Floor Statements

Madam President, in response to the minority leader's statement about the changes in voting laws across America, the record speaks for itself. I believe the number is 17--17 States which have set out to specifically limit previous opportunities under law to vote.

Is it a coincidence that 17 States would do these things? I don't think so. I think it is by design. That is why the Senate Rules Committee was in Georgia today, to talk specifically about the measures that they took after the last election.

Remember, this is all being done in the context of a former President, the sorest loser in the history of the United States, and his Big Lie about what was wrong with the last election. Well, I can tell you what was not wrong with the last election. In many States, the turnout broke records. More Americans eligible to vote turned up to vote, and that is a good thing in a democracy.

When it comes to allegations of fraud, all of the money that has been spent on lawsuits, all of the allegations of voter fraud that have been investigated, it turns out to be a handful of cases, maybe a dozen out of millions of votes cast in the United States. So there is no argument for changing election voting laws based on fraud. There certainly is no argument when it comes to the outcome of the election. That was clear, and it has been to everyone except one former President for a long time. Yet the Republicans, when in control of State legislatures, are by design trying to make it more difficult for some people to vote. Why? The answer is very simple: The demographics of America are not on the side of the Republican Party.

The new voters in this country are moving away from them, away from Donald Trump, away from their party creed that they preach. Instead, they are moving to be Independents or even vote on the other side. To argue and fight against that, the Republicans in legislative settings are reducing and restricting the opportunity to vote. That is what it is all about.

The Senator from Kentucky attributes it to hysteria. It is not. It is a genuine concern over whether in this country, where democracy is our creed and our goal in every election, we have the most participation, fair participation, by eligible voters that we have ever had, and we continue to build on that.

Madam President, on a separate issue, I cannot imagine what life would be like if I were a kid growing up in America, always wondering if something I said, something I did, some action that was taken by some member of my family would result in a knock on the door and my family being torn apart, my father or mother being deported to another country. But for hundreds of thousands of young people living in America, that has been the reality of their childhood.

Most of them, brought to this country at a very early age--infants and toddlers and young people--had nothing to say about the choice of America as home, but they always assumed it was their home. They grew up in this country, went to the schools, got up every morning in the classroom and pledged allegiance to the flag, believing they were truly Americans. It wasn't, for many of them, until their teenage years that their parents sat down with them very quietly and solemnly told them: You have a challenge in your life you didn't even realize. You are undocumented. You were brought to this country by us as a little kid, and you don't have any papers. If you are challenged, if you are arrested, you could be deported. And the same thing might just happen to your mother or your father.

I can't imagine, with all of the stress of childhood and adolescence, having that worry as well. Yet, for hundreds of thousands of young people, through no fault of their own, that was part of their lives.

That came to my attention 20 years ago, a case in Chicago, which I have spoken about on the floor many times, where a young girl finally realized at the end of high school the really stark choices she had in her life, and she reached out to my office. We looked into the situation. She was brought here to the United States, born in Brazil to Korean parents, had no legal status in the United States and grew up here. She wanted to know what to do with her life, what was next for her.

The law was very harsh, but it was clear as well. At the age of 18, our law said to Tereza Lee, a young Korean girl in Chicago, you have to leave the United States for 10 years and petition to return. It didn't seem right or fair or just to her, and so I introduced the DREAM Act. That is when I came to realize Tereza's story was not unique. There were thousands just like her. Over the last 20 years, I have met a lot of them, an amazing group of young men and women who have done remarkable things with their lives with limited resources and always under the shadow of deportation.

The DREAM Act has been brought to the floor of the Senate five different times and failed--not because it didn't win a majority but because of the filibuster. So we have tried in those 20 years to get something done, and we have had our really troublesome moments. I think back to one of the worst.

