Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, let me salute my colleague and friend from South Dakota. I hope we can achieve what he has asked for: bipartisanship in the U.S. Senate.

He made a point that I would like to amplify: that they have not even used the filibuster; Republicans have not invoked the filibuster so far during this Senate session. Well, there is a reason--because the three things that we have done in this session are not, under the rules of the Senate, subject to filibuster.

Let me note as well--I ask unanimous consent that I be given 10 minutes to speak before the rollcall begins.

Mr. President, there are three things that are not subject to a filibuster: an impeachment trial, which we have accomplished so far this year; the nominations, which the Senator from South Dakota alluded to; and the reconciliation bill. It is true, Republicans did not apply the filibuster to that. But it wasn't their good will that motivated it; the Senate rules demanded it.

The question is, Can we reach a point where we do things on a bipartisan basis, or will it be stopped by a filibuster? So let me pause at this moment and say to those following the debate what a filibuster is all about. It is a time-honored tradition in the Senate, going back to Aaron Burr serving as Vice President, that people can speak in an unlimited fashion on the floor--there is nothing to stop them--until there came a cloture vote, which didn't appear until the early 20th century. Before that, the Senator could hold the floor indefinitely and slow things down to a crawl, to a stop if necessary. The filibuster allowed them to continue that, but then came the cloture motion, which stopped the filibustering. It initially took a two-thirds vote, 67, and eventually 60 votes. But that is what it boils down to.

If you want to get anything done on the floor and you don't want one Senator to stand up and say ``I refuse to accept the vote,'' then you have to have 60 votes. So in a majority Senate, 51 would clearly be sufficient. Under a filibuster, 60 is required. There are 50 Democrats, 50 Republicans. Vice President Kamala Harris can be the tie-breaking vote, the 51st vote. So the Republicans, by applying the filibuster rule, could require 60 votes, which, of course, the Democrats by themselves, even with the Vice President, couldn't come up with.

There was a statement made by Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, yesterday which was nothing short of amazing. At a press conference, he said of the filibuster: ``It has no racial history at all--none.'' Amazing that he would say that.

If you go back and study the history of this body, John Caldwell Calhoun, a Senator from South Carolina, started in the early parts of the 19th century using this unlimited debate to protect slave States, to protect the interests of the Southern States. That progressed in history to the point where, in modern times, at least in the 20th century, the filibuster was used consistently to stop federalization of the crime of lynching. I don't know who would argue in Kentucky or anywhere else that the crime of lynching has nothing to do with race, but the filibuster was used to prevent the federalization of that crime.

It was used in an effort to stop the bills that were trying to outlaw a poll tax. Poll tax? That meant you had to pay to be able to vote. It was used in the South to try to discourage African Americans from voting. It clearly was racial, and the filibuster was used over and over again to protect a vote on the Senate floor, this Senate floor, from taking place on the poll tax.

Then fast-forward several decades to the 1960s. Richard Russell of Georgia engineered--he was the architect, the legislative architect of the filibuster that stopped the civil rights bills in the 1960s. Certainly Senator McConnell, who was working in the Senate at that time as an intern, if I am not mistaken, must remember the filibuster being used against the civil rights bill. And to say that the filibuster ``has no racial history at all--none'' is to ignore the obvious.

Here is the point we are getting to. Senator Schumer has said it on the floor, and others have said it as well. We have to be productive in this session of the Senate. After the last 4 years, we have seen the Senate really break down to the point where they weren't productive at all. We weren't productive at all.

There were 29 amendment votes in the last year of Senator McConnell's reign as Republican leader. Twenty-nine amendment votes in 1 year? The previous year under Senator McConnell: 22 amendment votes; no activity on the floor of the Senate. We can't let that happen. There are things that need to be done.

Let me mention, too, that one of them that certainly needs to be done is to protec America's right to vote. The Senator from South Dakota comes and says: Well, we had this big turnout on November 3, 2020, and now the Democrats are meeting and talking about changing the voting laws. Why would we want to change if we had such a big turnout?

He ignores what happened in between. After the election returns of November 3, 2020, Republicans across the Nation, in 40 different States, introduced hundreds of bills to limit people's right to vote. That is why we are responding with this Federal response that is now being considered in the Senate Rules Committee.

He missed part of the equation. It went from November 3rd's big turnout to efforts in State legislatures to restrict turnout, to limit the rights of people to vote across America, especially African Americans and Latinos and those who are not wealthy--to limit their right to vote. And then came this response on the Federal basis. That is an important point. If we believed that the filibuster would not be used against it, if there was some promise that it wouldn't be, we certainly could bring that bill to the floor for debate, and we should, if we are given that kind of assurance.

Mr. President, the final point I want to make is regarding the hearing we held yesterday. It was a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on guns and gun violence. I scheduled it last week, and I didn't know as I scheduled it the tragedy that was occurring in Atlanta, GA, with eight people who were murdered. We heard about that. It was an outrage, these poor, innocent people killed--coincidentally, the majority of them Asian Americans--at a time when we know hate crimes against Asian Americans are on the rise.

That was the day that I announced the hearing that occurred yesterday, but little did I know, as we prepared 2 days ago for that hearing, what would happen in Boulder, CO, just 2 days ago when 10 innocent people were killed at a supermarket.

We had a hearing yesterday. It was an important hearing. Members all attended. Sadly, one of the members on the other side came in, the junior Senator from Texas, and characterized our hearing on gun violence, in light of what is happening in America, as ``ridiculous theater.'' Those were his words, ``ridiculous theater.'' There was nothing ridiculous about the hearing that we held yesterday. It was a matter of life and death.

