by those who stand by us, and we should be willing to say to them: Thank you. Thank you for risking your lives for our visitors, for Members of Congress. And those who assaulted you were not just on a pleasant Capitol tour; they had a goal in mind. That goal, unfortunately, was at the expense of these men and women in uniform. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is not the first time we have considered this measure on the floor nor the first time I have spoken about it. I want to thank Senator Murray for leading this conversation on a very serious topic. I want to thank Senator Schumer for joining in this conversation as well. I couldn't agree with him more when he said: What we are trying to do with this bill is to make illegal what is already illegal. I am going to make an invitation to anyone following this debate who wants to judge for themselves, to reach their own conclusion, as to whether or not there are laws existent in America today which cover the situation described in this bill. I am going to give you the name of a physician in Philadelphia who is serving a life sentence in prison for having violated the current law, and I want you to look it up and read it yourself. Don't take my words for it. His name is Kermit, K-E-R-M-I-T, Gosnell, G-O-S-N-E-L-L. Write that down if you want to follow this debate and want to draw your own conclusions by doing some personal research. Look it up on the internet: Kermit Gosnell. I will tell you his story in a moment, but it proves the fact that we have existing laws that make this current bill unnecessary. Tomorrow marks the 52nd year since our Nation's highest Court issued a rule recognizing a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. Roe v. Wade enshrined into law something that should have been a given in America: In America, women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. And, as a result of Roe, America's women took a giant leap forward in gender equity. The decision in Roe afforded women the right to choose whether, when, and how to start a family. But after nearly 50 years of progress, in June 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, dragging women's rights half a century backward. Following that decision, we saw Republican-led States open the floodgates to abortion restrictions--laws that, in some cases, have had deadly consequences for women who could not access critical healthcare that they needed. Instead of addressing the healthcare crisis that Dobbs has unleashed, Republicans are now instead looking to make it even harder for women to access comprehensive and compassionate healthcare. Tomorrow, they will attempt to bring to the floor the so-called Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. They want to bring it to a vote--this bill that, as Senator Schumer said, is already covered in law. The bill, they say, creates new standards of care for physicians providing reproductive healthcare that are not based in medicine, fact, or science. The goal of the bill that we will consider, introduced by the Republicans, is to target and intimidate reproductive healthcare providers and make it harder for women to access comprehensive and compassionate healthcare. This bill offers a poorly drafted and dangerous solution to a problem that simply does not exist. The authors of this bill will tell you that this legislation simply ensures that all children born alive as a result of a so-called attempted abortion are provided the same medical care as any other newborn of the same gestational age. They say that is all it does. But we already have a law on the books that ensures that any child born in America, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that birth, is afforded equal protection under the law. In 2002, the House and Senate passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Do you know who signed that into law? Then-President George W. Bush. Put simply, it is already illegal to kill a child born alive in America. And in rare cases where a doctor does harm a baby in violation of State and Federal laws, they are held legally accountable. The year was 2013. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania doctor, was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder for murdering babies after botched abortions. Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole under existing law, and he is currently serving that sentence at Pennsylvania's State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon. Do you know what else the authors of this legislation didn't tell you and won't tell you? Abortions late in pregnancy are incredibly rare. And when they do occur, it is most often because of a heartbreaking, late-breaking, fatal fetal diagnosis or because a woman's doctor has told her that she may not survive the pregnancy or because a woman lives in a State that prevented her from getting an abortion earlier. No, Republicans would rather have you believe that vast numbers of women are intentionally waiting until the final days of their pregnancy to have abortions. This is a cruel political contrivance. These are women who often already have had their baby showers, picked out names, persevered through morning sickness, back pain, swollen ankles, countless doctors' appointments and tests. These are women who wanted their babies. And what is the response from the actual doctors on this legislation? Ask the professionals to respond to the Republican bill that is coming to the floor, the so-called Born-Alive bill. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said this when the House passed the bill last year: The offensively named ``born-alive'' legislation is another cruel and misguided attempt to interfere with evidence-based medical decision making between patients and their physicians. Laws that ban or criminalize evidence-based care and rely on medically unsupported theories and misinformation are dangerous to families and their clinicians. This bill negatively affects all obstetric and gynecologic care. What I just read to you is a quote from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Given this reality, what would happen if this bill were signed into law by the new President? Take the case of Meredith Shiner, a constituent of mine in Illinois who was thrilled to learn a few years ago that she and her husband were going to have a little baby boy. However, at 22 weeks and 6 days, Meredith woke up with a terrible abdominal pain, rushed to the hospital thinking she had a bladder infection. She didn't realize the seriousness of what was happening until the doctor told her she was in labor. The prognosis was grim. Having the baby at 22 weeks and 6 days meant although the baby would be born alive, the chances of survival were almost nonexistent. Knowing medical interventions would be futile, Meredith and her husband made the difficult decision to take the minutes they had with their son to hold him, to touch him, to look at him until he gently passed away, as doctors provided palliative care. This bill is written in such an overly broad way, vague way, that had it been the law, those same doctors that provided compassionate care to Meredith, her husband, and their son could be subject to 5 years in prison. In these heartbreaking situations, it is not the time for politicians to dictate the course of medical treatment, as this bill would do. Those wrenching decisions, those personal tragic moments, must be left to medical professionals and the individuals in their care. It is the only compassionate outcome. This week, we lost a lifelong advocate for women's rights, Cecile Richards. She spent her life fighting to keep politics out of healthcare and defending every woman's right to decide when and how to start their family. We lost Cecile to glioblastoma--the same brain cancer that took John McCain, Beau Biden, and Teddy Kennedy. If Senate Republicans truly cared about saving lives, they would be working with us to expand access to healthcare, increase funding for medical research that results in new cures, and implement policies that address our Nation's abysmal record of infant and maternal mortality. