Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4902, which was introduced earlier today.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, this is legislation that would name the Federal courthouse in Salt Lake City, which was completed a few years ago, after my friend and former colleague and also a longtime mentor of mine, Senator Orrin G. Hatch. Senator Hatch, long before he became a statesman, was a lawyer--and not just any lawyer, he was a lawyer's lawyer. He was really good. He received the prestigious Martindale-Hubbell AV rating as a litigator. His skills as a litigator were so good that they helped convince some of his friends and neighbors that he ought to seek public office. The first public office he sought as an elected official was to the U.S. Senate. He was elected in 1976. He then served in the U.S. Senate from 1977 all the way up until 2019. During that 42-year time period, Senator Hatch had a profound impact not only on the U.S. Senate and his colleagues here--and he certainly did; he was a friend to everyone who knew him--but he also had a much broader impact, one that will have far-reaching, lasting, durable impacts on the Federal court system. I took a look at a list of all Federal district judges--the trial court judges who have served on the Federal bench from Utah ever since our statehood. There are only about 20 people on that list. All but five of those came on to the court either during or right after; in other words, with some input--significant input from Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch has also been a part of every judicial nomination in the confirmation process during that same 42-year period. I can't think of any other Utahan in the history of our State who has had anywhere near the kind of impact on the Federal judiciary as Senator Hatch. It is not just that he served on the committee throughout that time period that confirmed judicial nominees, whether to Federal district courts, to the courts of appeals, or to the Supreme Court--he certainly did have a lot of impact there--but his impact even went further than that, you see, because he sought to be a mentor to people interested in the law and in public policy everywhere. His service had an impact certainly on me as one of countless lawyers and other people interested in law and public policy in this country. I remember watching proudly and with great admiration as he conducted himself as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Robert Bork confirmation hearings. He had a certain commitment to the rule of law and to fundamental fairness that would be owed to anyone nominated to that or any other judicial position, and he was willing to make sure that the Senate did its job and that it didn't get mired in the politics of the day. He had a great quote on this topic. He said: ``Politics must not undermine the principles and standards we apply to every judicial nomination.'' I watched over the years, in part, because I had first seen him participate in the Bork hearings. That got me interested in the Senate. In part, because of that example, that got me interested as a teenager to apply to be a Senate page. I later became a Senate page, appointed by Senator Hatch. I got to see him carry out his activities as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And from then on, I always watched with careful attention when he was handling a judicial confirmation hearing. I watched through the years as he handled the nomination hearings of individuals including: Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, and, later, Justice Alito, my former boss. In each instance, he treated judicial nominees and literally hundreds of others like them with dignity and respect but also with the amount of thorough attention that lifetime appointment to the Federal judiciary demands. In addition to this, he also liked to try to foster in others a genuine interest in the law. I remember, when I was serving as a law clerk to Federal District Judge Dee Benson in Salt Lake City--one of the brightest and most capable jurists ever to serve on the Federal bench, whether in Utah or anywhere else. He was a good friend, longtime ally and confidant of Senator Hatch's. I remember, while I was clerking for Judge Benson, right after I graduated from law school, Senator Hatch came by and just held a roundtable discussion with all the Federal judges. He not only seemed but was in fact conversant on all kinds of issues of the law--not just the hot-button issues that people think of when they watch the news, but he was delving into arcane details of the law that really made me proud to have him representing me in the U.S. Senate from the State of Utah. I got to know Senator Hatch even better after I got elected to the Senate, and he and I had the opportunity to work together as colleagues. Throughout all these experiences, I have come to revere him as someone who reveres the law. For these reasons, I conclude that it is fitting for us to name this Federal courthouse in Utah after him. It is difficult to imagine anyone who has had the same impact on the Federal judiciary who has ever lived in or served from our State as Senator Hatch. Madam President, I would like to yield some time to my colleague, the Senator from Utah.

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that S. 4902 be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am grateful my colleagues have chosen to allow this to pass into law. It is a great day for Senator Hatch, the State of Utah, and the United States. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, in a city divided by politics, a nation riven by disease, and an era defined by partisan opportunism, it is vital to remember that there are among us, mercifully, on Capitol Hill, a few men and women who embody the very highest ideals of honesty, charity, public service, and personal integrity. As chairman of the Joint Economic Committee for the past 2 years, I have had the privilege of knowing one of these indispensable patriots. I rise today, before the end of my term as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and at the end of her 40th year of service on the Joint Economic Committee, to commend to all of my colleagues the personal and professional merits of Ms. Colleen Healy. Colleen was born in Port Allegany, PA, to Bob and Theresa Healy and is a sister to Bob, Barry, Brian, and Bret. She attended Port Allegany Union High School, where she participated in the school band, chorus, student government, and the Spanish club. As a senior, she was selected by her classmates to compete for the title of Pennsylvania State Laurel Queen of 1969. Colleen next attended Penn State, where she earned her B.A. in Spanish and Latin American Studies. After graduating and teaching Spanish for several years in Florida, she came to Washington in 1977, first working for Representative Joseph Ammerman of Pennsylvania as his executive secretary. Colleen then found her calling in the Joint Economic Committee, where she has made an indelible mark on generations of Representatives, Senators, and staff ever since. Colleen has now served on the JEC staff for more than half the time the committee has even been in existence. All great institutions, of course, depend on institutional memory. The Joint Economic Committee depends on Colleen Healy. That is why for decades the first decision every incoming JEC chair has made, whether the chair happens to be from the House or the Senate, happens to be a Democrat or a Republican, the first decision made over and over again is retaining Colleen's invaluable services as financial director. Colleen is the reason the JEC is known across Capitol Hill for being one of the most cooperative and congenial committees to work for, to work with, or to serve on because both sides trust Colleen. They also know they can trust each other. That has a ripple effect that is undeniably positive. Staffers trust that they can always go to Colleen with their questions and their problems, whether it is about the committee process or procedure, and receive gracious, knowledgeable, consistent, honest answers. But even more impressive than her acumen is her essential kindness and grace. Colleen is known to get a flag flown over the Capitol for each new baby born to a coworker. Staffers past and present joke that you can't walk 10 minutes with Colleen from her office in the Dirksen Building and get very far because she has befriended literally everyone across the Capitol complex, remembering personal details about their lives and their families and stopping to talk with each person along the way. From Members to staffers, to interns and custodians, Colleen never misses an opportunity to make every single person feel important and valued and necessary. That, again, has ripple effects that are always positive in any organization and certainly are on the JEC. As one former coworker put it, when you talk to Colleen, you are instantly made to feel like the most special, loved, and cared-for person on Earth. When you step into her office, you know she is ready to laugh, listen, or cry with you. As another has said, despite the length of time she has worked in Washington, DC, Colleen still exudes warmth and joy--a spirit that permeates the committee and touches everyone she