Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I understand Senator Whitehouse has reserved time on the floor, and I will yield to him when he does arrive, but I would like to say a few words.

I would like to talk about the state of the coronavirus epidemic in our country. But before I do I want to respond to the Senate Parliamentarian's ruling last night on immigration reform.

While I am disappointed by this decision, I am not giving up on this fight. There are too many lives at stake. Over the past 18 months, thousands of DACA recipients and other immigrants have saved American lives as doctors, intensive care nurses, paramedics, respiratory therapists. They have risked their own lives for us, for our friends and loved ones. The least we can do to honor their sacrifice is give them a path to legal status in America.

In the coming days, Senate Democrats will present an alternative proposal to the Senate Parliamentarian. But the fact is, we already know how essential immigrants are to America and our economic future.

During the pandemic, undocumented immigrants have not only been saving lives in our Nation's hospitals. They have been toiling in extreme heat on farms across the country to secure the food that we eat every day in America. They have defended our national security as members of the military. They have been working as home health aides, helping care for our parents and family members with disabilities. And they have been caring for our children as teachers and childcare workers.

They are Americans in every way except for their official legal status. It is far past time to fix that, and that is exactly what Senate Democrats intend to do through budget reconciliation.

This is an issue which is not new to the Senate. It is certainly not new to me. It was 20 years ago that I introduced the DREAM Act--20 years.

Of course, many people have said: Durbin, if you are such a great legislator, what are you waiting for?

And a lot of these Dreamers and DACA-protected people have said the same.

I will tell them that, on at least five separate occasions, we have brought the DREAM Act to the floor of the Senate only to be stopped by the filibuster--five times during the course of 20 years.

The one time that it was passed during comprehensive immigration reform, the Republican leadership in the House refused to consider the measure, and it was left in the current state.

I recall the previous President, Donald Trump, assuring me that he was going to take care of those kids--in his own words. Well, he certainly did. He tried to abolish DACA and to remove the protection which 780,000 of these young people have.

You see, these are young people who came to the United States as infants, toddlers, and little babies. They were brought here by their parents, and they grew up in America and did everything you were supposed to do--went to school, had the odd jobs, worked around the house, believed in the future of this country. But when they showed up in the classrooms every day, they lifted their hands and pledged allegiance to that flag. They believed it was their flag. And it wasn't until later in life that their parents leveled with them, told them that wasn't the case at all; they were undocumented--technically illegal, in the words of some.

I can't imagine having that hanging over your head, knowing that any day there might be a knock on the door, that someone in your family might be removed, or your whole family deported, for that matter. They lived under that shadow their entire lives, and they still did remarkable, courageous things.

I have come to the floor of the Senate 125 times to tell their stories individually with color photographs, to let my colleagues know that there are people behind these numbers--real people, amazing people. And over the years that I have told their stories, more and more of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come up afterward and said: What can we do?

Well, what we can do is we can pass legislation to give these young people a chance, to give many others a chance too.

These farm workers, for goodness sakes--half of the farm workers toiling in America today are undocumented. We don't think twice about whether we are going to eat the fruit that they pick or the vegetables they deliver to the market. We take it for granted that it will be there. Many of these people have spent a lifetime working for dirt wages in miserable jobs that many Americans wouldn't consider.

To give them a chance to become legal in America is a reflection on who we are.

I know my critics will say: Aren't you paying any attention to the southern border?

I am. There is a lot to be done. Right now, we are dealing in Del Rio, TX, with thousands of Haitians who were lured by some of these smugglers and others to come to that port in the hope of being able to enter the United States. That is not happening in most cases. Many of them are even being returned to Haiti.

It doesn't solve the individual family problem but addresses the reality of immigration in America today. There are certain fundamentals we need in any immigration system. We won't get those fundamentals with the current laws.

What are they? Basically, we need border security. In an age of terrorism and drugs, we need to know who is coming into this country and whether they are bringing anything with them that will hurt anyone. Secondly, we should never knowingly allow a dangerous person to come in the United States or to stay in an undocumented status, period. And number three, America cannot absorb, at any given time, everyone who wants to come and live here. We have to have an orderly process, one that reflects our values, particularly for those who are seeking asylee and refugee status.

The refugee issue was brought home to us a few days ago in Afghanistan, where families in that country, who had helped American soldiers in every way that they could and risked their own lives, asked for refuge in the United States. The outpouring of support for those refugees outweighed the numbers of critics and cynics, and I am glad because I think that reflects who we really are.

In the next few hours and days, we will be preparing an alternative approach to the Parliamentarian in the hopes that it can be included in reconciliation and not be stopped again by the filibuster, which has held it in the past.

I see my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, has arrived.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate will continue the important work of confirming President Biden's judicial nominees.

From the moment President Biden entered office, Senate Democrats have worked closely with his administration to identify nominees with impeccable credentials and extensive experience. Together, we have worked to restore balance to our Nation's Federal courts by confirming nominees with diverse professional and demographic backgrounds.

Today, I would like to speak in support of three such nominees: David Estudillo, nominated to the Western

District of Washington; Angel Kelley, nominated to the District of Massachusetts; and Veronica Rossman, nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge David Estudillo is a native son of Washington State who has devoted his entire legal career to serving his community. He was born in Sunnyside, WA, where his parents run a small grocery store bearing the family's name. His mom and dad first arrived in the United States in the 1960s as agricultural workers through the Bracero program. Inspired by his family's determination and tenacious work ethic, Judge Estudillo decided to pursue a career in law. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Washington and has since practiced law in the State where he is now nominated to serve.