The grief that is being felt in Boulder, CO; Atlanta, GA; and all over America is a grief that is shared on a daily basis. Forty thousand Americans each year lose their lives to gun violence--40,000--a recordbreaking number and nothing we should be proud of as a nation.

When we address gun violence and the measures that should be taken to reduce it, it is not ridiculous; it is as serious as it gets. Furthermore, it is not theater. Theater is a depiction of reality; the Senate Judiciary Committee is reality.

We are imparted, as Senators, to change the laws of America and make it safer. That is not a theatrical performance; that is just discharging our duties as U.S. Senators.

So I would say to that Senator and others, I agree completely with Senator Schumer. We need to bring bills to the floor that will reduce gun violence in America, keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them. Convicted felons and mentally unstable people should not be having guns and buying them and be able to kill innocent people who are just stopping by the supermarket to pick up something to take home. That is what happened in Boulder, CO.

As the stories are printed in newspapers across America about those lives lost, it is a grim reminder that this is not ridiculous. It is not theater. It is a life-and-death issue which we have the power to change.

I hope we can bring this measure to the floor, the one that passed the House of Representatives--and others--to bring sanity to our Second Amendment, to make sure that we have constitutional, commonsense gun safety that is consistent with any constitutional right.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

The Senator from Iowa tells us a compelling story of Sarah Root, whose death at the hands of a drunk driver is a tragedy. However, I respectfully suggest this legislation is not the answer.

This bill that she is proposing would require the mandatory detention of immigrants charged--not convicted--charged with certain crimes. The mere allegation of criminal conduct would result in months, possibly years, of detention before case adjudication.

Indefinitely detaining immigrants, regardless of whether they actually

committed a crime, regardless of circumstances, violates a principle that is deeply embedded in the American legal system: innocent until proven guilty. Under this bill, someone wrongly arrested wouldn't be eligible for individualized bond determination. This is not consistent with the basic tenets of due process in our Constitution.

Creating a new category of immigrants subject to indefinite detention for being charged also could be harmful to the survivors of domestic violence. Over 20 years ago, I was introduced to a group in Chicago. The name of the group--and I am sorry if I don't pronounce it correctly, pretty close--is Mujeres Latinas en Accion. This is a group that came together to try to protect undocumented mothers and wives from domestic abuse. The reason they came together was these poor women were being victimized and abused in ways unthinkable and were so afraid to report it to police because of their undocumented status. So this group of women in the community came together and said: We have to build a shelter. These women had to get away from their abusive husbands who, many times, were also abusing the children. That is what happened. Today it is still there, and it is still needed.

These survivors of domestic abuse, many times in desperation, would finally strike back at the abusive husband, and some of them were even subject to arrest for assault against the abusing husband. Under the proposal today that is being suggested by the Senator from Iowa, that woman, having been abused by that husband for so many years, finally striking back and assaulting the husband and being charged, would automatically be incarcerated. There wouldn't be a judge to consider the reality of the circumstances in her life.

Survivors of human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic violence are often at risk of arrest initially, but many times in court, the circumstances are explained, and a different conclusion is reached.

In one study, nearly half of the incarcerated women in the study described assaults they had committed in their own defense. This bill has no exception for immigrants who are charged with crimes that resulted from their defending themselves against violence.

Let me add, too, that this bill is not necessary. Our immigration laws give to ICE the authority to detain people who are deported. In fact, there are thousands of people detained, right now, using this authority.

There is no question that our immigration system is far from perfect and is a broken system. We have a responsibility and we have authority in Congress to reform our immigration law.

If the Senator from Iowa is interested in working on bipartisan immigration reform, I welcome the opportunity to ask her to join us to try to find pragmatic, bipartisan solutions. We had an initial meeting today, a bipartisan meeting of Senators, to open the conversation. But trying to pass this bill by unanimous consent is not the way to approach this very complex problem. We need to roll up our sleeves and say: Let's, as Senators on a bipartisan basis, do it.

I stand ready to do so. I hope the Senator from Iowa does too. As tough as it may be, we need to tackle these issues and not ignore them as they were for the last 4 years under the previous Republican President.

For those reasons, I object

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, we face a challenge at the border; there is no question about it.

It really strikes me as strange--maybe unusual--for Members of the Senate from the other side of the aisle to come and yearn for those wonderful days of the Trump administration when it came to the issue of immigration and border policy.

Remember when we had the longest government shutdown in history, paralyzing immigration courts and other Agencies? It was, of course, a shutdown that was sanctioned by the President of the United States over his immigration demands.

Under President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security, incidentally, experienced unprecedented leadership problems. The Department of Homeland Security lurched from one Secretary or Acting Secretary to the next. Listen to this: There were six different Secretaries in that Agency in 4 years, only two Senate-confirmed--more Agency heads in the last 4 years under President Trump than in the 13- year history of the Department of Homeland Security prior to President Trump. They couldn't keep anybody on the job. They quit. They were fired. Nobody could agree with this President's bizarre ideas on what to do with immigration. Are we longing for a return to those days?

President Trump unlawfully diverted billions of dollars in Department of Defense funds to build a wasteful, ineffective border wall, which was supposed to be paid for by the Mexicans, if I remember, and then he created a humanitarian crisis at the border with a policy known as zero tolerance--zero tolerance.

I remember when Attorney General Sessions came before the American people and actually quoted the Bible to justify the forcible removal of infants, toddlers, and children from their parents' arms. Over 2,200 children were physically separated from their parents as part of the zero tolerance policy.