meets. This in a city not necessarily known for those traits. And though she lives it out quietly, she gives witness to her Catholic faith each and every day. Mother Teresa once advised: ``Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier.'' I can think of no better way to describe how Colleen Healy lives her life. In the words of the JEC vice chair, Representative Don Beyer, ``Colleen is the JEC's administrator, historian, sage, and most important, the heart and soul of the committee. She is respected and beloved by decades of JEC Senate and House Members of both parties, as well as generations of staff. Her decades of service have been invaluable.'' We are all better and happier for it. I thank Colleen for her service to the committee, and I hope we are lucky enough to get another 40 years with her serving on the Joint Economic Committee I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I offer my recognition of the service of Sherie Allen to Utah mothers and children. Adopted in Lancaster, CA, in 1965, around 3 months of age, Sherie was raised in a home that frequently and openly discussed her adoption. This experience instilled a passion to serve those in need of love and home. Sherie's late husband also understood the goodwill in adoption, and together, they formed a family with eight children, four biological and four adopted. Of her four adopted children, one now lives in assisted living, two have graduated college with bachelor's degrees in biology, and the other is a high school student. Sherie and her late husband were also foster parents, providing love and care for many children before those children were placed into their forever homes and families. In February of 2019, Sherie started Ohana Beginnings where she now serves as CEO and executive board chair. Ohana Beginnings offers support for expectant mothers facing an unplanned pregnancy who choose to marry, place their baby for adoption, or single parent. The organization's Taking Flight Initiative offers services that include housing, food, clothing, medical care, therapeutic services, and academic support. This initiative is individually designed to fit the unique circumstances of the expectant or parenting mother to set her up for future success. This September, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute-- CCAI--honored Sherie and other outstanding individuals who have demonstrated a commitment to improving the lives of children in need of permanent, loving homes. Sherie's work and dedication toward serving the needs of expectant mothers and children has earned her the Angels in Adoption Honoree award. Sherie is a powerful advocate for pro-family values and has committed her time, gifts, and resources to strengthening families, helping young mothers, and protecting babies through Ohana Beginnings.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is an honor and a privilege to speak on behalf of the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States today. One of Judge Barrett's familiar themes, one that she has invoked in speeches when speaking about the Constitution and about the role of the Federal judiciary, involves a line from Odysseus. It involves a reference to the ``Odyssey.'' She says: The Constitution is like when Odysseus ties himself to the mast to resist the song of the Sirens. And he tells his crew, `Don't untie me no matter how much I plead.' That's what we've done as the American people with the Constitution. We've said . . . it's the people sober appealing to the people drunk, [that when you are tempted to get untied], that when you are tempted to get carried away by your passions and trample upon the First Amendment rights or minority rights, this document will hold you back. Judge Barrett points out a very critical matter here, an absolutely essential matter, which is, first of all, that the whole point of having a Constitution involves restraining and restricting government. As it relates to the judiciary, it involves acknowledging the necessarily limited, finite, and confined role of the judiciary. Sometimes when people refer to the three branches of the Federal Government, they will get it backward. Sometimes people will refer to the judicial branch as if it were the most powerful. This gets it exactly backward. It was designed to be--and, in fact, is--the least dangerous branch of the three branches. That is not to say it is not the most dangerous of all. Government, generally, is something that while necessary is also dangerous just like water or fire or wind or oxygen or any of the things that we depend upon for our day-to-day existence. Government, including the power of the judiciary itself, has to be managed carefully, and it has to be channeled. If it is not, we become dangerous. So that is why we have a Constitution. It is to restrain government because government is force. Government is nothing more or nothing less than the collective, coercive use of force. We use it to protect life, liberty, and property. We use it to make sure that people don't harm each other and to make sure that we are protected from our adversaries within and without our borders, our boundaries. Yet, if we lose sight of what government does and what it doesn't do, what it can and cannot do, what it may or may not do, or what any branch of the government may do, we find ourselves in troubled, troubled waters. The reason I say that the judicial branch is the least dangerous of the three is that it doesn't possess the power to say what should be, only what is. The power of the legislative branch, where we serve, is the most dangerous of the three because we have the power to prohibit conduct. We have the power to prescribe policy. We make the law. The second most dangerous power is probably that which is held in the executive branch. It has been made more dangerous over the last 80 years as Democrats and Republicans alike have ceded more power to the executive branch, voluntarily relinquishing the role, which is uniquely, distinctively, and by constitutional mandate ours, over mostly to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who are, in some cases, the President of the United States or those who serve under his employ. The judicial branch possesses neither the power of the purse nor the power of the sword. We have the power of the purse. We spend the money. We prescribe the policy. The executive branch has the power to implement and force and execute the laws, hence the power of the sword. The judicial branch possesses only the power to decide what the law says. In that respect, it is operating as if through a rearview mirror. It is not saying what will come or what should be but what already is, what the law means as it already exists. In order to do that, the judicial branch has to come to a conclusion that our laws consist of words; that those words have meaning; and that, in order to tie themselves to the constitutional mast in order to make sure that they themselves are able to resist the siren call of power and to keep each of the three branches of government in check insofar as it is their prerogative to do so, they have to check back continually and check themselves constantly with the words of the U.S. Constitution and the words of the law itself. Yes, it matters. Yes, these things are easily ignored. These powers are easily abused. In fact, they often have been abused. There are a number of reasons for this. They have to do mostly with human nature itself. Human beings, while redeemable, are flawed. They crave power. They tend to act toward those things that make them more powerful if they are already in positions of government authority. That is why it is easy to understand why, from time to time, the courts stray. Now, I want to be very clear at the outset. The Federal court system, notwithstanding its flaws, is the best of its kind in the world. There is no judicial system anywhere in the world that I am aware of that is as respected or as consistently dedicated to the rule of law, to interpreting the law consistently and faithfully as is our Federal court system. The Supreme Court of the United States, while it has made some very bad decisions along the way, for the most part, gets things right. In fact, it is something that may come as a surprise to many Americans that of all of the decisions that the Supreme Court decides in a typical year, in modern times, it is most common that the Supreme Court decides those questions either unanimously or with near unanimity. Most cases at the Supreme Court are decided with a vote of 9 to 0 or 8 to 1 or 7 to 2--the overwhelming majority, in fact. Keep in mind, these are cases that with very few exceptions have proven difficult for the lower courts. They have caused some of the greatest legal minds in our country to address the same finite legal questions and to come up with different results. Yet those on the Supreme Court of the United States, for the most part, decide these cases with unanimity or nearly unanimity. Why? Well, most of the time, they tie themselves to the mast. They remember what is their charge. They remember that they are there not to decide matters of policy but to decide questions of law. They can't just reach out and say, I don't like this type of law. Let's go after this type of law and attack it or undermine it or