Since 2015, Judge Estudillo has served as a Grant County Superior judge. When he ran for reelection in 2016, his record as a litigator and a judge earned him broad support within Grant County and throughout the State. He received endorsements from the Grant County Democratic and Republican Parties, as well as all nine State supreme court justices.

Before his appointment to the bench, Judge Estudillo served as a litigator for 16 years. He spent much of that time as an immigration attorney, a role in which he assisted his neighbors with asylum applications and helped explain the complexities of immigration law at a host of community forums.

Over the course of his judicial career, Judge Estudillo has presided over nearly 50 jury and bench trials that have gone to final verdict or judgment. He will be more than prepared to take on the demanding work of the district court from day one. Judge Estudillo has the strong support of his home State Senators, Senators Murray and Cantwell, and received a ``Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. He also received a strong, 15-7 bipartisan vote in the Judiciary Committee.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination to the Western District of Washington.

Today, the Senate will also vote on Judge Angel Kelley's nomination to the Federal District Court of Massachusetts. A graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, Judge Kelley has the credentials, experience, and temperament needed to effectively serve the people of Massachusetts.

Prior to her appointment to the Massachusetts State court in 2009, Judge Kelley was a prolific litigator who devoted her practice to public service. She worked as a Federal prosecutor, an attorney for indigent juvenile defendants, and as a senior litigator for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, where she helped represent the families of the 87 Port Authority employees who tragically lost their lives on 9/11.

With 13 years of judicial experience, Judge Kelley has handled both civil and criminal cases and presided over more than 100 trials. At every turn, Judge Kelley has demonstrated the qualities we expect from the best of jurists: thoughtfulness, evenhandedness, and impartiality.

Judge Kelley has the strong support of her home State Senators, Senators Warren and Markey, and received a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. Like Judge Estudillo, Judge Kelley received a bipartisan 15-7 vote in committee, a testament to her qualifications and commitment to the rule of law.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting Judge Kelley's nomination.

Finally, the Senate will also consider today the nomination of Veronica Rossman to a Colorado seat on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. With her extensive appellate experience in both private practice and as a Federal public defender, Ms. Rossman will be an outstanding addition to the Tenth Circuit.

She has spent the majority of her career at the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Colorado and Wyoming, where she has handled and supervised over 100 criminal appellate matters arising out of every judicial district in the Tenth Circuit.

As I have said many times, former public defenders, like Ms. Rossman, offer a crucial perspective that is often underrepresented within our Federal judiciary. And I applaud President Biden and Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper for supporting her nomination.

In private practice, Ms. Rossman specialized in complex civil litigation, including appellate cases and matters involving antitrust law and intellectual property law. She has received a ``Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association and earned bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Rossman is a seasoned practitioner in Federal courts, and she is well prepared to serve on the Tenth Circuit. I look forward to supporting her nomination, and I encourage my colleagues to join me.

During the first 8 months of the Biden administration, this Senate has made tremendous progress in confirming to the bench individuals who have dedicated their careers to defending the rule of law.

With the three nominees before the Senate today, we can continue building on that progress and bring our Federal judiciary closer to reflecting the full diversity of the American experience.

Vote on Kelley Nomination

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I rise to speak to 9/11, the 20th anniversary, but before that, I would like to address some of the remarks made by the minority leader just a few moments ago.

He discussed, in the context of the Biden Presidency, what he called a ``reckless decision to retreat from Afghanistan with an arbitrary deadline.'' What the Senator failed to include was the efforts made last year, before Joe Biden was elected President, by the previous President, Republican Donald Trump, through his Secretary of State, Pompeo, in direct negotiation with the Taliban, to establish the deadlines for the evacuation of Afghanistan. The idea didn't come with the new President, Joe Biden; the idea started under

the previous Republican President, Donald Trump, who sent our Secretary of State to directly negotiate with the Taliban leaders.

One of the things that they negotiated, incidentally--I want to make a record of it--was the release of 5,000 prisoners by the Afghan Government the Taliban wanted released, and President Trump negotiated their release.

Now, the Republican leader in the Senate comes and notes the fact that four Guantanamo prisoners are now in positions of power in the Taliban administration. Well, of course, that speaks for itself. But honesty would require us to note the fact that they were among the very same Taliban team President Trump negotiated with last year and now have positions of authority. There is no blame for President Biden in that score.

To say that we were naive toward the Taliban is to ignore the obvious. President Trump negotiated an agreement with them. If we would hold to a deadline for leaving Afghanistan, they would make certain that American forces were spared attacks during that period of time. That was part of the conversation. That was part of the negotiation. That in and of itself was a positive thing, but it also held us to a deadline to keep our troops safe.

The notion of working with and negotiating with the Taliban started with President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo under the President.

As to whether the situation in the evacuation was entirely avoidable, I am not certain there was a playbook left by President Trump when he left office as to how he would have handled that evacuation.

I will say this for President Biden: I believe, as he did, that it was time for this war to come to an end. There were 2,461 American body bags--American lives lost in the war in Afghanistan. More than 20,000 of our troops were seriously injured during the course of that war. There was $2 trillion spent in 20 years on a war that seemed like it would never end. And we spent most of that money in an effort to build up an Afghan security force that would take care of itself so America could come home. And what happened? As soon as the United States said there would be an end to this, sadly, many of these Afghan soldiers-- uniformed, paid for, and equipped by the U.S. taxpayers--threw their guns down and surrendered, and then, of course, the administration of the Government in Afghanistan left the scene completely.