It wasn't until a Federal court judge in Southern California finally said to the Trump administration, ``I demand that you account for these children, and I demand that you reunite them with their parents'' that they set out to do it. Today, years later, years after zero tolerance, there are still hundreds of children separated at that time who have never been reunited with their parents.

Do we want to return to those wonderful days of the Trump administration immigration policy? I don't think so. Children in cages, children lost, adrift on the bureaucratic sea, doesn't speak well of America's values.

President Trump tried to end asylum protections for children and other vulnerable migrants. He cut aid to Central America, directly harming efforts to fight poverty and violence in the region. More refugees were driven to our border because the President shut down legal avenues for immigration and blocked all assistance to stabilize the Northern Triangle countries, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

Now comes the Senator from Utah--and he and I have worked on legislation together in the past. I know that we can find bipartisan solutions. I don't think this approach is one of them, but perhaps it is the beginning of a conversation.

The President's former Republican allies in Congress claim that the real cause, the real problem behind immigration policy is humanitarian protection for children. They claim that we

can protect children by overturning these humanitarian protections, either that have been entered into in a consent decree in court or by law, and subjecting children at the border to indefinite detention and deportation without adequate due process. But there is no evidence that this will deter desperate families from fleeing to our border.

There is one thing the Senator from Utah and I certainly agree on. Many of these children and families are being horribly, horribly exploited by coyotes and kidnappers and very bad people. Many of these people and their children are suffering in unimaginable ways because of this.

I renew the plea that has been given across Central America by this administration: Don't send your people to our border. Don't send your children to our border.

It is not something we should encourage under the circumstances. It has to be orderly, and this is not in many respects.

There is no evidence that ending this humanitarian protection for children will deter desperate families fleeing to our border.

The bill before us today includes no assurances that children will be humanely treated or that they will be safe from violence once they are deported. This notion that once these children come across the border or are taken into custody by the U.S. Government, that sometime--2 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks--later they are turned loose again does not dispense our moral obligation. We want these children to be safe, and that is what the laws are, the Flores decision and others.

This bill does nothing to address root causes that are causing migrants to flee the Northern Triangle in record numbers. If people were migrating because of so-called legal loopholes, they would be coming to our southern border from all over the region.

Instead, the vast majority come from three countries: Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Those countries have the highest homicide rates, some of them, in the world, and girls face a constant threat of sexual violence with little prosecution from local authorities. We are doing desperate things because of the desperate situations in these countries.

We are told by the Senator that we have to overturn the bipartisan Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and was signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush. But the TVPRA ensures that the United States meets its international obligations to protect unaccompanied children seeking safe haven in our country. It was a response to bipartisan concern that children apprehended by the Border Patrol were being returned to countries where they might be exploited even more.

Under TVPRA, unaccompanied children from the Northern Triangle are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services and placed in deportation proceedings, which gives them a chance to finally make their case to a judge.

Consider Samuel and Amelie, siblings ages 3 and 6, from Honduras. They arrived in the United States traumatized, ages 3 and 6. They said nothing--silent. After being transferred to HHS, Amelie revealed that both children had been raped by drug cartel members. Without TVPRA protection, Samuel and Amelie would have been returned to Honduras and almost certain further exploitation.

Democrats are trying to work on a bipartisan repair of this immigration system. It is long overdue.

In 2019, after President Trump finally agreed to end the longest government shutdown in history, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill that included $414 million for humanitarian assistance at the border and then passed an emergency supplemental for $4.6 billion of additional funding to alleviate overcrowding in detention facilities.

In 2018, Senate Democrats supported a bipartisan agreement, including robust border security funding and dozens of provisions to strengthen border security, but President Trump threatened to veto it and, instead, pushed for his hardline plan with the largest cut in legal immigration in almost a century.

When it comes to refugees, after World War II, when the United States sadly turned away hundreds and thousands of ultimate victims of the Holocaust and would not accept their refugee status, we set out to prove to the world that we had learned a valuable lesson, and we led the world in offering refugee status until President Trump, who brought the numbers down to record low levels. That does not speak well for the United States, or it shouldn't be a source of pride for anyone reflecting this administration.

We need comprehensive immigration reform. I support it. Eight years ago, in 2013, I was part of the Gang of 8, a bipartisan group of four Republican and four Democratic Senators. We produced comprehensive immigration reform legislation that passed the Senate 68 to 32. The Senator from Utah voted against it. Unfortunately, Republicans who controlled the House of Representatives refused to consider it.

So here is my invitation to the Senator from Utah and to everyone else interested. Let us sit down again and write that bill. Let's do it in a fashion that really does bring reform to our system.

I just talked at a bipartisan meeting on the subject earlier. One of the Senators from a border State said: People in my State don't expect the Federal Government to do anything because it has been so many years since they have done anything.

It is time for us to prove them wrong. We have the authority. We have the opportunity. We have the challenge.

Making this sort of request on the floor, I know, is symbolic, but I have to say that it is not the symbolism we should follow, and I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that cloture on

Calendar No. 30, the nomination of Adewale O. Adeyemo, to be Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, be withdrawn and, notwithstanding rule XXII, on Thursday, March 25, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session and vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; further, that no further motions be in order, that any related statements be printed in the Record, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, the clock struck 12, and the chaos of whistles, bells, and sirens echoed down Michigan Avenue. All across Chicago, you could hear--feel--the jubilance erupting in the streets. Women of all ages sat on the hoods of Studebakers and Model Ts, waving American flags as they rode through The Loop in celebration.

A decades-long fight for equality had finally come to an end. Just days earlier, on August 26, 1920, U.S. Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby had issued a proclamation. The 19th Amendment had been ratified, and women in America had secured the right to vote, once and for all. And though this victory was monumental, America still had a long way to go.