let's pursue this line of law that should be in place and isn't. They don't have that authority. They have to have a case or a controversy, meaning one or more parties that can properly invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, and they have to have an actual, live, ripe dispute between people who are actively affected by the law. Then and only then may the Court act. From time to time, however, the Court has been tempted to give in to the siren call--to make law. It isn't always with the same political objectives in mind, and those objectives can change over time. To cite one of many examples that we could point to today, I am going to refer to a decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1905 in a case called Lochner v. New York. In that case, the State of New York had enacted some laws governing minimum wage and maximum hour issues for bakery employees in the State of New York. The Supreme Court of the United States decided that those laws were bad and that they didn't like them, and on that basis, it said in essence: These laws are bad, and they are so bad that they must be unconstitutional. They are so bad, and they lack any legitimate purpose that we can see. We are, therefore, going to deem this part of the due process protections, the due process protections that are covered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and allow us to impose our judicial authority on State law and invalidate that State law. Their reasoning essentially amounted to that: We don't see any good reason for this law. We, therefore, deem it incompatible, inconsistent, irreconcilable with due process, and we hereby strike it down as unconstitutional. This, in my view, was wrong. It was a problem. It was a political dispute that was becoming increasingly common as the Progressive Era was gaining momentum. Conservatives in the country were losing many of these battles in many lawmaking bodies, including, apparently, the New York State legislature. They didn't like it. So these particular jurists on this particular day chose to exercise their authority as jurists to strike down that law even though it was really a political argument they were making, even though it wasn't within their jurisdiction. So they stretched the meaning of the law. They stretched out the concept of due process so that they could declare this to be a constitutional violation. They took debatable matters beyond debate--not only beyond debate, but they took them outside the proper realm of State law jurisdiction and outside the context of legislation and debate surrounding such legislation within political branches of governments generally, whether State or Federal. They said: This is now Federal. We are going to make it Federal, such that you can't legislate in this area because we don't like it, and because we don't like it, we are going to say that it is part of the Constitution; it is part of your due process protection, notwithstanding the fact that due process, as the name implies, is about process. It is about making sure that you have your day in court, making sure that you have access to tools connected to fundamental fairness on procedural questions, not an outcome. So in Lochner v. New York, the Supreme Court Justices untied themselves, as it were, from the mast of the Constitution. They did so in a way that was harmful and unsustainable. They did so notwithstanding the fact that there was no logical end point to this. It was very difficult to conceive of any question of public policy that could not and, ultimately, would not come before the Supreme Court of the United States if you used their standard of analysis: This law doesn't really do anything good. It is not something that has a legitimate purpose, so we are going to strike it down. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States--it took many years to do it--eventually saw the error of its ways and eventually overturned Lochner v. New York. In many instances we ought to look back at that moment and say that we don't really want the Supreme Court taking debatable matters beyond debate. That is how political accountability works in this country. If you have something that you don't like as a matter of policy, you ought to try to change it before the legislative body in which it is properly considered. Now, if it is unconstitutional, yes, it should be unconstitutional. I am not one who focuses obsessively on judicial activism for fear that by focusing obsessively on judicial activism, we will perpetuate the idea that really what we want is judicial passivity. We don't want either. It is just as bad to invalidate as unconstitutional a law that is, in fact, not unconstitutional as it is to leave intact an unconstitutional law that is constitutionally defective. Both are equally repugnant to the Constitution. Both represent an effort by jurists to untether themselves from the mast of the Constitution and from the finite judicial role. Justice Scalia was someone who was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1986. He was confirmed overwhelmingly, by a vote of 98 to 0, if I recall. Justice Scalia was someone who, while a law professor, and later, while serving as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, had acknowledged the need for judges to keep themselves tethered to the mast, had acknowledged the need for them to focus on deciding cases based on the law rather than on the basis of favorable policy outcomes. This was at once a somewhat revolutionary idea at the time, and yet it wasn't overwhelmingly controversial at the time, given the fact that he was confirmed by a vote of 98 to 0 to the Supreme Court of the United States. But over the next three decades or so, while he served on the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Scalia revived--he restored--this concept, this constitutional understanding of the proper role of government and of the proper role of each branch of the Federal Government, including and especially the judicial branch of the Federal Government. During his service on the Supreme Court of the United States, he was able to mentor a number of law clerks, including Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Judge Barrett has explained that she believes in the same line of reason. She believes that judges and Justices need to tether themselves to the mast of the Constitution. They need to confine their role to that that involves judging, and they need to not covet and, ultimately, try to overtake the role of the elected lawmaker or the role of the executive. One has the power of policy and the purse; the other, the power of the sword. But as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 78, there is a profound difference between these powers. The legislative branch, he explained, has the power of will. It exercises will when it decides what should and should not be within the law. The power of the judiciary, by contrast, involves only the power of judgment, to decide what the law says. That is the kind of jurist we need today. Now, make no mistake--this is not a conflict that involves a desire to put on the Supreme Court of the United States people who will wage political warfare within the judicial branch from the conservative side. It is not that. It is not anything close to that. In fact, it is the opposite of that. We don't want Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court to be our advocate. We want Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court to decide law, to decide cases based on what the law says, to keep herself tethered to that mast because it is through that mast that our rights are protected, that we are able to elect people who will exercise sound judgment in deciding what the law should be. And, yes, we want them to strike down laws when they are unconstitutional. But, no, we don't want them striking them down simply because of a policy disagreement. In fact, all of our political, our economic, and our civil rights end up being tied to this very feature within our government. They are all protected by the willingness of our jurists to keep themselves tethered to the constitutional mast, just as Odysseus insisted on being tied to his. Notwithstanding how hard he might plead upon hearing the call of the sirens, he knew that it was important for him to stay on task, to stay focused on his job. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an exceptionally well qualified and talented legal mind and jurist. She is bright. She is articulate. She is, as we have seen, unflappable, and she is willing to set her mind on that course--to uphold and protect and defend that document that I believe was written by wise men raised up by Almighty God for that very purpose That document, insofar as we have followed it, has fostered the greatest development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. I hope that it ever will be that way because it is a strong and sure foundation upon which we have built, but we need people who believe in that foundation and are willing to tie themselves to it. Thank you.