So I am one who voted for the invasion of Afghanistan for obvious reasons. That is where Osama bin Laden was supposedly hiding out with al-Qaida, responsible for the 9/11 atrocity, which we have noted the 20th anniversary of this week. But I don't believe anyone on the floor in this Senate envisioned a war that would go on to be the longest war in American history. That is what happened.

The second issue raised by the Republican leader notes that the American Rescue Plan was a recipe for inflation, and he called it a ``tax hike upon working families.'' Let's clear up that record.

The American Rescue Plan was suggested by President Biden. The goals of that plan were several. The goals included the administration of coronavirus vaccines across America, which has taken place in one of the most effective efforts ever to make it available. I am sorry that some 30 percent of Americans refuse to be vaccinated, but it has nothing to do with the availability of the vaccine. President Biden kept his word to bring that vaccine to the American people, and that was part of the American Rescue Plan. I don't know if the Senator from Kentucky is questioning the wisdom of that, but it is a fact.

The second thing it did was to provide a $1,400 payment, if you will remember, that had been promised by President Trump, and we completed and kept that promise with the American Rescue Plan, so dollar assistance for families across America, including working families, let me add. And also then came the child tax credits. It was the most extraordinary effort made by our government to help families raising children--cash payments through the end of this year. To argue that this is somehow a tax on working families is to ignore the fact that it is the biggest tax break in the history of this country for working families.

How many Republicans supported us for the $1,400 cash payment to families, for the plan to administer the vaccine across America, for the help for families with children, for more assistance for businesses? Not one. Not one Republican vote in support of the American Rescue Plan.

To hear the theory that was given just a few moments ago by the Republican leader is to ignore the obvious: That plan was essential to this country coming to grips with this pandemic and starting to get this economy back on its feet.

The Senator from Kentucky has characterized our reconciliation bill as reckless, and he talks about the massive tax increases. He forgets one particular element. What we are doing is reversing the tax breaks given by the Trump administration 4 years ago to the wealthiest people in America. Yes, their taxes will go up. But President Biden has made it clear that there will be no tax increases for anyone making less than $400,000 a year. So if we are talking about a new tax burden, it is on people who can certainly afford to pay, and it reverses the tax cut which many of the Republicans--I think virtually all of them--at the time voted for.

Madam President, I want to tell you about an extraordinary person from my State. Dan Shanower grew up in Naperville, just outside of Chicago--one of five kids in his family. In college, he spent a semester at Washington, DC, as part of American University's Washington Semester Program. He managed to become an intern here on Capitol Hill for U.S. Senator Charles Percy from Illinois.

An opportunity like that can change your outlook on life. I know it changed mine when I was an intern for Senator Paul Douglas. It changed Dan Shanower's mind, and he started thinking about what he could do by way of public service.

He wasn't interested in politics, though. So after college, he enlisted in the Navy. He became an intelligence officer. He served in the Persian Gulf war and in assignments around the globe.

On September 11, 2001, Dan Shanower was on duty at the Pentagon. He was hurriedly gathering papers to brief his superiors on the attack on the World Trade Center, when American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and took his life.

Navy CDR Dan Shanower was one of 125 servicemembers and civilians who lost their lives in the Pentagon on 9/11; one of the 2,977 Americans lost to the terrorist attacks that fatal day. He was 40 years old. Two years later, the people of Naperville, IL, dedicated a memorial to his honor on the Riverwalk, on the banks of the DuPage River. It was one of America's first 9/11 memorials. This past Saturday, the victims and heroes of 9/11 were remembered at the memorial in Naperville.

Twenty years after the attacks, the remembrances of that year seem to contain a new kind of sadness, not only for those who perished--rest their souls--but for all we have lost in the years since. Amid our shock and grief following 9/11, Americans were sustained by acts of heroism, sacrifice, compassion, and a deep sense of national unity.

I watch ``60 Minutes'' every week. Last night, I saw the program that they dedicated to the New York Fire Department and 9/11. It was touching, emotional, and heartbreaking. I had tears in my eyes as they told the stories of the 343 firemen who went into those buildings to rescue the people who were there. They told their stories even with their voices from radio transmissions and the voices of those victims in the building praying that someone would rescue them. It was a touching moment and a reminder of what true courage looks like.

We have a responsibility now to ask a basic question about our responsibility when it comes to the people in this country. Do you remember the national unity that we felt after 9/11? That tragedy brought us together. Imagine then--fast-forward, if you will, to January 6, 2021, when the insurrectionist mob overran this Capitol.

I was in this Capitol on 9/11, meeting just off the floor. We heard that the first plane had crashed into the World Trade Center, and we went and turned on the television to see if there was any further news and saw in real time

the second plane crash into the other tower.

Then a third plane flew into the Pentagon, taking CDR Dan Shanower's life. We only knew from the black, billowing smoke across the Mall that something terrible had happened, and we didn't know what was next. Someone came in and said: We are evacuating the building.

Everybody went pouring out on the east side of the Capitol in front of the Supreme Court building.

Tourists came up to me and said: You work here?

I said: Sure.

Where are we supposed to go? Where is it safe?

I didn't know what to tell them. There was no Capitol Visitor Center or anyplace. I directed them to the train station, the Metro station blocks away.

In the days that followed 9/11, we learned about the heroes of Flight 93. While we were standing on that lawn, thank goodness those passengers stood up and made a difference. They sacrificed their lives to stop that plane from crashing into the Capitol or the White House or whatever its final destination might have been.