Under the previous President, Donald Trump, DACA, a program created by President Obama for these Dreamers, was really an issue from the start that we begged President Trump to consider. President Obama, a friend of mine and former colleague from Illinois, told me that he spent an extra

hour in transition with President Trump in the White House, while Obama was still President. It was supposed to last an hour; it lasted 2 hours. He said to me: I spent that last hour talking about DACA and Dreamers, telling him how important it was to get this right, that these young people deserved a chance, and he listened very intently. President Obama said: ``I hope that he will help you when it comes to these Dreamers.''

The first time I ever met Donald Trump was on his Inauguration Day as President, not too far from here at a luncheon, and the first thing I said to him was, I hope you will give those Dreamers a chance to become part of America.

He said: Senator Durbin, don't worry. I am going to take care of those Dreamers.

In the first year of his Presidency, he tried to abolish the DACA Program and subject these Dreamers to deportation. It was a very dark period. For many of them, they were despondent. Several of them said they couldn't take it anymore, the pressure they were under to create a life in America under the shadow of deportation and now have a President who was really determined to make them leave America.

Well, the courts took a look at what President Trump had to do, all the way up to the Supreme Court across the street. It was Chief Justice Roberts who wrote the decision, which said the method that Donald Trump's administration used to eliminate DACA was stricken as ``arbitrary and capricious.''

So there was a new lease on life and a new opportunity for them, until Friday--when the Federal judge in Texas made the most recent ruling. On Friday night, a Federal judge in Texas issued a ruling declaring that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, was unlawful, and the judge blocked the Biden administration from approving new DACA applications, a new setback for the Dreamers.

This decision was made in response to a lawsuit filed by Republican State attorneys general. It was the culmination of a long campaign, which included the action of President Trump, by Republicans to deport the Dreamers. What is it about these young people that infuriates the Republicans so much? Well, I will tell you what I found as I have come to know them. They are some of the most amazing stories you could imagine. Not just the threat that I mentioned earlier, the shadow of deportation over their lives, but what they have done anyway--becoming doctors and nurses and teachers and engineers, serving in our Army, working for America in essential jobs in the midst of a pandemic. It is an amazing group of people. It is just the kind of people we want and need for the future of this country.

But let me state this unequivocally: The cruel and misguided decision of this court will not stand. DACA is a lawful exercise of executive prosecutorial discretion by the Department of Homeland Security. More than 800,000 young people in our country have received DACA protection, and they help save lives every day as nurses and doctors and first responders. They contribute to our economy and our future as business owners, engineers, and teachers. They are a vital part of our communities as friends, family members, and loved ones. America is the only home these Dreamers have ever known, and Congress has waited long enough--in fact, it has waited too long to allow them to finally become American citizens.

Friday's ruling is yet another reminder of the hell that these young people have put up with over the past two decades. Under the Trump administration, Dreamers endured one attack after another.

When former President Trump attempted to repeal DACA, it put hundreds of thousands of young people at risk of being deported to countries they didn't even remember.

When the Supreme Court ruled that the former President's repeal of DACA was unlawful, he simply defied the Court's decision and stopped DACA applicants from being approved. For months, President Trump refused to reopen the program for new applicants despite the clear direction of the U.S. Supreme Court. Approximately 300,000 of these young people were unable to receive the protections they deserved because of President Trump's unilateral, hateful action.

In response to a court order, DACA was finally reopened for the new applicants in December, but now, just as the Biden administration is processing these applications, the door was shut again in the Federal court in Texas on Friday.

In the words of one Dreamer, Adonias Arevalo, ``It's such an uncertainty, not to be able to plan my life.''

Thankfully, President Biden has vowed to appeal this decision, but we need to prevent conservative judicial activists on the bench, politicians in black robes, from striking down the President's lawful efforts to protect Dreamers. Congress cannot wait any longer. America cannot wait any longer. Senate Democrats need to provide a permanent legislative solution for the Dreamers. We need to act swiftly.

I hope that my Republican colleagues with conscience will think long and hard about whether they are going to stand in the way of the Dreamers at this moment in history. We need their help, and not just some halfhearted symbolic attempt but genuinely to give these young people a fighting chance to make America a better nation.