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I offer my recognition of the great service of Dean A. Collett to countless Utah students. His service has spanned over six decades, starting in the fall of 1956 when he first walked through the doors of Highland High School. Today, at the age of 92, even through the difficulties of COVID-19, Dean sits at his desk making personal phone calls to each of his students, ensuring nothing less than their academic success. He is a true servant of the people of Utah and one who deserves the highest of honors. Dean Ashton Collett was born on September 30, 1928, to Richard G. Collett and Amy Ashton Collett in Salt Lake City, UT. Richard Collett was a successful banker, but due to the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, the Collett family, with all five of their children, would move frequently around Salt Lake City looking for work, a hardship that would follow Richard and Amy for much of their lives. From those moments as a child, Dean would dedicate his entire life helping to support his family, working to keep food on the table and later taking care of his mother until her passing. Dean spent his youth working as a paper boy, doing yard work for hire, and later working as a grocery store cashier at Table Supply in the avenues of Salt Lake City. As the family kept relocating in search of work, Dean attended Emerson Elementary School, Ensign Elementary School, and Washington Elementary School. He progressed through his educational pursuits, graduating from East High School in 1945 and later from the University of Utah in 1956. Before completing his time at the University of Utah, Dean served a 3-year mission in Sweden for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Upon his return, he was drafted into the Korean war and stationed in Germany due to his knowledge of both Swedish and German. Once he graduated from the University of Utah, Dean was given his first teaching job at a then brandnew school called Highland High School in Salt Lake City. Little did he know at the time that serving this school would end up being his whole life's mission. During Dean's time at Highland High School, he has taught the subjects of math, English, yearbook, student government, German, and Russian; acted as a cheerleading adviser; and is now a school counselor. His time at Highland has spanned more than 63 graduating classes and more than 30,000 students. He is an avid football fan and has yet to miss a single Highland High football game in the school's entire history. You will often see him selling tickets for sporting events, dances, plays, and any other community events at the school. He has been a father figure to thousands and helped students in need of clothing, food, and financial assistance, including for those serving a church mission. Dean never married or had children of his own, but instead dedicated his life to the children of Highland High School. My own staffer, Matt Holton, was a student of Dean's in the early 2000s and got to experience Dean's extraordinary dedication to his students firsthand. While Matt was a freshman, his father was deployed with the U.S. Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Dean saw a student in need of additional care and so took Matt under his wing, becoming a crucial mentor and father figure in his life. To this day, they remain close friends. Dean was also a teacher of a dear friend of mine, former Governor of the State of Utah, U.S. Ambassador to China, and U.S. Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman. Dean often teaches the students of Highland High School that failure is a critical ingredient to success, using the example that Jon Huntsman, who ran and lost for student body president, later achieved the highest offices of public service. Dean is an undeniable institution not only at Highland High School, but throughout the entire State of Utah. He is a Utahn from the Greatest Generation, embodying the best of the American spirit; and it is my privilege to honor him today.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, an abortion is always tragic, as it involves the taking of an innocent human life, one that has yet to draw its first breath or commit its first sin. In the case of a chemical abortion, it sometimes takes two lives: that of the baby and that of the mother. Advocates for this procedure will say that it is simple, it is easy, it is convenient, and it is safe. They claim that it is a good and valuable form of ``healthcare'' for women, but nothing could be further from the truth. The grim and gruesome reality is that this barbaric practice wreaks havoc on women's bodies and destroys the tiny bodies growing within them. So just how does this procedure work? The details are not pleasant. First, the mother is given a pill that blocks progesterone. This, of course, is a hormone that is necessary for pregnancy, and it breaks down the lining of her uterus. Without progesterone, you see, the baby, whose heart is already beating, is starved to death and dies in her mother's womb. Then, 24 to 48 hours later, the mother is given a second pill, one that empties her uterus by causing severe contractions and bleeding, mimicking early miscarriage. It can last anywhere from a few hours to a few weeks. Planned Parenthood will try to gloss over the truth here, as elsewhere, claiming that a hot shower and some ibuprofen are enough for a quick recovery to get the mother back on her feet, but, on average, the miscarriage lasts between 9 and 16 days and can last for as long as 30 days. Thirty days--that is a long time. Most of the time these abortions are done at home. The mother is left to suffer alone, without care or medical attention, without supervision from a doctor or a nurse, and often without any followup whatsoever until 7 to 14 days later, if ever, keeping in mind that many of them don't get any followup care at all. The result? Well, women have suffered tragic, gruesome, and horrific experiences using the abortion pill. It has caused nearly 4,200 adverse medical events, including more than 1,000 hospitalizations and nearly 600 instances of blood loss requiring transfusions. Some women have even died. The FDA has reported 24 maternal deaths from the abortion pill just since its approval in 2000, and those are just the officially reported ones that we know of that have happened with the regulations we currently have in place. Based on the assumption that those regulations are in place, that is still a really high rate at which they die. Some women need corrective surgery after taking the abortion pill and others require lifesaving procedures. And, somehow, we call this healthcare. This is not like popping a Tylenol. This two-step abortion cocktail poses severe risks to women, not even to mention their unborn babies. In fact, abortion pills are one of only a few medications that require what is known as a risk evaluation and management strategy, a drug safety program that the FDA requires for medications with serious risks. Yet some are pushing to further expand access to these drugs and even further loosen the regulations around them. Some activists are even pushing for access to the abortion pill by mail, meaning that the patient would never even have to be seen in person by any medical professional at all--not a medical clinic, not a doctor, not a nurse--nothing in person. The standards of care surrounding this practice are already reckless, they are already harmful, and they are already causing misery, injury, suffering, and death. In fact, they are unacceptable standards of care for women and for babies. The last thing we should be doing is making them even worse, making them even more vulnerable than they already are. So setting aside for a minute how you feel about other issues related to unborn human life in this area, let's just talk about this issue for a moment. Let's just talk about whether this issue is really one that we want to expand, where we increase the amount of misery, the amount of suffering, and the amount of carnage that would occur as a result of more people gaining access to this deeply flawed, very dangerous form of so-called healthcare. That is why we ought to support the bill put forward by my friend and colleague Senator Hyde-Smith. The SAVE Moms and Babies Act would prohibit the FDA from approving new abortion drugs, from loosening any regulations that exist on already approved abortion drugs, and from dispensing abortion drugs remotely or through the mail. The purpose of healthcare is to heal, to preserve, and to protect human life. A chemical abortion happens in the first trimester of life, up to about the tenth week of pregnancy, when an unborn baby already has a beating heart, when an unborn baby already has a growing brain, and when the growing baby already has 10 fingers and 10 toes. She deserves a shot at life, at the beginning of life, at the front door, and she deserves to not have it taken away and, literally, flushed down the drain. Mothers deserve the utmost care, protection, and support as they nurture the human life inside of them, not medical harm and not medical neglect. Our healthcare system should protect and care for them both, and our laws should uphold the immeasurable dignity and worth of both. This bill is a step in the right direction, and I implore all of my colleagues to support this legislation

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, point of parliamentary inquiry: What was the statement that prompted the admonition under rule XIX?