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times did a special column, ``Remembering 9-11'' and particularly Todd Beamer. Todd Beamer was a Wheaton College grad who was a passenger on Flight 93. He managed to get in touch, using an Airfone, with Lisa Jefferson, and they spoke for about 15 minutes as Todd described what was going on in that airplane, and she told him what had happened at the Trade Center and the Pentagon. It was Todd Beamer who made that memorable statement ``Let's roll'' when they tried to take over the plane and gave up their lives in the process. Those were the true heroes.

It is heartbreaking that 20 years later, the gravest threat to America is not just the international terrorism but some terrorism that comes from within. Al-Qaida did not succeed in attacking this Capitol, but 9 months ago, homegrown American terrorists did.

As we speak, workers are preparing to reinstall a security fence around the Capitol to protect it from another gathering of violent White nationalists expected in Washington this weekend.

Former President George W. Bush spoke for many of us on Saturday when he said that the terrorists of 9/11 and the violent extremists at home may come from different cultures--these are his words: ``But in their disdain for pluralism, in their disregard for human life, in their determination to defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our duty to confront them.''

We have work of great importance before us. In the next few weeks, the Congress needs to find a plan to fund the government, protect our economy, protect the full faith and credit of the United States, make sure we pay our bills on time as promised. And isn't it ironic that there is resistance to increasing the debt ceiling from the Republican side of the aisle when the increase in the debt ceiling is to pay for the debts incurred under President Donald Trump? It is his administration we are paying for with this vote. And the Republicans, many of whom supported him and continue to, don't want to balance the books and accept that responsibility.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, this past Saturday, at 9 p.m., Chicago Police Officer Ella French was shot and killed during a traffic stop on the Chicago South Side.

Her death is devastating. Officer French was 29 years old. She had served as a member of the Chicago Police Department since 2018.

Her brother described her as the epitome of a good Samaritan. A fellow officer said of her: ``She truly showed the community that she loved them and would do anything for them.''

Officer French's partner was also shot and critically wounded. We pray for his recovery.

Two men have been charged by the Cook County State Attorney's Office in the shooting of these officers. A third man has been charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois for conspiracy to violate Federal firearms laws.

I hope that justice is delivered swiftly and fairly for the perpetrators of this horrible crime.

And let me be clear. As devastating as her death is, scores of individuals are shot every week in Chicago, and many lose their lives. For each of their families, the loss is just as intense as the loss of Officer French.

And as heartbreaking as Officer French's death is, it is also infuriating. We learned yesterday from the Chicago U.S. Attorney's Office that the gun used to murder Officer French was straw-purchased from a gun dealer in Indiana.

What is a straw purchase? It happens when a person who can pass a background check buys a gun and gives it to a person who can't.

Straw purchases have long been the way that guns have been funneled into the hands of those with felony convictions in Chicago, then to the streets, then to deadly incidents.

According to the charges filed yesterday by the U.S. attorney, an Indiana man bought the handgun from a man in Hammond, IN, and gave to it a person with a felony conviction, who allegedly used it this last weekend to kill Officer French.

For years, I have been fighting to toughen our laws against straw purchases. Right now, straw-purchasing is treated--listen to this--as a Federal paperwork violation for lying on a Federal gun purchase form. Charges are rarely brought, and when they are, the sentences are often just a matter of months. That needs to change.

I have joined with Senator Leahy of Vermont and Senator Collins of Maine to introduce the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, a bipartisan bill that would make it an explicit Federal crime, carrying felony penalties when a person straw-purchases a firearm.

We need to take this type of gun trafficking seriously. It is time for us to stop treating straw purchases like a paperwork misdemeanor.

As we have learned in the death of Officer French, it is a deadly act and should be punished accordingly.

Officer French's death is also a call to action for the strike force recently set up by the Department of Justice to crack down on regional firearms trafficking in Chicago.

I met with Attorney General Garland in Chicago when he launched the strike force 2 weeks ago, and I have written to him now urging that the strike force immediately prioritize the investigation and prosecution of straw purchases like the one that took the life of Officer French.

The strike force was established to keep a sustained focus on firearms trafficking in Chicago. That focus should include stopping straw purchases and holding the perpetrators accountable.

I look forward to working with the Justice Department and with my colleagues to find ways to crack down on the deadly gun violence that straw purchasers help to fuel.

Opioid Epidemic

Mr. President, 2020 set a record for drug overdose deaths in America. More than 93,000 lives were lost in the year 2020. In Illinois, 3,500 of our neighbors died of overdose, a 27-percent spike from the year before.

How did we get to this point? Who is responsible for this?

There is one clear culprit: the pharmaceutical industry. For years, opioid manufacturers deliberately lied about the risks of their drugs-- deliberately. These companies have claimed their pain killers should be prescribed for common aches and pains. They even downplayed their addictive nature even though their research showed that it was a very real danger.

These companies then shipped mountains of these pills to every corner of America. They aggressively promoted them to doctors, with the backing of dark money organizations.

This epidemic wasn't created by some infectious virus; it was created by corporate greed--corporate greed. In the words of Richard Sackler of Purdue Pharma his company chose to flood our streets with ``a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition.'' It ended up burying the users.

As a result, 500,000 Americans families have had to bury loved ones who died of opioid overdoses and addictions since the start of the opioid epidemic--500,000 Americans, a figure in the same range as the 610,000 Americans we have lost to COVID-19. The numbers are numbing.

From 2006 to 2014, drug companies like Purdue Pharma inundated the country with 100 billion pain pills--100 billion. Let that soak in. That is roughly 300 opioid pills for every living American over that time.

They flooded communities like the rural county of Hardin in downstate Illinois. They received enough opioids in Hardin County for each resident to have a nearly 3-month supply.

Some counties in West Virginia and Kentucky had twice that level of oversupply.