Nearly a century later, on the morning of Saturday, November 7, 2020,

jubilance once again erupted in the streets of Chicago. Drivers honked their horns all along Michigan Avenue, while passengers leaned out of their windows, waving American flags. Joe Biden had finally been declared the victor of the 2020 Presidential election, his running mate: Kamala Harris, the first African-American and first woman Vice President of the United States. The scene in Chicago was a fitting tribute to the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment's ratification.

This month, America celebrates Women's History Month. And the people of my State are proud of the leading role Illinois has played in America's long struggle for gender equality. In 2018, Illinois lawmakers ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Our State attorney general, along with the attorneys general of two other States, is now pressing in Federal court for the ERA to be officially recognized as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as it should be.

We are proud of the remarkable women our State has produced. Some were Illinoisans by birth, others by choice. They include Ida B. Wells, the courageous journalist, anti-lynching leader, and suffragist; Jane Addams, the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize and a cofounder of the Hull House, a Chicago landmark; Mamie Till Mobley, a mother who forced the world to reckon with the brutality of racism when she opened the casket of her only son, Emmett; Betty Friedan, author of ``The Feminine Mystique,'' a book that inspired a new wave of American feminism; Gwendolyn Brooks, poet laureate of Illinois from 1968 until her death in 2000 and the first Black woman inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Letters; Sandra Cisneros, a renowned writer and educator whose work is taught in classrooms across the country; Jeanne Gang, a world-class architect whose work graces the skyline of Chicago, including the tallest building in the world designed by a woman, the St. Regis Chicago; Jackie Joyner-Kersee, one of the world's greatest track and field athletes and the founder of the Jackie Joyner-Kersee Foundation, which offers athletic and educational programming to kids in my hometown of East St. Louis, IL; Precious Brady-Davis, an environmentalist and transgender woman who has shed light on the experiences of transgender parents; Oprah Winfrey, the host of a daytime talk show you may have heard of--her career as a talk show host actually began on ``A.M. Chicago''; Hillary Clinton, the first woman to be nominated for President by a major political party, she may have represented New York in the U.S. Senate, but her roots are firmly planted in Park Ridge, IL; Michelle Obama, another former First Lady who broke barriers--she is the pride of Chicago's South Side, and I am grateful to call her a friend; and my colleague in this body, Senator Tammy Duckworth, an American hero.

In 2018, the people of Illinois elected Juliana Stratton as our 48th Lieutenant Governor, the first woman of color ever elected to hold a constitutional office in our State. She is a dynamo and part of a new generation of women who are taking their rightful place as political leaders in our Nation. In the 2020 elections, women across America turned out in historic numbers, and voters elected a record number of women to higher office.

But we still have a long way to go. America lags well behind other developed nations when it comes to gender equality in our government. Women account for fewer than 30 percent of our representatives in either Chamber of Congress. Countries like Finland, Sweden, and New Zealand are far closer to 50 percent, meaning complete gender parity.

So it is certainly welcome news that President Biden has nominated 12 women for Cabinet and Cabinet-level positions, including Janet Yellen, the first female Secretary of Treasury, and Congresswoman Deb Haaland, who would be the first Native American to ever serve as a Cabinet Secretary.

While the past year has been one of historic triumph for women, it has also been one of unprecedented challenge. The pandemic has disproportionately devastated women. In December, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the United States lost 140,000 jobs in a single month. A staggering number that is even worse than it seems, women accounted for every single one of those job losses. Men, meanwhile, managed to gain 16,000 jobs that month.

Working women, and especially working women of color, have been hardest hit by this pandemic. When schools across the country were forced to shut their doors, these women were thrust into the dual roles of breadwinner and primary caregiver. They shouldered the burden of keeping our families and children safe. This is essential work. And just as frontline workers need PPE to safely do their jobs, working mothers need economic relief to do theirs.

That is what the American Rescue Plan President Biden signed into law this month delivers. It expands the child tax credit, offering up to $3,600 per child; it invests in our families, by increasing the value of SNAP benefits and expanding childcare assistance; and it gives every working American $1,400. The American Rescue Plan will help working mothers weather this once-in-a-century public health and economic crisis.

After a year of COVID lockdowns and losses, America is finally beginning to feel a sense of hope that the end of this pandemic is coming, and looking at the headlines, it is hard not to share that optimism.

Under President Biden, we are vaccinating more than 2 million Americans a day. As of last week, more people in the United States have been fully vaccinated than our total number of coronavirus cases since the beginning of the pandemic. By the beginning of summer, we should have a large enough supply of vaccines to inoculate every adult in America. This is one of the greatest scientific feats in modern history.

A major reason we were able to develop COVID-19 vaccines at such lightning-fast speed is because of the pioneering research conducted over decades by a brilliant scientist, one of the unsung heroes of our world. Her name is Katalin Kariko. Like many American heroes, she is an immigrant. She began her research in a lab in Hungary, when it was still under Communist rule. Back then, she believed that synthetic messenger RNA could hold the key to treating some of the world's most debilitating diseases.

She followed that dream across continents, immigrating to the United States in the 1980s. But people--and, let's be honest, men--doubted her at every turn. Her grants were rejected. She faced demotions. She was even threatened with deportation. One of the few institutions that supported Katalin's work was the National Institutes of Health. The experts at NIH didn't just follow the science; they supported the visionary behind the science. And that investment paid off. Her research into messenger RNA eventually blazed a trail for the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, which are helping curb the spread of COVID-19 at this very moment.