To all the Dreamers out there, I promise you, we will work as hard as necessary to get this job done as quickly as possible.

Madam President, on Saturday night, baseball fans at Nationals Park here in Washington, DC, not far from where we stand, were sent into a panic by a sound that has become all too familiar in American cities: the sound of gunfire.

In the middle of the sixth inning, the teams left the field when it was reported that three people were shot outside the stadium on South Capitol Street. That burst of gunfire reverberated throughout the stadium. It could be heard on television and radio broadcasts of the game. It was bad; it could have been worse. Thankfully, nobody inside the stadium was harmed, and many thanks to the first responders for keeping the attendees safe.

But the photos and videos from Saturday night tell a clear story. We are a nation that has become traumatized by gun violence.

The Fourth of July weekend, the city of Chicago, a city I dearly love and am honored to represent, there were 104 gunshot victims that weekend, 19 deaths.

We have come to accept, sadly, mass shooting as a possibility anywhere in America, at a baseball park, in a movie theater, in houses of worship, even in our schools.

Mass shootings happen on the streets of Chicago almost every weekend. Just this last weekend, more than 50 were shot in our city, including 7 children and teenagers. The sad reality is gun violence has become as American as baseball.

The question before this Senate again and again and again is, Will we do anything about it? Will we take minimum steps to reduce gun violence in America, steps like making it more difficult for convicted felons and unstable people to buy firearms?

Nearly every American supports that, and yet the gaps in the Federal gun laws continue. Right now, it is simply too easy for a convicted felon or person with a history of serious mental illness to buy a gun from an unlicensed dealer. A person--no questions asked--can easily buy a gun from an unlicensed seller just minutes away from the city of Chicago, in the State of Indiana, and that gun will be sold and resold many times over in our city of Chicago--many times the same day.

In March, the House passed H.R. 8, a bipartisan measure to close the gaps in our background checks system. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Senator Manchin of West Virginia have been leading negotiations to get bipartisan support for that bill in the Senate. I am waiting for their signal, and I hope to receive it--that we are ready to move on that legislation.

I hope Senate Republicans will join us in supporting this and other commonsense measures, like confirming a Director for the Agency that enforces the gun laws on the book--ATF--for the first time since 2015. Too many lives have been lost to gun violence in

this country. It is time for us to come together and put an end to the senseless violence.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I just heard the Republican leader refer to the American Rescue Plan as a grand socialist experiment. Remember that plan? That was President Biden's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. How many Republicans voted for it? Not one. Not a House Member nor a Senate Member of the Republican Member supported it.

So what was in this socialist experiment? Well, the premiere piece was to make sure we distributed the COVID-19 vaccine to every American. Obviously, some people think that is socialism. I think it is common sense. And the more and more Americans who are immunized, the more we escape the grasp of this pandemic; 99.5 percent of those who are admitted to the hospital today with serious COVID-19 symptoms are unvaccinated.

So this was socialism? I don't think so. How about the aid we gave to small businesses to stay open or reopen? That was in the American Rescue Plan. That was Biden's plan. There was not a single Republican vote for it.

Money to help businesses to reopen is socialism? Is that what the Senator from Kentucky is suggesting? Or how about the fact that today we are going to see across the United States of America help to families, middle-income families, working families, low-income families to raise their children?

So when Donald Trump writes a check for $2,000 to every American family, that is just fine, but when the Democrats and Biden want to give money to families raising children, particularly those who are struggling to raise children, that is socialism? I think not. It is common sense.

If we really value families, we are going to invest in their future. And the money that is being sent starting today to these families will lift half of the children in poverty in America out of poverty for the first time. That is a dramatic achievement. It should be a bipartisan achievement. Sadly, it is a Democratic achievement because the Republicans boycotted the vote over and over.

There is one thing that the Senator from Kentucky fails to mention when he talks about the budget resolution--maybe two things are worth saying. First is this budget resolution, which we are going to bring to the floor next week, according to the leader, is going to do dramatic things across America in terms of pre-K education, 2 years of community college and the like. And in this circumstance, it is paid for. It is all paid for.