One pharma rep even bragged: ``I don't know how they can even house this many bottles.''

Another wrote:

Keep `em comin'! Flyin' out of here. It's like people are

addicted to these things. Oh, wait, people are . . .

That level of greed and disregard for human suffering is an outrage, and the companies responsible must be held accountable.

You may be asking: Why haven't we done that already?

It is a good question--because not only was the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration aware of this obscene volume of overproduction; they authorized it. They gave permission.

The Drug Enforcement Administration of the U.S. Federal Government is responsible for determining the amount of opioid pills allowed to be put on the market each year. They are effectively the gatekeeper for these drug manufacturers and for years--years--they allowed opioid production quotas to keep increasing.

Between 1993 and 2015, production of oxycodone increased 39-fold; hydrocodone, 12-fold; fentanyl, 25-fold.

In 2016, America's pharmaceutical industry produced 14 billion opioid doses in 2016 alone, enough for every adult American to have a 3-week supply of opioids.

Think about that. Authorized by the Federal Government, requested by the pharmaceutical industry, we put a quota that Pharma asked for to produce 14 billion opioid pills in a year, enough for every American to have a 3-week supply.

Any wonder that we had an opioid epidemic?

I pressed the Drug Enforcement Administration on this issue years ago, when I learned of this. I asked them: How can you approve these ever-increasing quotas. Pharma is insatiable. They will ask for as many pills as they can possibly push into the American people's families, especially when DEA had data that showed this overproduction was fueling a deadly national drug crisis.

A couple years ago I worked with my Republican colleague, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, to start stemming the tide of addictive drugs. We passed a bipartisan bill that gave the DEA the authority they said they needed to set commonsense production levels.

We changed the law so the DEA must--must--consider abuse, overdose deaths, and the public health impact when determining opioid quotas.

Our approach worked, partially. Over the past 5 years, the DEA has lowered opioid quotas by an average of 60 percent.

The DEA, this Federal Agency, will soon be proposing its 2022 quotas, and I am sending a letter urging them to use their new authority and common sense to rein in the greed of Big Pharma.

In the face of all this suffering, new legal challenges have been brought to hold Big Pharma accountable for death and despair of the opioid epidemic. Thousands of lawsuits from States, counties, cities, and victims have been consolidated in one Federal court in Cleveland,

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the Klobuchar amendment, the following amendments be in order and that the amendments be reported by number, with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment: Capito, No. 3284; Boozman, No. 3103; and Braun, No. 3114.

I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, at my request this amendment incorporates language reflecting Democratic priorities funded by the budget resolution, including smart and effective border security measures like nonintrusive inspection systems, hiring additional Customs officers for screening at lawful ports of entry, hiring additional immigration judges and asylum officers to reduce backlogs and enhance the efficiency and fairness of the asylum system.

I thank the Senator from Kansas for accepting these changes, and I support his amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3795

Mr. President, this has been a historic day in the U.S. Senate. We started by passing a bipartisan infrastructure bill that made history, and now the Senator from Missouri is finally coming around to supporting the COPS Hiring Program that was created by Senator Joe Biden in 1994.

Since its creation, the COPS Program--listen to this--has helped over 13,000 local police departments hire over 134,000 officers. We believe in it on the Democratic side. We are glad you have come around.

We sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee, signed by 37 Democrats, for the COPS Program. Do you know how many Republicans signed the letter? None. But with your amendment tonight, clearly you have come around. The Republicans are joining the Democrats in supporting Joe Biden's COPS Program. You are right: We need 100,000 more police. And we stand with Joe Biden's program and are glad that you have joined us.

Vote on Amendment No. 2734

Mr. President, imagine it is 3 in the morning, in a desert, on our border, and the Border Patrol is out there and finds a family--a mother and a father and two small children.

What do they do when they are 50 miles away from a port of entry?

They obviously take them to that port of entry, but according to the Marshall amendment, they can't do it.

Listen to his language: ``[p]rohibiting migrants who have not received a negative COVID-19 test from being transported.''

They can't be transported out of the desert because they don't have a negative COVID-19 test? And what if they show up at the detention center--and I have mentioned this to Dr. Marshall already--and there is a new person walking in who happens to be a mother who is in labor and needs to go to a hospital immediately?

According to your language, they cannot be transported unless they have a negative COVID-19 test.

I would say to you, Doctor, that is not good medicine; that is not humane. I asked you to change those provisions. I gave you language to do that. I am sorry you didn't.

Vote on Amendment No. 3797

Madam President, we all agree on one basic thing: No one who is dangerous to the United States should be allowed to come to this country. And those who are here and not citizens who are guilty of a serious crime should be removed from this country.

That is the highest law enforcement priority not only of those gathered here but also of the Biden administration.

The Hagerty amendment, though, makes it clear that he is seeking to increase funding for detention and deportation of more undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of any crime in the United States-- not a serious crime, not a violent crime, any crime--including nonviolent misdemeanors.

The ICE Agency has sufficient funds to carry out its law enforcement function, with a total budget of over $8 billion. This overly broad amendment does not distinguish between the crimes committed by individuals, the serious ones versus those that are not.

It would divert ICE from focusing its resources on the truly serious public safety and national security threats. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Madam President, the Senator from Mississippi has stated her case explicitly: If a prosecutor fails to prosecute a case, the town or community that he represents as prosecutor--the town or community--will be denied Federal funds. Think about this. Under the Senator's amendment, if a district attorney decides not to charge a certain property offense, even in just one case, the whole town will lose its eligibility for Federal funding under programs like the Violence Against Women Act--we know what that is; it is certainly a refuge for many people who are victims of domestic violence--or the Bulletproof Vest Grant Act to protect law enforcement in that same community. They would lose their opportunity for Federal grants under the Senator's amendment that she is offering.