As we turn the corner of this pandemic, let us remember that it was not a miracle that got us here. It was science. It was dedication. It was the work of trailblazers like Katalin Kariko.

As I mentioned, Betty Friedan is one of the great women leaders to come out of Illinois. In her seminal work, ``The Feminine Mystique,'' she asked: ``Who knows what women can be when they are finally free to become themselves?''

As we celebrate women's history, let us also renew our commitment to investing in women's futures. Who knows how many Katalin Karikos are out there, ready to change the world?

For our own good, for the good of humankind, let's ensure every woman has an opportunity to ``become themselves.''

Mr. President, as a Member of Congress, I have cast a number of important votes over the years, votes on whether to send our Nation's brave servicemembers to war or to impeach a President, but perhaps the most important vote I have ever cast was 11 years ago this week, in support of the Affordable Care Act.

Since the law's passage in 2010, the ACA has provided health insurance to more than 23 million Americans, including nearly 1 million Illinoisans. That is almost 1 out of every 20 people

living in my home State. Thanks to the ACA, they are now covered. That measure was called the Affordable Care Act for a reason: It is estimated to have saved every family in America about $4,000 in health insurance premiums.

I don't think any of us could have predicted 11 years ago just how important the protections it guaranteed to Americans would become. Then came the coronavirus. In the year since the pandemic was declared, the virus has claimed more than half a million American lives. That is more than the number of American lives lost in World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam war combined.

We grieve with every family who has suffered a loss, and we know there are millions more Americans who have been affected by the virus. Thirty million of our family members, friends, colleagues, and neighbors have been diagnosed with COVID-19. That is 30 million Americans who are now living with a preexisting condition. We have heard stories about the so-called long-haulers, individuals who report they are still having health problems months after their original diagnosis. They are struggling with shortness of breath, trouble sleeping, severe fatigue, and other symptoms that NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins has deemed a ``significant public health concern.''

These Americans have enough to worry about as it is with their recovery; could you imagine if they also had to worry about being able qualify for health coverage? In a world without the ACA, they would have. Before the ACA was the law of the land, people could be denied health coverage or charged significantly higher premiums for having diabetes or asthma--even acne.

Could you imagine if this pandemic hit before we passed that law? The tens of millions of Americans who would have to wonder how they were going to pay for their care, their children's care, in the middle of a pandemic?

Thanks to the ACA, they are covered. It has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, like Michelle Crifasi, one of my neighbors in Springfield, IL. Recently, Michelle wrote to me about what the ACA has meant for her and her family. For much of her life, Michelle was burdened with an unknown illness, until she was finally diagnosed with common variable immune deficiency in her mid-thirties. It is a rare condition that limits the immune system's ability to fight infection. The diagnosis was bittersweet. While she could finally begin to understand and treat her condition, she later learned that she had passed it down to her daughter. Her husband also developed it after undergoing cancer treatment.

The good news is that Michelle and her family have health insurance through her employer, and because of the Affordable Care Act, this employer-based health plan can no longer deny Michelle health coverage or charge her higher premiums because she has a preexisting condition. Her insurer can no longer impose annual or lifetime caps on her care. It can't cut her off right when she needs healthcare the most. Michelle's daughter, Meredith, a junior at the University of Illinois- Springfield, is able to stay on her parents' plan until age 26. Because of the ACA, Michelle's health plan must cover her family's prescription drug costs.

Without insurance coverage, treating common variable immune deficiency can cost patients more than $100,000 a year. Put simply, these protections were not in place before the Affordable Care Act, and Michelle and her family are alive today because of these protections. This family's story is proof that the ACA is one of the greatest legislative accomplishments in modern American history, and it is also proof that there is a lot more we can do to protect people like her and her family.

While Michelle is grateful for the ACA, she recently told me that ``I feel there is more work to be done.'' And she is right, which is why we fought, as part of the American Rescue Plan, to expand health insurance subsidies and eligibility for plans covered under the ACA. These provisions will ensure that no enrollee spends more than 8.5 percent of their income on health insurance premiums. The typical 60-year-old couple in Illinois could see their premiums reduced by $1,300.

The ARP also increases eligibility for premium subsidies to working- class American families earning more than 400 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Outside of the ARP, the Biden-Harris administration has taken other steps to bolster the ACA, like creating a special open enrollment period and ensuring that the DOJ defends the law in the case before the Supreme Court. All of this is welcome news, and I look forward to working with the Biden-Harris administration to accomplish even more. That is why we not only celebrate the historic passage of the ACA but all of the lives it has saved as well.

After years of unrelenting, unjustified attacks on this critical piece of legislation, we are finally in a position to build on it. I am ready to work with the Biden-Harris administration to create a public option, lower prescription drug prices, and address racial and ethnic disparities in our healthcare system.

After 11 years since its passage, I am proud to declare: The ACA is here to stay.

And here in Congress, we will continue working to perfect it.

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.

Mr. President, I am happy to join in this block of time in which Members are coming forward to talk about the For the People Act.

I thank Senator Merkley for being our leader and inspiration in many aspects of this and Chair Amy Klobuchar from the Rules Committee, who will have the honor of bringing this matter before our committee for debate and discussion.

Tomorrow is going to mark 11 weeks since we sat in this Chamber late into the night and debated the certification of the electoral college vote of the November 3 election. It was an experience none of us will ever forget.

Hours before we were told to rush out of this Chamber as quickly as possible because the insurrectionist mob was just a few feet away, we had been told they were going to keep this place safe for us. We were to sit at our chairs and gather our staffs along the walls. You will be safe. You will be just fine. Ten minutes later, they said: Run as fast as you can. It was an experience that none of us ever expected in the U.S. Capitol Building and one we will certainly never forget.