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to read into the Record a statement from President Joe Biden, issued this morning on the Equal Rights Amendment. He said as follows: I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on their sex. We, as a nation, must affirm and protect women's full equality once and for all. On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The American Bar Association has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA-- President Biden said-- and with leading constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution. It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the States have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex. Mr. President, in response to this, I issue the following statement: The Equal Rights Amendment is literally a century in the making, and over the years, generations of Americans have done their part to move it forward. They have marched on Washington, they have met with Congressmen and Senators, and as of 2020, they have crossed a crucial threshold--ratification of the ERA in 38 States. That is the exact number of States needed to certify it as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is past time to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sex in our Constitution. The President's announcement sends an important, overdue message to women and girls that they are equal under the law. Mr. President, I believe this is a moment of historic importance, and it is the culmination of a century of effort to bring equality into the American Constitution with the 28th Amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. I withhold my request.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, some people in the Chamber who served in the Senate may remember my predecessor Paul Simon of Illinois. Simon was ahead of his time on so many issues, including the importance of clean drinking water and sanitation for the poorest people in the world. He wrote a book called ``Tapped Out.'' He autographed this copy and gave it to me in 1998, many years ago. It certainly was not a New York Times best seller, but Paul wrote about what he said was ``The Coming World Crisis in Water and What We Can Do About It.'' I read this book and reflected on it over the years. Some 30 years have passed. How many times do people talk about clean drinking water and sanitation? It is so critical to public health and so critical to development. Sometimes, we are looking for a big solution, a complex solution, when a simple solution is the first thing that is needed. Paul Simon realized that and that focusing on providing clean drinking water to some of the poorest places in the world can be transformative. He understood that to avoid conflict between nations, to keep girls in school and reduce infant mortality, to improve health and economic opportunity, you have to provide people with access to clean water. Data supports this. Each dollar spent on clean water and sanitation returns between $4 and $8 in economic health and other benefits, which is why I decided to do something about it as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I knew his family, I knew Paul, and I knew the last thing in the world he ever wanted was someone to build a statue of his image for future generations. But he would have been happy with perhaps the bill that I introduced entitled the Paul Simon Water for the World Act, legislation that built on an earlier law to improve access to clean water and sanitation around the world. Former Representative Earl Blumenauer and former Senator Bob Corker, a Republican in Tennessee, were my partners on this bipartisan effort. Ten years ago, the legislation passed the Senate unanimously-- something that is almost unimaginable today with the politics we live with--but that underscored the true urgency and importance of this issue. Not only was this legislation the right thing to do, but it made access to clean water and sanitation for the world's poor a development priority for the United States. As a result of the bills that I introduced with my colleagues and sustained bipartisan funding over the last 13 years, American leadership has provided first-time, sustainable access to clean water to more than 76 million people and access to sanitation to 58 million. I can remember a visit I made years and years ago to Port-au-Prince in Haiti. It is one of the poorest places on Earth, and of course, it is in our hemisphere. A lady who is a medical doctor and administrator of a clinic wanted to show me something. They had been having trouble with waterborne illness, and a lot of people were sick. Some children were dying. She said they then decided to build a cistern of pure water and to protect it and make sure the village could draw from that water when they needed it. She said it has changed everything. The kids aren't dying. People aren't sick. Things have improved dramatically. She walked out to show me a sewer lid and a pump on it. She said to me, We got this from the United States. It had something to do with a man named Paul Simon. I laughed almost out loud, thinking for goodness' sake. I said, How much did you have to invest in this? She said $15,000. That is $15,000 that has saved lives and had made a difference, and it was in Paul's name, I was happy to report. This is incredible work, and I want to salute my staffer Chris Homan, who has traveled around Africa and parts of Asia to see these investments. They do make a dramatic difference in the lifestyle of people, giving them dignity, giving them life, giving them a future. Another such story is from a rural area of Ghana where these kinds of programs have already eliminated waterborne illnesses. We can see, when visited this project, that the investment--this small investment--by the United States made an affordable and sustainable infrastructure that families can use for sanitation options and safe drinking water. The two have to go hand in hand. This investment made a project where a disabled woman lives a place where she can find dignity, as the name suggests, for she no longer has to crawl through snake-filled fields to use the river. But this lifesaving work is far from done. As the climate crisis worsens and industrial needs increase, ensuring global access to clean water supplies is as important as ever. The book might not have been a best seller, but the idea sure was. And I sure hope that we continue this modest investment in villages around the world that literally saves and transforms lives. Around 2 billion people on this planet Earth still lack access to safe drinking water, so I hope this historically important, bipartisan investment will continue long into the future ahead of us. Lives depend on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is necessarily absent.