I think we ought to think carefully about this. Prosecutors decide whether to proceed with a case or not proceed based on the amount of evidence, the likelihood of conviction, the possibility of securing a plea bargain for a lesser offense. To deny a community Federal funds--

--or the police--I hope all of my colleagues would oppose this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3568

Madam President, the Grassley amendment would exclude from a path to citizenship any undocumented immigrant who has been convicted of any crime or who has been merely charged with a crime. This is a broad exclusion, applies to any criminal conviction no matter how long ago it took place, how minor the crime, and to any criminal charge even if the individual is ultimately exonerated.

This exclusion is also unnecessary because every legalization bill pending in the Senate requires a criminal background check and excludes individuals convicted of a serious crime. For example, the bipartisan House-passed Dream and Promise Act would bar an immigrant from receiving legal status if they have been convicted of any felony, any drug offense, or any crime of domestic violence.

Also, we have to accept the obvious: Crossing the border illegally can be a crime, if one wants to be charged with that. This amendment is inconsistent with due process and does nothing to increase public safety.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Vote on Amendment No. 3650

Mr. President, I attended the same classified briefing as the Republican Senate leader, and I listened carefully as the administration presented the realities of Afghanistan, and I was drawn to a historical analogy that was best captured in a short verse by Rudyard Kipling.

It goes like this: When you're wounded and down on the Afghan plain, and the women come out to cut up your remains, just roll on your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your God like a soldier.

That stark verse was a description of what happened to the British Empire when they felt that moving into Afghanistan would be part of their record of conquest. They learned otherwise.

The retreat from Kabul has been reported over and over, but it basically was a retreat that killed every remaining British soldier, every member of their family, save one. They wanted one person, the Afghans did, to return to Queen Victoria and tell her what happened when they threw the British out of Afghanistan. A similar story can be told by the Soviet Union--now Russia--when they occupied Afghanistan with visions of changing that country forever to a Russian communist mode. They left bitterly disappointed, paying a heavy price.

So 20 years ago, in the wake of 9/11, with 3,000 innocent Americans dead, we debated the issue on this floor as to whether the United States would follow the British and Russians into Afghanistan.

I was here. I was asked to vote, and I remember why I voted yes. It was simple. Those responsible for 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans were holed up in Afghanistan building their forces to strike us again. Would we respond? The answer was obvious. Yes. No one gets away with that sort of an attack on the United States, and I voted for us to send our forces into Afghanistan. I dare say that neither I nor anyone else who voted for that decision ever dreamed that 20 years later we would still be in Afghanistan having lost 2,000 American lives of the brave American women and men who served there; tens of thousands of people injured, trillions of American dollars spent, with virtually nothing to show for it. What we learned, the bitter lesson for America, as it was for the Great Britain and the Russians, is that Afghanistan has no appetite for outsiders.

We tried to bring them dramatic, positive improvements in their culture and education, the liberation of women, creating new opportunities, and maybe we had some marginal success. But it is a battle when you try to change a nation's ethic, and we learned it the hard way.

At the briefing today, one of our colleagues whom I respect very much, Senator Kaine from Virginia, I thought asked the most important question about the current situation in Afghanistan. He said it was his understanding that the United States had spent billions, maybe more, in the training and equipping of the Afghan military forces supporting the government and that we had in fact trained and equipped over 100,000, maybe as many as 300,000, of these Afghan security forces, and now they are losing territory and melting away into the landscape when they are under attack by the Taliban.

Senator Kaine said: I understand that there are only tens of thousands of Taliban and hundreds of thousands of Afghan security forces, and it appears we cannot hold our ground despite all the training and all the money. Was this is a failure of training or more? And those representing the administration were very candid. It is not a failure of training. It is an issue that, frankly, cannot be accomplished.

So when I hear the Senator from Kentucky coming to the floor and begging us to stay, to what end? For what purpose? Senator Kaine, myself, and others invited him and the entire Senate to openly debate this question on the authorization for use of force in Afghanistan. There was resistance.

And the idea of actually, finally, leaving Afghanistan after 20 years, it wasn't an original Joe Biden idea. If you remember, it was Republican President Donald Trump, who actively engaged in the negotiation and picking a target date for our troops to be gone. He tried and wanted to achieve that before he left office. He didn't, but it was clearly his intent. So to blame the Biden administration for this decision, frankly, it is a decision that has been obvious for almost 10 years. There comes a point when we have to acknowledge that we cannot ask another American to die in a vain effort to change Afghanistan into a modern nation. It will only come when the Afghan people reach that conclusion

Senate Agenda

Mr. President, you know well, and I do, too, that we are usually not in session in this week of August. It is usually a time to head back home, meet our constituents, eat our way through our State Fairs, and enjoy some downtime with our families. This year, I was looking forward to a visit by some of my grandkids to Springfield when Loretta and I have a week or two of just getting to know the kids again.

We didn't get to see them much last year because of COVID-19, and I was looking forward to the opportunity this year, but because we are in session I was unable to. We hope maybe in a few days that changes.

I think about those grandkids, all of my grandkids--six of them at this point, I am proud to say--and what kind of world we are going to be leaving them.

A new school year is right around the corner. Along with all the normal supplies, they will be buying face masks. For a young child, this pandemic must be confusing and scary. As a parent, you want to be honest with them, but you want to reassure them that everything is going to be OK. That goes for all the challenges of our day, starting with climate change.

