Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, before yielding to the Senator from Rhode Island, one of the critics of this proposal said it was a solution in search of a problem. The Republican side of the aisle believes, obviously, that for one Supreme Court Justice to accept lavish gifts and luxury trips from billionaires to the tune of millions of dollars and for another Supreme Court Justice to take an undisclosed fishing trip at the cost of $100,000 is business as usual in the Supreme Court. The American people, I am sure, would disagree. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that I have been working on for quite some time. It was over 20 years ago that I introduced the DREAM Act. I introduced it with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who was then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, there was a little competition, at the start, as to who would be the first named on the bill. Senator Hatch insisted that he had the idea before me. I deferred to him, as being in the majority and as chairman of the committee. This bipartisan legislation would provide a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants brought to the United States as children and allow them to remain in this country--in fact, the only country they have ever called home. These young people grew up alongside our own children, with the same hopes of getting their first job, applying to college, getting a driver's license, having a bright future. And many have gone on to serve as doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers, and first responders. Yet, without congressional action for more than two decades, every day is spent in fear of their lives being uprooted, facing fear of deportation. I am amazed when I think about the issue of immigration. When you really come to understand America and its place in the history of the world, you realize that we are first and foremost a nation of immigrants--people who have come from every corner of the world to be part of the American dream, who, despite the odds, have overcome hardship and really built a future for themselves and made this great Nation what it is today. And yet every successive generation seems to go through the debate as to whether or not immigration is a good thing. I think we all agree that we need an orderly process at our borders and otherwise when it comes to immigration. I think we all agree that we cannot absorb every person in the world who wants to be part of the United States today. We have a priority to first look at those who live in this country and to measure our needs economically with the reality of immigration. We also have an obligation to only allow those to come to this country who are going to be safe and not cause any danger to those of us who live here. These are the basics. But having said that, we are in desperate need of immigrants coming to this country for so many reasons. Just yesterday, I was in Chicago taking a look at a new, innovative research project that is going on with our Department of Defense. The gentleman who was showing me the project is named Ben Hernandez. It is called Numat, N-U-M-A-T. It is a new material that will keep our troops safe from biological and chemical warfare. It is amazing. His partner in this effort is Dr. Farha. Dr. Farha is Palestinian. He came to this country and used his skill to engage in this effort to keep our men and women in uniform safer--another immigrant, another immigrant story, another success story for America. This week marks the 12th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. President Obama created DACA in response to a request that I made with Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana. When we couldn't pass the DREAM Act, I appealed to the President to use his Executive authority to create a program that would protect these young people as long as possible. He came up with DACA. Under this program, 830,000 individuals were able to be protected. Now, they had to go through a background check, every 2 years they had to renew their application, and they had to pay a fee. That was understood. But it seemed like a reasonable thing to allow these talented people to stay in America and be part of our future. DACA has protected more than 830,000 young people from deportation, all of whom were brought to this country as children, some as young as just a few months old. Last month, I held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on the importance of protecting Dreamers and DACA. We heard from some amazing witnesses who showed why it is so important that we do this. One of the witnesses was Officer Mitchell Soto Rodriguez from my State of Illinois. She is the first-ever DACA recipient to serve as a police officer with the Blue Island, IL, Police Department. She was very clear: Without DACA, that would not have been possible. Now she is realizing her dream as a part of the police force of this community. Let me share another story of a talented DACA recipient contributing to our country. I have come to the floor of the Senate 143 times, as of today, to tell these stories. I believe each one tells a better story than any speech I could give on the subject. This young man's name is Wilmer Palacios. He comes from a small village in Guatemala. He came to Los Angeles when he was 14 years old. His dream: He wanted to be a registered nurse. But he didn't think it was possible because he was undocumented. The day Wilmer heard about DACA in 2012, he immediately switched his degree to pre-nursing because, for the first time, he finally felt that he could fulfill his dream. Mr. Palacios has held DACA status almost since the program's inception 12 years ago. He now has a master's of science degree in nursing and is a registered nurse and family nurse practitioner in a medical cardiac intensive care unit in Fresno, CA. His ultimate goal is to open a medical clinic in a low-income community, and he would like to serve in the U.S. Army as a nurse. Do we need nurses in America? Let me tell you--go to your local hospital and ask the first person in management that question, and they will tell you we are desperate; we need more nurses. We need more people like Wilmer. He recently said: DACA offered