We had been rushed out of the Chamber as this mob attacked the Capitol in an effort to stop us from fulfilling our constitutional duty in recognizing Joe Biden as the President of the United States. If that were in a novel 20 years ago, I would have said: It is preposterous. It will never happen in America.

But I saw it. I lived it. Many of us did.

This mob had been fueled by weeks of lies, disinformation, and baseless allegations of fraudulent votes and a stolen election.

I couldn't get over that, yesterday, a lawyer named Sidney Powell, who was the big defender of the big lie, said: Do you mean people actually believed me? How could they possibly believe me?

Well, that is how far it has come. The preposterous statements being made by the pro-Trump forces about stealing the election now are so laughable that people are trying to escape legal liability by saying: Surely, you didn't take that seriously.

Well, an awful lot of people did across America, and many of them marched on this Capitol.

Despite this horrific attack on the Capitol and our democracy, some of our colleagues, to amplify these wild claims, they continue to object to the electoral vote count and claim that Congress needed to do more to assure voters that the 2020 election was legitimate.

A few of those colleagues even proposed a sham Commission to audit the election. They were relying on an 1876 precedent that was responsible for the end of Reconstruction and the beginning of the Jim Crow era, a precedent that established rank discrimination against African Americans for decades and invited brutal voter suppression efforts that sadly, amazingly, we are still fighting today.

Here is the reality: If those colleagues were serious about protecting democracy, they would be standing on the floor with us right now. They would have stayed in their seats when the electoral college vote was certified. They wouldn't have spent weeks challenging and questioning the legitimate results of an election that their chosen candidate actually lost, and they would be on the floor with us, as I said, in support of the For the People Act.

Anyone who truly believes that we need to strengthen the integrity of our elections and democratic process should be cosponsoring this bill.

The For the People Act ensures that all eligible Americans can cast a ballot without burdensome barriers that suppress the vote.

In 1890, there was established something called the Mississippi Plan. The Mississippi Plan was State legislation carefully crafted to make certain that African Americans didn't have the right to vote.

Other States looked at it carefully and said: This is the answer. Literacy tests, poll taxes, every obstacle they could dream of became part of the Mississippi Plan, with the express purpose of disenfranchising African Americans recently emancipated.

That plan, unfortunately, lived out its days for decades and performed as expected, suppressing the vote. Again, we face this kind of challenge.

The bill that we are talking about here invests in election infrastructure and provides State and local officials with the resources they need for safe and secure elections.

The bill reforms a broken campaign finance system that elevates the voices of wealthy donors today and special interests, and it strengthens and enhances ethics and transparency requirements.

I am proud to be here today because this bill also includes the Fair Elections Now Act. I have introduced this every year since 2007. And occasionally, just occasionally, I would get a Republican cosponsor.

The idea behind it is simple: public financing of campaigns, a voluntary, small-donor public financing system for Senate candidates who agree to raise small-dollar contributions, not big money.

The fair elections public financing system would elevate the views and interests of a diverse spectrum of Americans rather than just the wealthy.

I am lucky to have a House sponsor, John Sarbanes. His father and I served in the Senate together, and he really has done a remarkable job promoting the bill in the House.

We would pay for these campaigns, public financing, without spending a dime of taxpayers' dollars. It would be financed with assessments on wealthy bad actors and industry lawbreakers.

Voluntary, small-donor public financing of congressional campaigns would mean more candidates with more ideas and a Congress that works for more than just the top 1 percent in America.

I thank Senator Merkley for, once again, including this act in the bill, and, again, I thank Congressman Sarbanes for his leadership in the House.

The Fair Elections Now Act is just one of the many critical reforms in this bill that will empower voters and combat corruption.

After months of the former President and his allies undermining faith in our electoral system with their unjustified claims, we must take immediate, concrete steps to repair our battered democracy.

I urge all my colleagues to join in this mission and support the For the People Act.

I yield the floor

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

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

Madam President, the Senate Judiciary Committee has really been in business for a few weeks now, and I think we have begun this session addressing some of the relevant issues that I expect such a committee to address.

First, of course, was the appointment of Attorney General Merrick Garland. I thank Senator Grassley for his cooperation on a bipartisan basis in bringing that nominee to the floor, where he received 70 Senate votes--bipartisan support for his leadership at the Department of Justice. We continue this week with two more of President Biden's appointments to the Department of Justice: Lisa Monaco and Vanita Gupta. They will be considered by the full Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

We will continue to fill vacancies in the administration as we are sent nominees and have that opportunity, but in addition to that, we have had hearings on several relevant topics and have another one starting tomorrow.

Christopher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was called before the committee for an oversight hearing. It is the first time in more than a calendar year that the head of the FBI was actually brought to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a committee that has the traditional oversight responsibility for his Agency. His testimony was important and timely. He talked about the Trump-inspired mob that attacked this Capitol and the rise of domestic terrorism in the United States. He identified it as one of the major threats to security in our country, and we are considering legislation to empower him and others in the administration to address this threat.

That does not take anything away from our efforts to staunch any inspired international terrorism, but we have learned, unfortunately, that in addition to looking across the ocean for threats of terrorism, in America today, we have to look across the street. Unfortunately, there are domestic terrorism groups. We saw them on parade January 6, and they are still at their work. They must be stopped to make sure that America is safe for everyone.

That was an important hearing. We followed it up last week with the first ever Senate hearing on the Equality Act. The Equality Act, which has been passed by the House of Representatives, has been sent to the Senate for consideration. Senator Merkley from Oregon is the lead sponsor.