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion that we have had today between my colleague from Mississippi and my colleague from the State of Washington. I also appreciate the thoughtful insight that the Senator from Louisiana provided in his remarks. I feel it necessary to address a couple of issues that were raised by my friend and distinguished colleague from the State of Washington. There are differences that Members have--differences of opinion--when it comes to a wide variety of issues. When it comes to abortion, people have different approaches they take. I know my own view, and I know the views taken by many of my Democratic colleagues. But it is important to point out here what we are talking about and what we are not talking about. One of the first arguments that we heard today from the Senator from Washington related to Roe v. Wade. And as long as we are on the topic of imputing to another person improper motives or motives not apparent on the face of a piece of legislation, if one is going to impute to the Senator from Mississippi the intention of undoing a Supreme Court precedent, I would like to point out that is manifestly not within the scope of this legislation, nor is it the place of any Senator to purport to know the subjective motivation behind Senator Hyde-Smith's legislation here. I am not going to purport to know the reason why she said that. I just want to point out, that is not the point of this bill. This bill has nothing do with Roe v. Wade. You can feel however you want about Roe v. Wade. This isn't it. I know that is a convenient excuse to not have to deal with something--something real, something that has to do with the lives and the health and the well-being of women, to say nothing about the unborn human lives within them. From those who would invoke science in opposing this bill, I would ask, on what planet does science back the idea we should remove the REMS restrictions from this supposed so-called form of healthcare--a form of healthcare that, as I mentioned a few moments ago, has resulted in thousands upon thousands of complications in the two decades it has been on the market? On what planet can one contend that one can't support this legislation without being opposed to science? Back to the Roe v. Wade question. If every single time someone gets up to try to present legislation--legislation that as far as I can tell, the Senator from Washington wasn't claiming was outside of our legislative purview as Federal lawmakers--if every single time someone gets up to try to raise legitimate questions of public policy regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the American people, of the American patient, of American women subjected to very serious side effects from a piece of legislation--if no one can present legislation without being accused of trying to undo a 1973 court decision, which is, on its face, not even at issue in this legislation, then we are going to have a hard time carefully considering these things. Last I checked, it is our job to decide questions of public policy-- questions that are squarely within our Federal jurisdiction. One could argue, I suppose, about whether it was a good idea to put exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of pharmaceuticals in this country under the FDA. One could make that argument. I don't understand the Senator from Washington to be making a federalism argument. If she wants to have that conversation, I would love to have that with her. That would be fantastic. In fact, I would love to raise federalism concerns anytime we are discussing anything because it is far too seldom invoked here. But that is not what this is about. What that argument was about was instead that the Senator from Mississippi supposedly is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. And it couldn't possibly be the fact that she is there genuinely concerned about the thousands upon thousands of injuries that have been sustained as a result of this barbaric form of so-called medical treatment. It can't possibly be that. If that is the case, if those who were so determined to make everything about Roe v. Wade--if they are right and if they were to have their way, then I guess we can't discuss anything even related to women's health that affects pregnancy. Surely, that is not the argument. That can't be the argument. I don't think anyone, regardless of how they feel about Roe V. Wade, regardless of how they feel about government's role in abortion or not, if what we are talking about is the fact that we ought not loosen certain restrictions so as to allow people to gain access to an abortion cocktail that is dangerous under many circumstances, especially when it is administered without any kind of direct medical supervision or attention, if that is where we are, that is not good. That is messed up. Something is terribly wrong if we can't have a conversation about women's health without being accused of wanting to undo an entire line of precedent dating back to 1973. Look, guilty as charged. I have my own views about that line of precedent. Those views are no secret. Those views are well-founded as a matter of science. They are well-founded as a matter of hundreds of years of American constitutional law, of common law, but I understand they are not the only views. You cannot simply walk in here and say that because this addresses a type of abortion procedure, because Roe v. Wade reached the conclusion that it did, anyone who proposes a piece of legislation like the one proposed by Senator Hyde-Smith today necessarily has as its object-- that her subjective motivation behind filing that legislation is the undoing of Roe v. Wade, and because that is her supposed subjective motivation, we can't even have the conversation about what this does for women's health--to say: Let's draw the line, and let's not remove the REMS restrictions. Let's not let people order these through the mail and be administered these dangerous drugs without direct medical supervision. The next line of reasoning used by the Senator, my friend and distinguished colleague from the State of Washington, is that we are in the middle of a global pandemic. Yes, we are, but last I checked, that doesn't prevent or preclude us from discussing and addressing other things, from the funding of the government to Presidential nominees whom we confirm or don't confirm. That doesn't preclude us or excuse us from considering other pieces of legislation. I am struggling to understand how the existence of a global pandemic means that we can't even address another type of epidemic--one brought about potentially as a result of the abusive prescription and reckless misuse of abortion-inducing drug cocktails. This is beyond my ability to understand. It is also beyond my ability to understand how a simple requirement that before one of these drugs is administered, the patient should have at her disposal a medical examination and some kind of medical attention. Nothing about Roe v. Wade says that you can't have laws restricting the manner in which abortions are performed. Nothing about Roe v. Wade says that a State or Congress itself may not require that abortions be performed by healthcare professionals under the supervision of a board certified medical doctor. Nothing about Roe v. Wade carries any implication for this. This legislation simply says: Let's make sure that medications like this are not used to harm American women. I have other colleagues wishing to discuss this topic and other topics. Let me say this: Human life matters. Every human life means something. You can't snuff it out and pretend it doesn't exist, because it does. Every life matters to God. It matters in the universe. Whether you believe in God or not, life matters. You can't pretend it doesn't exist. Every life is unrepeatable, irreplaceable. We should vow to protect it. For those who aren't interested in protecting unborn human life, let's at least focus on protecting the human lives that we all agree exist. That is what this legislation is about. Shame on us if we can't even do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, tomorrow marks an important day in our Nation's history--the birth of the U.S. Air Force. For 73 years, countless brave American women and men have protected our liberty and our homeland from the skies. They have embarked on air combat missions, guarded our bases and missile sites, and undertaken heroic rescues. They have flown, fought, and won in the air on behalf