me the freedom and opportunities I never thought possible growing up, but I cannot deny that I live in constant fear--constant fear--of a court decision and a Presidential election that can take it all away. DACA has allowed Wilmer to pursue his dreams for now, but it was always intended to be temporary, until Congress acted. The fact is, with precious few exceptions, for 30 years, Congress has failed to act and upgrade our immigration laws. Everybody knows the immigration system in this country is broken. And to fix it, we need a determined Senate, House of Representatives, and a President who is looking for a constructive solution. It has been hard to find. Since President Obama established the DACA Program, Republicans have waged a relentless campaign to overturn DACA and deport these Dreamers back to countries they barely knew. Now, this program is hanging by a thread in the courts due to legal challenges from Republican State attorneys general, and DACA recipients like Wilmer Palacios are being forced to live with uncertainty every single day. Last September, a Federal judge in Texas declared DACA illegal. Though the decision left in place protections for the current recipients, these Dreamers live in constant fear that the next court decision will upend their lives. The litigation has also prevented at least 100,000 additional Dreamers from registering for the program. Keep in mind, those who register for the program go through a background check. When I hear people describe our immigrant population in America as murderers, rapists, terrorists, and the insane, I think to myself: Who are they talking about? These DACA recipients--over 800,000 of them--go through background checks to make certain they are no danger to the United States; and like Mr. Palacios, they turn out to be absolutely essential to our future. One study estimated that if DACA were to end, 1,000 U.S. workers would be out of work every business day for the next 2 years. Losing 1,000 workers like Wilmer--1,000 every day. Business owners in my State tell me they need more skilled workers. There isn't a hospital in the State of Illinois that doesn't want a nurse like Mr. Palacios, who has a master's degree in nursing. They are desperate for them. Some would say: Send them away. Deport them. They are not Americans. Some use harsh terms like they poison the blood of America. I couldn't disagree more. These people are part of our future. They are good, solid people who will be good citizens of the United States. The threat just doesn't come from the courts. When he was President, President Donald Trump tried to end the DACA Program and deport people like Wilmer Palacios. And it is clear that, given the chance, he would try it again. If my Republican colleagues will join us, Congress can protect the Dreamers and DACA recipients. I urge my colleagues: Meet the Dreamers personally. You will realize they are not a threat to this country; they are the future of our country. They can bring to us things that we need desperately. They have earned the right to live in this country without fear. They should be able to put down roots, start families, further their education, and contribute to our society without the fear of deportation hanging over them. It is time for Congress to get to work on a bipartisan basis and pass the DREAM Act. It is the right thing, and it is long overdue. I thought we had a chance to do that a few weeks ago. There was a bipartisan bill that moved forward. I look back at it and say that James Lankford, a Republican conservative from Oklahoma, and two other Senators--Chris Murphy and Kyrsten Sinema--all came together with a bill which would have really moved us forward in bringing order to the border, ending the crisis that we found there; put more resources into stopping the illegal flow of drugs into the United States; hire more people to do the jobs at the borders. A leading union for Border Patrol agents endorsed this bipartisan bill. Well, what happened to it? Why wasn't it passed? Why didn't the Senate pass this bill? There is one reason, and it is very public. The former President of the United States, Donald Trump, said: I don't want this bill to move forward. I want this issue to remain in the campaign until November. So our opportunity for a bipartisan solution to this problem was lost. We have got to move back to the point where we are working on a bipartisan basis to solve this program. We can do it. Virtually all of us who believe that immigration is an integral part of the history and future of the United States have an obligation to the American people to meet that responsibility. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Butler), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following detailees to the Senate Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 118th Congress: Allison Kent, Andrew Parker, and Stacie Harris.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I hear the Republican leader come to the floor and talk about the fact that President Biden has waited until this point in his first term to issue an Executive order on border security, I can't help but think how long the Senate has waited to do anything on immigration. The Senator from Kentucky knows as well as I do that for more than 30 years, this Senate has failed to pass any meaningful immigration legislation. Part of the problem on our border today hearkens back to decades of neglect by the Senate and the House of Representatives to meet their constitutional responsibility to upgrade our laws. How many times have you heard it said that our immigration legal system is broken? They are right. I happen to know that. I have paid personal attention to this issue for a long time. For the Senator from Kentucky to berate President Biden because he waited until this moment in his first term to take action is to ignore the obvious. We passed comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. Senate, and it was passed by more than 60 votes. It was sent to the Republican House of Representatives. They refused to act on it. To bring it closer to home, we were told last October not to pass any defense supplemental bill unless it included a provision related to border security. So we waited for a