So to say it is inflationary is to suggest that it is not paid for as adding to the debt. Who pays for it? Those making over $400,000 a year in income and corporations. That is who pays for it. And the net result of it: The biggest tax cut in the history of the United States for middle-income and working families. That is the reality.

I am going to yield the floor. I see the Senator from South Dakota has come to the floor and I know he wanted to speak. We have a few minutes left. I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this week the Senate is going to consider Tiffany Cunningham's nomination to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This is truly historic. Once confirmed, Ms. Cunningham will be the first--the very first--African-American judge to serve on the Federal Circuit.

She will not only bring diversity but an amazing set of credentials to the job. You see, the Federal Circuit is unique among Federal appeals courts. The jurisdiction of other appeals courts is based on geography--in other words, where the case arises. The Federal Circuit is a specialized court, with jurisdiction over particular legal issues, especially patent law.

This court plays a critical role in ensuring that our innovation economy can continue to flourish. It requires judges who understand the complicated law that governs this area and who understand the experiences of Americans from all walks of life. Ms. Cunningham is that person. She received her undergraduate degree in chemical engineering from MIT and her law degree from Harvard Law School. After graduating law school, she clerked for the Federal Circuit.

Ms. Cunningham boasts years of experience that will serve her well. For almost two decades, she worked as an intellectual property litigator in my home State of Illinois.

In that role, Ms. Cunningham cultivated an in-depth understanding of every aspect of patent litigation, from the filing of the case, through discovery, trial, and appeal.

She has also represented clients across a number of the fields, including mechanical engineering, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotech, computer science, and the automobile industry. Ms. Cunningham's clients include high-tech and Fortune 500 companies.

Given her experience representing plaintiffs and defendants, she understands the importance of applying the law evenhandedly.

Her technical expertise, her deep knowledge of patent law, and 20 years of experience as an intellectual property litigator earned her a unanimous--unanimous--rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association.

She received broad bipartisan support in my committee, with five Republicans joining all Democrats in voting to advance her.

As a judge in the Federal Circuit, Ms. Cunningham will offer a perspective shaped by personal and professional experience that reflect the diversity of our Nation.

Given her years of experience working on issues germane to the Federal Circuit, she will be ready upon confirmation to hit the ground running.

Mr. President, at the end of her hearing, I said to her say: ``Why did you want to do this? Why would you go into public life? It seems like things are going pretty well for you as a lawyer.''

She said: ``It has always been my dream to serve on this bench.''

Well, I hope her dream comes true and the Senate helps her reach it. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of Ms. Cunningham's nomination

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the other day I read an article in the Chicago Sun Times about an incredible Chicagoan named Edith Renfrow Smith.

Yesterday, Edith celebrated her 107th--let me say that again--107th birthday. And learning about her life story, it occurred to me that it is really the story of America. Edith is the grandchild of two people who were born into slavery. When she was 23, she became the first Black woman to graduate from Grinnell College in Iowa.

Think about that. In just two generations, her family went from enduring bondage to earning a bachelor's degree.

After she graduated, Edith traveled east to Chicago in search of job opportunities. She spent a few years working for the University of Chicago, and she even served as a secretary for the first Black Congressman to represent a district north of the Mason-Dixon Line: Oscar DePriest.

Eventually, Edith found her calling as a public school teacher. She devoted more than two decades of her life educating our city's children. One of her colleagues described her as a ``master teacher.''

As a resident of Hyde Park, where she raised a family with her husband Henry, Edith became close friends with Jazz legend Herbie Hancock. And in recent years, she has become something of a living legend herself. In 2019, her alma mater, Grinnell College, opened a new library named in Edith's honor: the Edith Renfrow Smith `37 Black Women's Library.

Edith is a humble person. She doesn't claim to know all the secrets to a long, happy life, like the one she has lived, but she does have a few suggestions.