of our great country. This year also marks another important anniversary in my home State--the 80th year of Hill Air Force Base's service to that mission. In 1939, Congress approved the construction of an air depot in Northern Utah. The following year, on January 12, the surrounding community came together and broke ground to create what is now known as Hill Air Force Base. Ever since then, it has played an invaluable role in building up our Air Force and supporting our air men and women throughout World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the conflicts that we still face today. Tucked between the beautiful Wasatch Mountains on the east and the Great Salt Lake on the west, Hill Air Force Base is today home to 22,000 U.S. military personnel. It is the largest single-site employer in the State of Utah--providing nearly $1.5 billion in jobs each year, with an overall economic impact of about $3.7 billion annually. Hill houses and ensures mission readiness for some of our best and brightest personnel, including the 75th Air Base Wing, the 388th Fighter Wing, and the 419th Reserve Fighter Wing. It is also home to the Ogden Air Logistics Complex, which repairs and maintains some of our most cutting-edge aircraft, including the F-22 Raptor, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, the T-38 Talon, and, of course, the F-35A Lightening II, the most advanced fighter jet in the world. The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center on Hill has since 1959 been responsible for supporting the Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program, the ground-based leg of our nuclear triad. Just a short distance west of the base, the Utah Test and Training Range contains the largest block of special-use airspace in the continental United States. The range provides an ideal location for the testing and evaluation of weapons and training grounds for combat, ensuring that our airmen are prepared to win any conflict we enter into with decisive and conclusive airpower. There is no question that Hill Air Force Base oversees vital national security assets for the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force and our country are better off as a result of its existence. Yet there is something even more important that makes Hill the exceptional place that it is, and that is its people. The patriotism, work ethic, and community support are unmatched anywhere else in the country--or in the world for that matter. Every commander who serves a 2-year rotation at Hill always says the same thing--that the community's support is stronger at Hill Air Force Base than at any other base where any one of them happens to have served. I am proud to say that, in Utah, we go above and beyond to aid our military and to support their families, as well we should. According to the 2019 ``Support of Military Families'' report, Utah ranks among the top destinations for military families transitioning to a new duty station. Two of the three highest ranking Air Force installations are in Utah--Hill Air Force Base and the Roland R. Wright Air National Guard Base in Salt Lake City. The key reason for this has been Utah's work to improve professional license reciprocity for military spouses. Among the many challenges that military families face, one of the greatest is that spouses working in fields requiring occupational licenses often suffer huge setbacks as a result of the barriers put in place by these occupational licensing regimes in the various States. Faced with a 50-State patchwork quilt of licensing laws, these spouses are forced to spend thousands of dollars and sometimes thousands of hours on top of those thousands of dollars just to obtain licensure every single time they move to a new State, even if they have previously acquired years or even decades of experience in licensure in another State. Oftentimes, by the time the new license in the new State and in the new duty station has been processed, it is already time for the family to move, yet again, for the next military assignment. This isn't fair. It is not right. It is not how we ought to treat the families of our brave military men and women. The Department of Labor estimates that 13 percent of military spouses are unemployed, and a more recent Department of Defense study put the rate even higher, at 24 percent. This, needlessly and unjustly, burdens military members and their families. In some instances, it prevents servicemembers from reenlisting, and, in others, it prevents spouses from entering their desired fields in the first place. Thankfully, some States have already taken steps to move forward in the right direction. They have already stepped up to the plate to address this problem in a meaningful way. In fact, thanks to the diligent work of two prominent Utah lawmakers, Senator Todd Weiler and State Representative Brian Greene, my home State has been one of the first to allow licensure reciprocity for military spouses as long as they meet certain established criteria. I commend Senator Weiler and Representative Greene for their efforts, and I am encouraged to see other States following the example set by Utah. The Federal Government has a role to play here, too. While occupational licensing is a field that is generally controlled by the State, we have a role to play insofar as the activities of the States. The regulations imposed by the States end up impacting our military families. Military readiness and talent retention, as well as movement of our troops across the Nation and throughout the world, fall under the oversight responsibilities of Congress. We at the national level should be doing everything in our power to ensure that licensing laws are friendly and flexible and certainly not hostile to or prohibitive of the activities of military spouses and their families. That is why I am introducing the Military Spouse Licensing Relief Act. This bill will simply ensure that, when servicemembers are relocated on military orders, their spouses can receive reciprocity for professional licenses across State lines regardless of where within the United States they might be reassigned. In order to receive reciprocity under this bill, a license would have to be in good standing, according to the requirements of the jurisdiction that issued the license in the first place, and the spouse must still comply with the State's standards of practice, of discipline, and the fulfillment of any continuing education requirements. As a State function, protected under principles of federalism and explicitly by the Tenth Amendment, the bill does nothing to preempt the State's rightful authority to set licensing standards within each State. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the men and women who give so much to protect our Nation, whether on the land, the seas, or in the skies. This bill is a simple, just, constitutionally sound solution that will lessen some of the burden placed on them. It will not fix all of the problems, and it will not make easy all of the sacrifices that are made by our military spouses and their families, but it will make some of it easier. That is the least we can do. As we commemorate the birthday of the Air Force and the anniversary of Hill Air Force Base this week, this bill's passage is the least we can do for our military and their families. We need to get this passed. I invite all of my colleagues to join me in securing its immediate passage