bipartisan group of three Senators--one Republican, one Independent, and one Democrat. Senator Lankford led the effort on behalf of Republicans. We waited until they produced a work product which, in fact, President Biden embraced. Though it was controversial, I felt it was a reasonable step forward. What happened at that moment? We had a chance to do something-- finally, to do something--in the Senate on immigration. We had a bipartisan bill, a bill which was crafted by able Members of the Senate and addressed the major problems facing us on the border. What happened? Do you remember? I will tell you exactly what happened. Donald Trump, former President of the United States, announced he opposed the bill, instructed any Republican who happened to agree with his point of view to oppose it as well, and then said: And if you want to assign any blame, blame me. Well, I am blaming him. A chance to pass legislation was stopped by Donald Trump and the Republicans in the Senate even though they initiated the process themselves. That is the reality of the status that President Biden faces on the border. We are facing the largest refugee crisis in modern history all over the world, and we are seeing it on our southern border and in the United States as well. The question is, Will we do anything? President Biden has decided to step forward with an Executive order which would limit the access of individuals between ports of entry on the border in an effort to slow down the pace of those presenting themselves. That, to me, is a step in the right direction. I wish he would do more. I wish he would also do something to help those immigrants in the United States who have shown that they can be worthy citizens of this country, have contributed mightily toward the betterment of this country, and have been here long enough to prove that that is true. I think they deserve opportunities and legal recognition. I think that should be included. But for now to argue from the Senate floor, where little or nothing has taken place on immigration reform in more than 30 years, that President Biden isn't moving quickly enough is a really difficult argument to understand, let alone explain to anyone. Let me say another word. To call those people who present themselves for asylum in the United States and who are waiting for their case to be resolved in court illegal aliens is a misnomer. They are here by a legal recognition status as asylees seeking protection. A final status has not been determined, and that will determine what their final classification will be. But at this point, they are legally in the United States awaiting a hearing. To call them illegal is not proper.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, when I went to college here in Washington, at Georgetown, I used to come into this Capitol Building and sit up there where the visitors are now sitting and watch what was going on on the Senate floor. I can remember so many things, particularly the day that Bobby Kennedy gave a speech about Vietnam that was highly anticipated. He came walking through that door with his brother, Ted Kennedy--both of them Senators, one from New York, one from Massachusetts. It was a historic moment, it was a magical moment. For a college student, it was just overwhelming to be a witness to that history and to realize what this Chamber has meant to this Nation, what this building has meant to this Nation throughout our history. That is why I will never forget what happened in this Chamber on January 6, 2021. Violent extremists stormed the Capitol to prevent certification of the 2020 Presidential election. Donald Trump was engaged in the Big Lie. For the first time really in the history of the United States, he questioned the legal outcome of an election. Madam President, you and I both know that is fundamental to democracy--the belief that we can have the peaceful transition of the decisionmakers guided by the people of this country without political interference. As insurrectionists ransacked this building, many carried flags and banners to show their support for former President Trump in his effort to overturn the election--the Big Lie. Two of the more prominent symbols of the so-called ``Stop the Steal'' campaign on behalf of President Trump were on display that day. One was an American flag flown upside down and the other a so-called ``Appeal to Heaven'' flag. While the events of January 6 were hard to imagine, reports that the same battle flags flew outside Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's home were nearly as shocking. In January of 2021, less than 2 weeks after the insurrection at the Capitol, an upside-down American flag flew over Justice Alito's front lawn in suburban Virginia. In the summer of 2023, the ``Appeal to Heaven'' flag flew on the flagpole of the Alitos' beach home in New Jersey. While these flags may have once held other meanings, in the year 2021, they were closely associated with election deniers and extreme rightwing politicians. They are, in fact, the battle flags of Trump's MAGA movement. The Supreme Court's authority ultimately rests on its reputation and public confidence. The Supreme Court doesn't own the Army. It doesn't have a vast Treasury. It depends on people trusting the Justices to make honest, professional decisions. This reputation and public confidence is the strength of the Supreme Court. That is why the Supreme Court's recently adopted code of conduct requires Justices to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Both the code of conduct and Federal law require Justices to recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The flying of these flags marks a new, disturbing chapter in the Supreme Court's ongoing ethical crisis. It suggests that Justice Alito has not only chosen sides in an ongoing political dispute but that he has also announced his allegiance in pending legal disputes. As we speak, the Supreme Court is considering two critical cases relating to the 2020 Presidential election and the January 6 insurrection. In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether former President Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for his efforts to overturn the election. In Fischer v. United States, the Court--again, the