Simply put, the bill is there to end discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. I thought it was a very powerful hearing. Most Americans are surprised to learn that although we now recognize marriage by people of the same gender, in many States, there is no protection against discrimination for those same people. It is a gross disparity in justice in this country, and I thought our witnesses brought that point through very clearly. I hope that we can gather bipartisan support for that measure quickly and bring it to the floor. It is long overdue.

Tomorrow we are having a hearing which is, unfortunately, very timely. I announced last week that this hearing on commonsense steps to reduce gun violence in America would be held this week. On the same day I announced that hearing, a gunman murdered eight people in a string of shootings near Atlanta, GA--one man, seven women, and six of the victims were Asian Americans. He committed these murders with a gun he had bought the same day. That day, children lost their parents, husbands lost their wives, and fear of trauma reverberated across America in the Asian-American community.

I know that the Presiding Officer and I reached out to people in our home State of Illinois to assure them that we are aware of this and are going to do everything we can to stop this type of discrimination and this terrible violence that followed.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, there have been 27 mass shootings in America this month--27 mass shootings this month--with a mass shooting defined as an incident where at least 4 victims are shot. Mass shootings, of course, make the biggest headlines, but day after day, week after week, the deadly toll of gun violence grows. Last weekend, 20 people were shot in our city of Chicago, 4 of them fatally. Across the Nation, every day, we lose on average 109 American lives to gunfire--suicide, domestic violence shootings, accidental shootings, and homicides--and another 200 Americans are injured by guns each day.

The numbers are sobering, and that is why tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to address this issue. The subcommittee chairman, Dick Blumenthal from Connecticut, will take over the full committee hearing after I make some opening remarks. I know he has a special feeling for this issue because of the tragedy in Newtown, CT, just a few years ago when a gunman went in and killed so many innocent children and their teachers at a grade school. It was one horrible event. It was an event that was so horrible, many of us said: That can make the difference. Politically, that is going to change America. It is going to result in things happening finally--commonsense, constitutional gun safety measures that will keep guns out of the hands of people who would misuse them.

Well, I would have lost that bet. Many others would have, too, because we failed to respond in a timely fashion. What stopped us from passing a bill in the U.S. Senate for background checks to make sure that convicted felons did not purchase guns legally in America and would be stopped because of roadblocks we put in their paths and that people who were mentally unstable would not have access to guns which they could use to hurt innocent people, as we have seen over and over again--what stopped that from happening? A rule in the U.S. Senate. It is called the filibuster, and what it says is, it takes more than a majority for the overwhelming majority of the American people to see gun safety in America. It takes 60 votes in a Senate evenly divided 50- 50.

Well, we are hoping--we are just hoping--that maybe there is a sentiment, a bipartisan sentiment, that could reach 60 votes on thoughtful, commonsense gun control that will really say to people: Yes, you have your Second Amendment right to own a gun legally, responsibly, and to store it safely. You can use it for sporting, target practice, and self-defense if you wish. But we want to make certain that we eliminate as much as possible those who would misuse those firearms.

It is interesting. The overwhelming majority of firearm owners across the Nation believe that same thing. They don't argue with the premise that they want guns to be in the hands of people who will use them responsibly. Yet, despite this overwhelming majority sentiment, we can't get the bill through the U.S. Senate for the very reason I mentioned, the filibuster.

So when Senator McConnell comes to the floor each day to defend the filibuster, the basic question you have to ask him is, If the Senate can work with the filibuster, show us. Show us. Show us that if we bring 45 or 50 votes to the floor, there are 10 Republicans who will join us and work with us to pass important legislation. That wouldn't be the only thing. There would be many other things.

I have heard speeches on the floor by so many Republicans about the situation on our southern border with immigration, and it truly is a challenge. I work on it because it is the matter that I have paid a lot of attention to in my career but also because it is subject matter in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Why is it that we have not addressed immigration reform in the United States? The filibuster, that is the reason. The filibuster has stopped us from passing measures like the Dream Act.

I introduced the Dream Act 20 years ago to say, if you are brought here to the United States as a child, raised in this country, you ought to have a path to legalization and citizenship so you can stay in the country you call home--a simple premise overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

Five times I brought the Dream Act to the floor of the Senate for passage: Let's make this a law. Five times it failed. Why? The filibuster rule. Each time I had a majority but not the necessary 60 votes. That is another example of where the filibuster has stepped in and stopped a majority of the Senate from passing a measure which was

timely, I believe thoughtful, and which the American people overwhelmingly supported.

So I would say to the defenders of the filibuster: Show us it can work. We have had so little legislative activity that was subject to this filibuster rule over the last several years, and, obviously, some Senators are very content with that. I am not. There is work to be done, not just in the areas I have mentioned but in so many others. Infrastructure programs for Americans are a good example too.

Let's get to work in the Senate and do what we were elected to do: to deliberate, to legislate, to amend, to express different points of view but, ultimately, to enact laws that will make this a better nation.

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

Mr. President, earlier today, my friend from South Dakota, the Republican Senator John Thune, came to the floor and discussed the filibuster. It has been a topic of discussion not only this week but even before. I hope that Senator Thune will concede that whether you are for the filibuster or against the filibuster, we should certainly be dedicated to the proposition that the U.S. Senate should be a deliberative body that actually considers amendments and legislation on the floor.

Now, what I just said sounds very routine and normal. It is radical when you look at the record of the U.S. Senate. Last year, under the Republican leadership of Senator McConnell, we had 29 amendments on the floor the entire year--29. That was really an improvement over the previous year, 30 percent better than the previous year--22 amendments. What that says to those who may not be familiar with Senate procedure is that the floor is empty and no one is here because we aren't taking up legislation. Why?