She says, ``You have to have respect for yourself.''

``Don't let anyone disrespect you.''

``Listen to what people say to each other.''

That advice is worth keeping in mind as we work together in this Senate to solve the most pressing challenges facing America, like rebuilding our infrastructure. This body has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform our roadways and public transit systems, to secure a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren, and to bring broadband connectivity and clean drinking water to every community in America.

And while we have a lot of work ahead of us, I am confident that if we take Edith's advice--if we listen to one another--we can make real progress for the American people.

Edith, thank you for sharing your inspiring story, and thank you for choosing Chicago as your home.

I wish you the best on your 107th birthday.

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

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

Reserving the right to object.

I read this bill, and I am not sure the Senator from Indiana really wants to do what this bill says because the bill makes it a priority that this Agency, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--a priority if there is a request from a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer, a request of the Agency for information questions on regulatory matters, puts timelines on them, deadlines.

It says that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives--the Attorney General shall--shall--not later than 90 days after the receipt of such a request or question make a ruling or determination.

Well, you think to yourself, if this Agency has very little to do with thousands of employees, then perhaps the timeliness of response from the industry would merit some 90-day deadline. But the Senator in introducing this completely overlooks the obvious. This legislation would force ATF to take resources and manpower away from their other activities and put them into answering regulatory inquiries with a 90- day deadline in his bill.

So what are the other duties that will be taking the ATF agents away from? Well, the Senator is from Indiana, my neighboring State, and I am sure when he goes to northwestern Indiana, he hears a lot about the city of Chicago. Well, it was last weekend, on the Fourth of July weekend, that there were 104 people shot in the city of Chicago, 19 died. There were 13 children who were shot and two law enforcement agents.

What is the responsibility of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau when it comes to this kind of mass shooting that is taking place in the city I am honored to represent but breaks my heart to hear those numbers?

They are supposed to be investigating the gun violence. They are supposed to be gathering the information and evidence so they can work with the prosecutors to stop this mass shooting. Unfortunately, the Senator from Indiana said, no, that is not your priority at ATF; your priority is to answer regulatory questions from gun dealers and manufacturers. And you have 90 days to do it, no matter what else is going on. Oh, you may be going after somebody who is guilty in a mass killing and a mass shooting; put it aside. You have a bookkeeping question. That is one of the provisions in here. You have a bookkeeping question that should take priority over anything else you are doing. Stop preparing information and evidence for trial, answer the industry questions on regulations. That is your highest priority--at least that is what your bill says.

So I look at this, and I think, in the reality of gun violence and death and the crimes that are being committed, ATF has the most important role of keeping us safe. I want them to be efficient in dealing with the industry. But that is not their highest priority, as far as I am concerned. The highest priority is to keep America safe and to do something about gun violence. And for that reason, I object.

Reserving the right to object.

Let me say, initially, I did not mention the issue of the source of crime guns in Illinois. The Senator from Indiana raised it. And since he did, I want to make a record of it

When we trace the crime guns in Illinois, we find an alarming percentage of them coming from gun shows in your State right next to Illinois. The bad guys get on the Skyway, drive over to northwest Indiana gun shows and buy guns at those shows without background checks and come back and commit crime in Chicago and other neighborhoods.

That is a fact. You may not like it; I certainly don't like it. But we ought to be doing something about that instead of worrying about the gun manufacturers and the gun salesmen and whether or not they are going to get special treatment from this Agency.

But let me address the second matter that is before us, and this is Senator Braun's request for S. 1916, Protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I want to set the record straight at the outset. Current Federal law, the Stafford Act, prohibits the Federal Government from seizing lawfully owned guns during a period of a major disaster or emergency. It is on the books. That is the law.

The Stafford Act is also clear that during a major disaster emergency, the Federal Government is prohibited from creating new registration requirements for guns, new prohibitions on gun possession, or new prohibitions on the lawful carrying of firearms. That is on the books already. So current law already protects guns that people own legally during periods of disaster or emergency. But the Senator's bill goes much further than that.