Supreme Court--will determine whether the Federal felony obstruction statute applies to the January 6 rioters who tried to stop Congress from exercising its constitutional duty to certify the election. The Court's rulings on these issues will be critical to ensuring that those responsible for one of the darkest chapters in our history are held accountable. Displaying the upside-down American flag and ``Appeal to Heaven'' flag creates the appearance that Justice Alito has already aligned himself with the ``Stop the Steal'' campaign. He cannot credibly claim to be an umpire--calling balls and strikes--in these cases. He has donned the jersey of his favorite team. That is why I called on Justice Alito to recuse himself and why I urged Chief Justice Roberts to finally step up and take the steps necessary to ensure that Justice Alito does not sit on those cases and, rather, that he recuse himself. Last week, Justice Alito refused my request. I am going to keep this letter--the original version that was sent to me and sent to the White House by Justice Alito--in which he makes an argument that these flags should not be taken seriously; that it was his wife's decision. There were complications in her decision. It is hard to accept this. It is hard, first, to believe that this man we are asking to recuse himself from these Supreme Court cases has somehow stood in judgment of himself and decided that he did nothing unethical and should not recuse himself. He refused our request to recuse himself from these cases. In doing so, he claimed he bears no responsibility for the January 6-related flags flying over his homes. Instead, he placed the blame solely on his wife. He went on to downplay the significance of the upside-down American flag display, claiming it was part of a dispute with his neighbors, and he denied knowing about the connection between the ``Appeal to Heaven'' flag and the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol. Chief Justice Roberts, likewise, refused my request to take action and simply deferred to Justice Alito's decision. But Justice Alito's refusal to recuse begs the question: Why should he have the sole power to decide whether his recusal from the case is necessary? Additional reporting has already called into question his version of events with text messages and even a recording of a call to police suggesting the neighborhood dispute occurred after the upside-down American flag flew over the Alito residence. Whether Justice Alito raised these flags himself or stood idly by while his wife did so, the fact remains the same: A reasonable person would question Justice Alito's impartiality to the cases relating to the 2020 election and January 6. Recusal is, therefore, necessary. But the consequences of Justice Alito's actions go far beyond this. He needs to recuse himself from these cases. By displaying two symbols of the MAGA Republican movement, Justice Alito presented himself to the world as a political actor and an ally of the far right. His actions suggest that no matter what arguments are made or what evidence is presented at the Supreme Court, his decisions will align with his personal beliefs and policy preferences. And no matter what excuses or explanations he provides now or in the future, it will be hard for anybody before the Court to believe that Justice Alito approaches that case without bias. We cannot afford the further erosion of public confidence in our courts. Our faith in the impartiality of judges is essential to the functioning of our legal system and our form of government. For more than a year, story after story has broken about ethical misconduct by sitting Justices of the Supreme Court. We have learned that some Justices, including Justice Alito again, accepted gifts and travel from billionaires with interests before the Court. The Senate and the American people deserve to know the full extent of how immense wealth is used to buy private access to the Justices. That is why the Senate Judiciary Committee is exercising its constitutional authority to investigate what has been provided to the Justices. I will continue to push for legislation--a bill sponsored primarily by Sheldon Whitehouse, but many of us have joined as cosponsors--to establish a binding code of conduct and recusal standards for the Justices. Why in the world should the highest Court in our land have the lowest standard of ethics? If every other Federal judge is held to a standard of ethics to make certain that their reputations are intact, why would that not apply to the Justices sitting on the highest Court of the land? We will continue to push for legislation to create a binding code of conduct and recusal standards that the American people can see. Last year, the Judiciary Committee reported to the floor the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. Importantly, this legislation's ethical and recusal requirement would apply equally to every Justice of the Supreme Court regardless of the party or the President who appointed them. The Supreme Court has failed to act to address the ethical crisis that has engulfed it, and so the Senate must do so. This is a simple fact: There is a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts. It is within his power to resolve this ethical issue tonight--to have it done by the morning--to make it clear that the Supreme Court is taking a different course, one that is credible to the American people. Justice Alito cannot stand in judgment of himself. The fact that we have to come to the floor of the Senate to plead this case makes it clear that there are no avenues to be followed for ethical consideration for the Court today. That can change. The bill that is pending on the calendar is a step in the right direction, and I totally support it. Madam President, I close by asking unanimous consent that the letter sent to me by Justice Alito be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we all agree that noncitizens who are convicted of violent crime should be detained and removed from the United States--period. Sadly, the Laken Riley Act does nothing to address violent crime. Under current law--current existing law--noncitizens who enter the country illegally, violate the terms of their status, or have