So far this year, we have done three things in the Senate: the impeachment trial; the reconciliation bill, the American Rescue Plan by President Biden; and nominations. What do those three things have in common? None of them, not one of them can be stopped by a filibuster. Why aren't we taking up other legislation? Because looming over us is a supermajority requirement of 60 votes to get anything done.

What I have said to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle is, show me that we can make the Senate function. If we can show that with the filibuster, so be it. If we can show it by changing the filibuster, so be it. But let's do something.

We were elected to do things. We were elected to pass an infrastructure bill for America. It has been years since we have done that. We were elected to deal with issues that are fundamental to this country. What about all the student loan debt in this country? Are we going to do anything about it, say anything about it? Nothing is coming to the floor, is it? There are so many issues that we should be taking up that we are not taking up because of the looming specter of the filibuster. That is a reality.

Let me bring that reality close to home. Twenty years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act. I said if you were brought to America as an infant, toddler, child, young person--your family brought you here, you grew up here, you went to school here, and you pledged allegiance to that flag in your classroom every single day--at some point in your life, you ought to have the opportunity to earn your way to be a legal person in America, a citizen in America. I don't think that is a radical idea. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans support the idea.

So, Durbin, let me ask you a question. It has been 20 years. You are supposed to be a legislator. Why haven't you passed this, something that simple and that direct? I haven't made it a law of the land because of one thing: the filibuster. The filibuster. Five times I have brought this measure to the floor of the U.S. Senate and have been stopped by the filibuster; a majority vote every time but never the magic 60, the magic supermajority.

So do I have a problem with the filibuster? Yes, I do. I challenge those who are defending it to show me it can work, to show me we can create bipartisan votes on the floor, actually debate on the floor, amendments on the floor, legislation on the floor. That is not too much to ask. I think that is why we were elected.

I come today to address this issue because the House is expected to vote on the Dream and Promise Act and Farm Workforce Modernization Act. If the Senate is able to join the House in passing these bills, we would be able to make significant immigration legislation progress.

But I want to add that I support comprehensive immigration reform. I believe it is the only honest answer to what we face in America today. I will do my best to do everything I can. There is no excuse for inaction. This broken immigration system needs to be addressed on a bipartisan basis, and an answer is long overdue for Dreamers in this country. I have told you who they are.

When President Obama created DACA for them, some 800,000 came forward, registered with the government, and received legal status to work and freedom from fear of deportation because of DACA.

President Trump eliminated the program. The battle ensued in court. The Supreme Court said that Trump did it wrong, and we are now in the middle ground.

President Biden supports DACA. He has made it clear that it is open for new people to apply. Yet we don't have the final law.

We are dealing with Executive orders when it comes to this important issue. That is why I have decided to come to this floor and to continue to raise the issues of the people who are involved and to introduce my 129th Dreamer story on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which I have done for years.

Diana Andino. She was born in Ecuador. She came to the United States when she was 11 years old. She grew up in Houston, TX. She was quite a student. She graduated in the top 10 percent of her high school class and went on to earn a bachelor's degree with honors from the University of Houston, in biology with a minor in chemistry.

She wrote me a letter, and here is what she said about her dream of becoming a physician:

I found my calling in medicine after volunteering at a

local county hospital while I was in college.

Here is what she said about the difference that DACA made in her life:

I graduated from college in 2011, and my dream of becoming

a physician was truncated by my lack of citizenship status.

However, DACA came in place a year later. I was able to apply

to school and was accepted at the Loyola University Stritch

School of Medicine in Chicago.

Let me just say, hats off to Loyola and their medical school. They have led the Nation in accepting wonderful students just like Diana. They were the first in the Nation to accept DACA applicants. More than 30 have since attended their medical school, and many of them are practicing in underserved areas.

Diana graduated from Loyola Medical School and now is a third-year resident at Loyola University Medical Center. She treats COVID-19 patients with serious complications, such as stroke or major bleeding.

Here is what she said about the COVID-19 pandemic:

It's been a challenging year not only physically but

mentally. Patients with COVID-19 developed multiple

neurological complications that we have encountered and

continue to learn about. As a neurology resident, I've

learned to be flexible as there are so many unknowns we

encountered almost daily.

How many times have we said in the last year: Thank God for people just like this woman, who risks her life as a doctor for COVID-19 patients. Our brothers and sisters, our family members, people whom we love are kept alive because Diana is skilled enough and brave enough to go into their rooms and try to save their lives.

We think so much of Diana that we have to debate in the Senate whether she should be a citizen of the United States. There is no debate, as far as I am concerned. She is exactly the kind of person we need in America's future. Send her back to Ecuador? No. Let her stay in her home country of America.

Make the Dream Act a reality. Make it the law of the land. Don't let a filibuster stop it again. When we receive the Dream and Promise Act from the House of Representatives, we will have an opportunity to see if 10 Republican Senators can join us in an effort to finally pass it-- I hope more.

As I said at the outset, I support comprehensive immigration reform. I want to try to sit down and have a conversation about the farm labor bill, about those who are here in temporary protected status, about essential workers like Diana who ought to be given a chance to become citizens in this country. That is what the debate is all about.

This empty floor, with no conversation among Senators, is testimony to the fact that this is an aspiration--an aspiration that we can overcome the filibuster, pass the Dream Act and more and do it soon. Lives depend on it. Futures depend on it. The dreams of America are at stake.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) is necessarily absent.