Section 4 of the bill would amend the Stafford Act--get this--to say that the Federal Government also cannot prohibit the manufacture or sale or transfer of guns or ammunition during a disaster or emergency. There are several problems with this.

First, current law has exceptions that allow the government to continue enforcing laws already on the books during a disaster. This includes laws that prohibit convicted felons from possessing guns. Your bill does not make that exception. I am sure you don't want to do that. I hope you will look at your bill. In other words, under the bill, as I read it, during a major disaster or emergency, the government would be barred from any prohibition of gun sales, even from enforcing the current prohibition on the sale of guns to convicted felons.

That doesn't make sense. I am sure that is not what want you want to do, but that is what your bill says. I hope it is not what you intended, and I am sure it is not. So please look at it carefully.

There are also legitimate reasons why the government might need to temporarily prohibit guns being sold in a disaster area. Here is something that is not outlandish. Suppose the background check system has been knocked offline in a disaster area. We wouldn't want felons taking advantage of that situation to walk into a gun dealer and buy guns that they are ineligible to buy.

Current law ensures that the government can't take anyone's lawfully owned guns away from them during a disaster, but there is no clear justification for granting untouchable status to gun sales during the disaster. This bill needs some work. I hope we will not pass it in a hasty manner. And in light of these and other concerns, I object.

Madam President, David Chipman is the nominee for the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agency. I know a bit about him because he went through the Agency process. He is a veteran of over 20 years working for this Agency. We need him. I will tell you why we need him.

In the history of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agency, there has only been one person who has served--I believe it is from your State of Minnesota. There is only one person who served as the confirmed Director of the Agency. Otherwise, over and over again, it goes without any leadership. You say: Well, is that just an accident that this Agency never has a Director? I don't think it is an accident at all.

You see, the gun lobby, when they want to make their case against new gun laws, always say the same thing: ``Well, just enforce the laws on the books. You don't need new laws. Enforce the laws on the books.''

If you bought that premise, then the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agency is one of the agencies that does that. So if you can weaken this Agency--fewer agents, fewer employees, fewer supervisors, no Director--then the actual enforcement that is being done by this Agency is diminished.

So, now, President Biden brings us Mr. Chipman. There are two parts of his career that should be noted: Over 20 years at ATF, involved in some of the most serious investigations, and did an incredible job. After he left the ATF, he went to work for a gun safety group. He is the first one to tell you: ``I own a gun, and I respect your Second Amendment rights and my Second Amendment rights, but I don't want guns to get into the hands of the wrong people, and that is how I would run the ATF.''

I think that reflects what the majority of Americans think. Second Amendment rights--I honor them, I respect them, they are in the law, decided by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, but when it comes to guns--and I look at the wanton violence taking place. I don't want guns getting into the hands of convicted felons. No, I don't. I don't think they have any Second Amendment right, neither does David Chipman. But the people behind the gun lobby, gun industry don't want an Agency that actually enforces those laws. They really don't. And so they are trying to stop his nomination.

It may be controversial, but I hope he gets this job. I am going to vote for him.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, this morning, our friends in Europe claimed first place in the race against climate change. The European Union has laid out a plan to decarbonize Europe and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent at the end of this decade. It is an ambitious plan, and it is one that will, in the words of EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans, ``give humanity a fighting chance.''

To our allies in Europe, I want to say: America stands with you in this effort, and we welcome the friendly competition to see who can move quickest to save our planet.

Earlier today, President Biden joined members of the Senate Democratic caucus to discuss our historic budget proposal that was unveiled last night. It is a proposal designed, first and foremost, to help working families and secondly--and not a distant second, right up with that--to secure our planet's future.

Climate change impacts every single one of us. It doesn't care about our borders or national identities. It does present an opportunity for us to lead the world in saving this planet, literally, for our kids and grandkids.

I am glad we have a President who understands this issue. The budget resolution we discussed with him today will pave the way for that to happen.

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