This morning, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its first report in 8 years. It is an alarm bell to the world, warning that our climate is changing much faster than we anticipated.

I would like to read a couple paragraphs from this morning's New York Times because they summarize these U.N. reports and did that summary so well.

``Nations have delayed curbing their fossil-fuel emissions for so long that they can no longer stop global warming from intensifying over the next 30 years, though there is still a short window to prevent the most harrowing future, a major new United Nations scientific report has concluded.

Humans have already heated the planet by . . . 2 degrees Fahrenheit, since the 19th century, largely by burning coal, oil, and gas for energy. And the consequences can be felt across the globe: This summer alone, blistering heat waves have killed hundreds of people in the United States and Canada, floods have devastated Germany and China, and wildfires have waged out of control in Siberia, Turkey, and Greece.''

So what do we say to our kids about this? Dad, granddad, what are you doing about this?

How do we reassure our kids that the planet they inherit is still going to be livable. Words aren't enough. Denial certainly isn't a plan. We need to do something. And we need to do what generations of Americans before us have done: face reality and face the challenges squarely.

So I ask myself and all of us: What are we doing to make sure that my grandkids and all of America's kids will be OK?

We are going to have a chance to answer that question this week as the Senate begins to debate on a proposal

that will define the world my grandkids and everyone's kids will grow up in.

President Biden's plan to build back better is the most ambitious investment in America's future in a generation. And much of that plan is included in the budget blueprint that we will be considering in a very short time.

This budget blueprint will strengthen our Nation's economy and ensure that working families have a fighting chance and receive a fair share of the wealth that their work produces.

It will help close the income and opportunity gaps between the wealthiest among us and working families who are struggling to make it. And most importantly, it will give American workers the tools they need to outcompete any country in the 21st century.

I listened to the criticism of the plan by the Senator from Kentucky, and I thought: If we don't embark on an ambitious plan to deal with climate change and to move this economy in the right direction for working families in this country, then, frankly, we are right in preparing, as some are, to accept a second-place finish for the United States of America. I think that is tragic. I don't think it is consistent with who we are as a people.

The proposal by President Biden will build on a winning economic strategy we started earlier this year with the American Rescue Plan.

Mr. President, you remember that American Rescue Plan and I do, too, because last year, in the year 2020, when we were facing this pandemic on two, three, or four separate occasions, emergency bills came before us proposed by the Trump administration, negotiated with a Democratic and Republican Congress, presented to us on the floor, and there was virtual unanimity. Both parties stood together in the midst of a pandemic crisis to do what was necessary so that America could move forward. And then came the election and then came the Big Lie and then came the disintegration of this bipartisanship

When it was Joe Biden's turn to come up with the American Rescue Plan, not a single Republican Senator, not one Republican Congressman, would vote yes. Not one.

So what was in the plan that was so objectionable? Could it have been the money invested so that we would administer the coronavirus vaccines to every American successfully? That was in the plan.

How about more money that we put in that plan for businesses so they could reenlist their workforce and start up again at the end of this pandemic? That was in the plan.

How about the money that we promised American families, $1,400 cash payment, promised by Trump, delivered by Biden? That was in the plan. And not a single Republican would support it--not one. All of a sudden rescue plans became a partisan measure in the U.S. Senate and the House. The Republicans walked away from it.

Well, let me tell you what the American Rescue Plan has done. It has revived our Nation's economy. We are on the course for a historic recovery. In the first 6 months, President Biden's economy has added nearly 700,000 jobs a month, on average. During the first part of the year, our economy grew at the fastest rate in nearly 40 years. The American Rescue Plan, which not a single Republican would support, worked because it provided financial relief to the people who need it the most: working families. And that relief has benefited everyone.

As part of this package--and you know it full well, Senator, because you were one of the authors--we enacted a child tax credit that we believe, fingers crossed, will cut child poverty in America by half. Think about that for a moment. By half.

With the Build Back Better Plan, President Biden is proposing to extend that credit and reduction in child poverty. That enhanced child tax credit is already changing the lives of tens of millions of families across America. In my home State of Illinois, there are hundreds of thousands of parents who are now able to fill their gas tanks and buy groceries because of it.

Let me tell you about one: Lydia. Here is what she wrote: ``With the child tax credit, I'll be able to buy my kids their school supplies, clothes, what they need to get back to school, and put groceries on the table.''

In the wealthiest Nation on Earth, no parent should have to choose between clothing her children and feeding them.

President Biden's plan to build back better is a blueprint for America's future, a future where every family knows the safety and dignity of financial security, and every child can reach their full potential.

I look forward to a vigorous debate in the Senate on these and other proposals in the budget blueprint. But right now I want to speak specifically to the funding the budget resolution provides for the committee I chair, the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I see the chairman of the Budget Committee has come to the floor, Senator Sanders, and I thank you for crafting this important bill.

(Ms. WARREN assumed the Chair.)

This proposal will make historic investments in fixing our broken immigration system. It has been 35 years--35 years--since we have had any meaningful changes in our immigration law. If you go back to Ronald Reagan as President, that was the last time--Simpson-Mazzoli--names those of us who study the subject remember. Most people don't, I am afraid. Yet that was the last time.

Is there anyone who can say with a straight face that we don't have a broken immigration system in this country? We do.

The proposal will give us historic investments in fixing it. These reforms have the potential to generate more than a trillion dollars of economic growth over the next decade. I listened as the Senator from Kentucky, the Republican leader, dismissed this whole conversation as ``blanket amnesty''--blanket amnesty--and correlated all immigration problems to the current challenge, and it is a challenge, that we face on our southern border.