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 17, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 17, 2020, at a time to be determined, to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 17, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 17, 2020, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 17, 2020, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a business meeting and executive session on nominations.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding provisions of rule XXII, the confirmation vote with respect to the Ludwig nomination occur at 11:15 a.m. tomorrow; further, if cloture is invoked on the Wiegand nomination, the Senate then vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Jarbou nomination; further, if cloture is invoked on the Jarbou nomination, the postcloture time with respect to the Jarbou nomination expire at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Thursday, September 10; further, that at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow, the Senate vote on the confirmation of the Wiegand nomination, and following disposition of the Wiegand nomination, the Senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the Cullen and Gujarati nominations in the order listed; finally, if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, September 9; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use in the day; further, following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Ludwig nomination under the previous order; finally, following the cloture vote on the Jarbou nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly conference meetings.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I go back to the question I asked rhetorically a moment ago. What is it about the speakers of these languages that are mentioned in the amendment offered by my friend and distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Florida--that is, the native speakers or speakers who hold a degree in the languages of Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian, Creole, Cantonese, Taiwanese, Hokkien, or Hakka--that makes them more deserving of an allocation of an employment- based immigrant visa than the speakers of Hindi, of Urdu, or of any of the languages spoken in India? As I mentioned a moment ago, you have a real problem, a real inequity. Overwhelmingly, the per-country cap punishes would-be immigrants from India in a way that doesn't affect any others, except maybe some from China. By the way, he covers some of the language groups spoken in and around China, including Cantonese and Taiwanese. So why not Mandarin? Then, if Mandarin, why not any of the languages spoken in India? This cuts right to the heart of why it is we need this reform and why it is we have an Elvis Presley-era, outdated, outmoded, unwise, and fundamentally inequitable immigration code--one that is at odds with the way our immigration system works. Imagine two otherwise identical applicants for a visa, wherein they are exactly the same in all respects--those being their academic degrees they have earned, their employment experience, their background checks, their family statuses, their earning potential, their job commitment, and professional certifications. Imagine they are identical in every single respect except for one--that immigrant A happens to hail from Sweden and that immigrant B happens to have been born in India. Immigrant A will be eligible to have an employment-based immigrant visa application considered immediately. Immigrant B, simply by virtue of having come from India, will, in many circumstances, have to be on a waiting list for 200 years. This is wrong. I really would like, one day, for someone--anyone--to explain to me why it makes any sense to leave this law on the books. One can't. One will not because there is no good reason for doing so. If one can't and if one will not, why on Earth would you want to weaken something and dilute something to create special privileges to one group of would-be employment-based green card holders simply because they happen to come from yet another preferred country over the nonpreferred, discriminated-against country? This is wrong. We have to get this thing passed. I am so grateful to Dick Durbin and the work that he has done with me on this. I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have put together this bipartisan bill. I believe we are close. I believe we are very close. I intend and plan and fully commit in the coming days to keep pushing this. This issue isn't going away. We are going to get this thing passed.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, Senator Scott's proposed amendment, to be clear, would create a carve-out for people based on the languages they speak. Now, unless their language skills are somehow part of the analysis determining whether or not they qualify for employment-based immigrant visas, I do not see that making a carve-out for particular languages would be consistent with our immigration rules or with principles of fairness or of equity. Amendments like this one that purport to carve out groups of people based on their nationalities or their ethnicities or their native languages are antithetical to the type of equitable change we have been pursuing with this bill for years. When we look at this, it operates quite broadly. He is trying to create a carve-out for people who are native speakers of Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian, Creole, Cantonese, Taiwanese, Hokkien, or Hakka, for those who have attained a master's degree or higher in the aforementioned languages, or for people who are spouses or children of the people on the aforementioned list. There are a lot of people who have been identified there. Interestingly enough, this doesn't include other languages. I haven't heard any principled basis upon which we could differentiate between those two. So it seems to me that, in fixing one problem, we reinsert this amendment in there and give preferential treatment to people who, by the way, are not speakers of Hindi or of Urdu or of other languages that are commonly spoken in India. I don't understand the principled distinction between these language speakers and others. More fundamentally, this undermines and contravenes the fundamental purpose of this legislation, which is to say that, regardless of what other factors you might take into account when deciding how you are going to allocate employment-based green cards, the one thing we shouldn't look to and that no longer makes any sense to look to--to the extent it ever made sense to begin to look to, which it probably didn't--is the country of origin. This makes no sense, and it is wrong. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Scott, and I object to its adoption.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we are living in some really unprecedented times. The economic impact of this global pandemic on our Nation, our people, and our communities has been nothing short of devastating. Within weeks of the start of this pandemic, we went from being one of the best economies that the world has ever seen to some of the deepest levels of unemployment we have ever seen. While the unemployment rate improves each month, countless Americans are still suffering from business closures, from layoffs, and from furloughs. Ultimately, the best economic stimulus we can offer in this hour of need is to foster opportunities for Americans to find meaningful work and to achieve economic independence. We have to ensure that our immigration system does not punitively disadvantage our own citizens from working in their chosen field, does not create unnecessary obstacles to achieving economic independence, and that it does not unnaturally depress wages. I echo President Trump's bold call to put America's interests first as we work toward economic recovery. During this economic crisis, the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federally owned entity, made the decision to furlough its American workers and replace them with contractors who rely on work-based immigrant labor. Many of these same outsourcing companies are able to conduct operations for far less money because they pay immigrant workers below market wages and require them to work, in some circumstances, under terrible conditions. It was never the intention of any employment-based visa program to crowd out American workers in this way or to allow for the exploitation of legal immigrant workers. I fully support President Trump in making that clear in his actions earlier this week. Let me be clear. This legislation, S. 386, Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, does not add a single green card or additional visa to the current numbers. No. It only lifts the per-country caps on applications for green cards for immigrants who are already here. So it doesn't add to the number; it just lifts this artificial, arbitrary per-country cap. In times of high unemployment, if we need to reform other work-based immigration programs that protect American workers, let's do it. If we need to end the optional practical training program to ease the burden on American graduates entering the economy, let's do it. If we need to reform the H-1B program and make significant reductions in the number of work-based immigrants who come into this country, let's talk about that. I support these reforms, and that is why I worked with Senators Grassley and Durbin, among so many others in this body, to add significant reforms to the H-1B program, to the Fairness