their visas revoked can be detained now, under the law, by officials of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE. Current law also requires--requires--the detention of individuals with serious criminal convictions--those who have committed murder, rape, or any crime of violence or theft offense--with a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year. The law also gives ICE discretion beyond that to detain a noncitizen in any case in which a noncitizen has been charged with a crime. To make this decision, ICE assesses the individual's circumstances in the case, ensuring the Agency's limited resources are used effectively to protect national security and public safety. The reality is that Congress has never appropriated nearly enough money for ICE to detain every--every--undocumented immigrant who is charged with a crime. And, remember, the vast majority of Senators on the other side of the aisle--including the sponsors of this measure--blocked the bipartisan national security supplemental in February that would have given ICE more funding to detain more undocumented immigrants who might pose a threat to our country. They voted against it. They will have another chance to vote to provide that additional funding in just a short time today. I hope they will finally take this opportunity. Vote for more ICE agents if you want more ICE enforcement of existing laws that are serious on the books. Here is the reality: The sweeping approach in this bill would actually harm national security. Why? Because it would eliminate ICE's discretion to prioritize dangerous individuals--certainly, people who are being convicted of a violent crime or charged with a violent crime or more serious offenders than, perhaps, those who are guilty of theft. We don't know the circumstances in each case. This proposal would, instead, require ICE to treat those arrested for nonviolent crimes the same as individuals who are actually convicted of violent crimes. With limited ICE agents, you have to make a choice: What is the priority? Who is the most dangerous individual? This proposal before us would overwhelm ICE facilities and make us less--not more--safe. For example, this law would require ICE to detain every immigrant who is simply arrested for shoplifting--arrested--even if it quickly becomes clear the person is innocent, because this bill does not require a charge or conviction. Tell me, does it make sense to treat a noncitizen arrested for shoplifting the same as someone convicted of murder? I think we all know the answer. This bill would also grant State attorneys general the standing to sue Federal immigration authorities if a State disagrees with immigration enforcement decisions made by the Federal Government. For example, this bill would give a State attorney general the standing to challenge the use of the parole authority--like Uniting for Ukraine, which allows Ukrainians fleeing Putin's war to temporarily come to the United States--if the State can show harm of $100. Let me tell you, they talk a lot about parole and how many--70,000 or so in the last 6 months or so. Among those were the Ukrainian refugees. They were brought to the United States from the war-torn zone because of Vladimir Putin's invasion. And 36,000 of them came to Chicago. The conditions of their coming to Chicago: a background check; secondly, they had a sponsoring family so that they have someone who will help them assimilate into the United States; and, third, they were given the right to work. We have had little or no publicity, negative publicity, about these Ukrainians. We are a very proud Ukraine-American community. They are absorbing these individuals who are the victims of the war in Ukraine. These are part of the parole numbers that have just been alluded to. In contrast, we have received 46,000 migrants sent by the Governor of Texas on over 880 buses to Chicago without any warning, without any preparation. That has been a difficult situation, and it has really put a taxing strain on the governments in the area. But to argue that parole for Ukrainian refugees is wrong--I disagree with that. It was a humanitarian gesture on the part of the United States, and it has worked well, at least in our community. The situation with the Governor of Texas is a sharp contrast in this circumstance. Laken Riley's murder, by any standard, was a tragedy. Every description I have read about this young woman suggests she was an amazing person, and the fact that she lost her life is terrible. There are no excuses. We must do everything possible to prevent crimes like this from happening. But this legislation before us makes our system less orderly and less safe. It does nothing to help the situation, the circumstances that affected her. The reality is that most immigrants in the United States are law- abiding individuals who are seeking a better life in our Nation. Many studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than natural-born U.S. citizens. But Donald Trump recently said that undocumented immigrants were ``poisoning the blood of our country''--a phrase that closely mirrors one used several times in Hitler's ``Mein Kampf.'' He has also promised to round up and deport every single undocumented immigrant in our country, including Dreamers who grew up here. When the bipartisan border supplemental came to a vote, the vast majority of Republicans opposed it at the request of Donald Trump. Do you know what he said publicly and clearly? ``Blame it on me'' if the bill fails. I am blaming it on him. The former President has made it clear he does not want a solution to our challenges at the border--he wants a campaign issue for November. I urge my colleagues to reject Donald Trump's advice, support the actual solutions which will be before us in the next hour and a half. I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. What intervening event prohibited or stopped this bipartisan measure from passing on the floor of the Senate?

Mr. DURBIN. At 2 o'clock this afternoon, we are going to have a vote on that bipartisan measure. It will be an opportunity for those who have amendments to come forward with those amendments after we pass it; is that not correct?

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.