The reforms that we have in mind will provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. Excuse me if I take this one personally, but it was 20 years ago that I introduced the DREAM Act in the U.S. Senate. As I said jokingly, at the time, if you asked people, ``Who are the Dreamers?'' they would say a British rock group--right?--led by a fellow named Freddie.

Well, maybe they were right then, but 20 years later, when you say ``Dreamers''--and people say it frequently--you know who we are talking about. They are kids brought to the United States by their parents, who grew up in this country, pledged allegiance to that flag every day in their school classrooms, and believed in their heart of hearts that they were Americans to the core, only to learn when the parents worked up the courage to tell them when they were teenagers that they were undocumented. They were kids without a country.

The DREAM Act said: We are going to give you a chance, young man, young woman. You can earn your way to legal status and citizenship. Keep your nose clean. Don't get in trouble with the law. Pay the necessary fees and wait, and we will give you that chance to become part of America's future.

And even with that uncertainty in their lives, with the inability to qualify for even Federal Government loans to go to college, they have written some dramatic stories. We all know them. Those of us in public life have met them. They are doctors and nurses and dentists. They are on the frontlines of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. They want to enlist, and some already have enlisted, in our military. They are lawyers. They are entrepreneurs. They are amazing, and they did it all never certain that they were going to be accepted in America.

According to Senator McConnell, they are part of this blanket amnesty of these immigrants who want to come to our country. Forgive me, Senator, but they are much more than that.

This measure would also take care of temporary protected status people--people in the United States who came here because of a crisis in their own countries. We accepted them. They have lived here for 20 years and, now, frankly, they are caught in the middle. We give them a chance to earn their way to citizenship.

And farm workers--do you know we have 2.4 million farm workers? These are men and women who get out and do the dirty, dangerous, hot work that Americans will never queue up to do. And they do it because we want fruits and vegetables on our table. We want

meat and poultry processed safely, and Americans won't do the work. Let's just be very candid about it. And I know this based on all the people who come to my office. These farm workers have been used by our country for years to pick our crops and deliver them safely to our tables, and we have a bill that we put together, with the growers and the workers in total agreement, that gives these farm workers a path to citizenship.

When we had a hearing on it in the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the Republican Senators said: Oh, just what we need--instant amnesty for farm workers.

Do you know what that instant amnesty is like? You have to show that you have spent 10 years of your life working in the fields before you even qualify for the 9-year process that can bring you to citizenship. Nineteen years--instant amnesty? No, it isn't.

And, again, other essential immigrant workers who have been saving our lives and keeping our families fed during this pandemic. They are called essential workers, but the categories that created these essential workers were defined by Donald Trump--not us, not Democrats. And we believe essential workers--whom we thanked profusely during this pandemic--if they are undocumented, should have a chance at citizenship. Those are the groups we are trying to work to bring into a full-time status.

This measure would expand funding for commonsense measures to make our system safer for everyone by improving the process of asylum claims, reducing immigration court backlogs, and starting to secure our southern border.

More than 200,000 DACA recipients are essential critical infrastructure workers. Tens of thousands of these young people have been saving our loved one's lives as nurses, doctors, and medical professionals. Hundreds of thousands of undocumented farm workers will account for about half of our Nation's farm workforce and do backbreaking labor every day to put food on our tables. These members of our communities have more than earned their path to citizenship.

I am going to get into the weeds a bit here, but I want to say, under a Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, any provision included in reconciliation must have a substantial and direct impact on the budget, and this impact cannot be merely incidental. That is kind of the roadmap for this budget resolution. I am sure the Senator from Vermont knows it well.

Let's be clear. A pathway to citizenship as part of our immigration package on the budget reconciliation bill would have a substantial and direct impact on our budget. A pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and immigrants with temporary protected status would have a budgetary cost of approximately $42.4 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is a critical component of our economic recovery. There is no world in which this budgetary impact is merely incidental--$42.4 billion.

Creating a pathway to citizenship, though, is not just a matter of cost. There are also benefits. It would boost our Nation's GDP by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. It would create 400,000 new jobs and increase every American's annual wage by an estimated $600--win, win, and win.

There is ample precedent for passing this important legislation through budget reconciliation. The Republicans have used this process to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for drilling and enacted a $1.9 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and corporations.

In addition, in 2005, Senate Republicans used reconciliation to dramatically increase the number of lawful permanent residents by an estimated 3.2 million over 10 years. Now they are saying it doesn't belong in reconciliation. In 2005, they put it in. This is the exact same immigration status we are proposing to give Dreamers, TPS holders, farm workers, and essential workers.

I have tried for many years to pass a path to citizenship. Republicans have obstructed bipartisan immigration reform time and time again, including filibustering the DREAM Act at least five times. This year, I convened bipartisan immigration negotiations that dragged on for months. Republicans made unreasonable demands and insisted on attaching partisan provisions that would actually cut legal immigration. Republicans have rejected commonsense measures to help secure our border

It is clear that the only viable option for passing immigration reform is through the reconciliation process. For those who claim they are concerned about our southern border, here is your chance. Here it is--to invest billions of dollars in smart and effective steps to improve border security. We need to provide a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and others who are contributing to our economy every day and will help to grow it for years to come.

I am going to close by thanking the Senator from Vermont. I don't know when I first approached him with this notion of including immigration, but from day one, Senator Sanders has been supportive of the concept and now has given us our chance. Millions, millions of people who make America better are watching and hoping that in the next days and weeks we can achieve our goal and give them a chance to find a path to citizenship and become an important part of America's future.

I yield the floor.