for High- Skilled Immigrants Act. This includes a reduction in the number of work-based visa holders that any one company may lawfully sponsor. This reform, included at Senator Durbin's request, is a good one, and it aims to protect not only American workers but immigrants as well by significantly curbing the system that allows for both the exploitation of visa holders and the depression of wages for all employees in a given sector. Its passage into law will increase the opportunity for Americans to compete for these positions. The bill also includes provisions strengthening the Department of Labor's ability to enforce and investigate claims that employers are providing less than fair wages and working conditions for immigrant workers, requiring employers to disclose more information regarding their H-1B hiring practices and ensuring that employers may not use other visas to circumvent the H-1B caps. We must put Americans first. These provisions seek to do just that. Unless we are willing to completely end the work-based visa programs, we have an obligation to ensure they are administered and allocated in accordance with the principles that we espouse as Americans. My goal in sponsoring this legislation many years ago--nearly a decade ago, in fact--was simply to bring some equity into this system. I have always been struck by the fact that the government has conditioned a benefit--in this case, a green card and a pathway to citizenship, given that this is a series of immigrant visa programs at issue--based solely on the applicants' country of origin. There may have been some legitimate reason many decades ago, in fact, for this. I almost can't think of what those legitimate reasons might have been. Regardless, this has led to a system that largely discriminates against green card applicants from one country--and I mean literally one country. This is inconsistent with our founding principles. This is not how we try to do things as Americans. And it is not right. Today, if you are a work-based immigrant from India entering into the EB-2 green card application process, you will wait almost 200 years before your application is even considered solely because of where you were born--almost 200 years on a waiting list. Some people don't even live that long. Our country isn't much older than that. Yet that is the amount of time they would have to wait based solely on the basis of the country in which they were born. If you are born anywhere else-- anywhere else other than China; say in Ghana, Sweden, Indonesia-- basically any other country other than India, your application will be considered immediately. This sort of discrimination is simply inconsistent with the principles of an America-based immigration system and with our founding principles and the principles that unite us as Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to H.R. 1044; further, that the Lee amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to thank and appreciate the work done by my friend, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois. Senator Durbin and I have worked on many issues. We spent a lot of time working on this particular bill. In our most recent round of negotiations, he made a number of suggestions, and we incorporated many of those. I wish we could incorporate all of them. For the reasons that I gave a couple of weeks ago when we went through this, there are some of them that I unfortunately can't agree to because they would result in our inability to proceed. On that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object, for well over 8 months, my friend and distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, has been publicly blocking legislation protecting the children of immigrant workers. Now there is something called the Protect Children of Immigrant Workers Act. He comes to the floor asking that we pass this bill by unanimous consent--a bill that, as he notes, was introduced just yesterday. Well, we must pass this right now, he says, because these children shouldn't have to suffer 1 more hour. With all due respect, they could have had relief months ago. They can still have relief today. I have taken the time since yesterday to review Senator Durbin's legislation, and I cannot support it. This legislation allows the children of H-1B workers to remain in the country for the 20 to 30 years that their parents have to wait in the green card backlog--the same green card backlog the Senator is now decrying When their parents die, children of immigrant workers will not be immediately deported. But this prolonging of dependent status is helpful only if the parent lives and works in this country until his or her green card application is actually adjudicated. It does nothing for the child of an immigrant whose dead parent's green card application is ultimately denied because his or her job is no longer available-- nothing. To be honest, the 20 to 30 years is a short wait for most of the Indian nationals currently stuck in this awful, hellish green card backlog. In fact, it is a drop in the bucket. In 2020, the wait for an EB2 green card is not, in fact, 20 to 30 years for an Indian national. What is it, then? Is it 30? Is it 40, 50, 60? No, it is much longer than that. It is 195 years. This means that someone from India entering the backlog today would have to wait 195 years to receive an EB3 green card. Even if we give their children this limbo status, none of them will have a prayer of becoming a U.S. citizen. To put this in perspective, 195 years ago, John Quincy Adams had recently been inaugurated as President of the United States. The legislation purports to allow aging-out children to move to a student visa status, but it also fails to accomplish even this. Student visas require the applicant to have residency in a foreign country, which, obviously, these children do not have. Perhaps these are merely drafting errors, but as such, they underscore my concerns about passing slapdash legislation just because it bears a title that compels us to believe that it will correct the most egregious problems and protect the most vulnerable populations. Even if we generously overlook these ``drafting errors,'' this legislation goes from sloppy to worse. Most egregiously, it will increase the existing green card backlog. If we pass this legislation on its own, high-skilled workers from highly populated countries will have fewer and fewer green cards available to them, meaning they will have to wait longer and longer for relief. In fact, by the time we stretch this out to 2030, the 195-year backlog I mentioned a moment ago would be extended out to a 400- to 450-year backlog. That is not fair. I can't imagine that is what the Senator from Illinois wants. If we want to actually protect the children of immigrant workers, we need to end the inequities of the green card system. Real protection for the children is impossible unless we have a fair path forward for the parents. I have worked for 9 years on a thoughtful solution to these problems in the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. This compromise protects children, protects widows and widowers, and it provides an equitable path forward for all our high-skilled immigrants. That is why I call on Senator Durbin to lift his hold on the Fairness for High- Skilled Immigrants Act and to provide relief to immigrant children and to their parents. As to the suggestion that the changes made to this legislation were bad, that they were a departure from what we agreed on, it is not true. The implementation delay simply allows the USCIS a time to develop the adequate infrastructure to implement what we had proposed, the 50-50 rule change. This 3 years is there to protect the H-1B visa holders who were already here. The hold-harmless provision was taken care of with the 3- to 9-year transition that now covers them. In any event, this legislation--the one Senator Durbin now tries to pass by unanimous consent, introduced for the first time yesterday that I have now reviewed--is sloppy. It doesn't solve the problem, and it would make a lot of things worse. I therefore object.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am always happy to discuss any counterproposal. If the Senator would make one, I would love to see it. It is not fair to say I don't care about those kids because I am unwilling to create additional green cards. If the Senator wants to protect these children, pass this bill. Pass it today. Pass it at this very moment. I yield the floor.