Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, the exchange which took place between myself and the junior Senator from Texas has been analyzed from many different directions. The conclusion of CNN based on what he said on the floor and I responded to is as follows:

Cruz said ``every illegal alien in America'' would get a

$1,400 check. Durbin responded that Cruz's statement is

``just plain false'' because, he said, ``Undocumented

immigrants do not have Social Security numbers, and they do

not qualify for stimulus relief checks, period.''

According to CNN:

They were both wrong. Cruz was inaccurate when he said

``every'' undocumented immigrant will get a $1,400 relief

check.

Then they go on to say there are people, a discrete class of people, who might have a Social Security number, be undocumented, and receive a check. And because of the clarification and my own investigation afterwards, I will concede their point. I overstated my case.

Here is what it boils down to. In this situation, people have applied for a work visa--not a tourist visa, a work visa to come to the United States. Because of that work visa, they also received a Social Security number. Then they overstayed their visas and still could continue-- could possibly continue--to be on the rolls with their Social Security number and receive a check.

I might quickly add, this was a provision that was included in both of the relief bills for COVID-19 signed into law by President Trump, one of which the Senator from Texas voted for, one of which he did not.

So I would ask, how many people are we talking about? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? I can't find out. They can't give me the number because there isn't a calculation.

So here is the situation. You had to apply for a work visa, be granted the work visa and come to the United States, get a Social Security number, overstay your visa, and then continue to file income tax returns because that is the only way you could qualify for help through these relief packages.

I don't know if that group is ten or a hundred or a thousand, but I have carefully read the provisions that are offered by the Senator from Texas today, and I will tell you he basically says to the American Government, when it comes to cash payments: Stop the presses. Stop the presses. I want to know who these people are, and I don't want you to send them a check.

I don't believe that is reasonable. We have sent out 90 million checks. To stop this while we go through this debate is, I think, unfair.

I don't want these checks to go to people who do not qualify for them any more than he does, but I am not going to stop the issuance of checks to people living in Texas or Illinois in the meantime. I object.

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

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

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, let me thank my colleague from Indiana. You can't do better than ``Hoosiers.'' It is one of my favorite movies. It is the story of a small Indiana town beating the big city players, and, if I am not mistaken, my former colleague in the House, Lee Hamilton, might have been one of those players on the big city team. I think he told me at one point. It is a great story and all eyes are on Indianapolis and Indiana now with the NCAA tournament and your neighbors to the west, Illinois, headed across the border. It is going to make a good showing, I hope, for the Fighting Illini.

Thank you very much for reminding us of that great American tradition.

Madam President, earlier in the day, my friend and colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, came to the floor and raised some questions about my commitment to the filibuster as a rule in the Senate. He quoted me several years ago as saying the filibuster is kind of an indication of what the Senate was all about, and I still stand by that.

The Senate, of course, with two Senators from each State, regardless of their population, is an opportunity for smaller States and minorities to be represented and to have a voice. And the filibuster, at least in some respects, was a procedural reflection of that same value.

But I would say to Senator Cornyn, I have been moved and changed my mind somewhat on filibuster because of nothing--nothing. That is what has been happening on the floor of the U.S. Senate, nothing. When Senator McConnell, as the Republican leader, was in charge of the Senate over the last 2 years, we did little or nothing.

I didn't run for this office to represent the people of Illinois and to help our Nation to watch the ink dry on documents that are being pushed back and forth on desks here. We came here to do something.

Two years ago, because of the filibuster, 2 years ago, we considered 22 amendments in the course of 1 year on the floor of the Senate. That is not counting vote-arama, that contraption of a procedure where we debate all of 2 minutes before we vote on something, but real debate and real amendments--22.

Well, the following year, 2020, dramatic increase. We went all the way up to 29 amendments in the course of a year.

You say: Well, give me some measurement in history. My wife said: What does that mean? In the first year of the Obama administration, we had 240 amendments in the first year. Now we are down to 22 and 29. Why? Because we reached a point now where everyone assumes that every issue is going to be filibustered, and therefore if you don't have 60 votes, forget it.

Well, it is rare that that kind of supermajority shows up on anything important.

That is what happens when you play out the filibuster tradition to an extreme. As one staffer said to me the other day, the Senate is in a death spiral. No one can bring anything to the floor that might be subject to a filibuster because you can't imagine where you are going to get 60 votes.

I hope he is wrong, but I can understand his analysis. The measures that we have considered so far this year in the U.S. Senate, after 2 months-plus--well, the impeachment trial--that didn't require any filibuster votes. The nominations that come before us every day are not subject to a filibuster. And, of course, there is the reconciliation bill--the American rescue program for President Biden--that was under a procedure where you couldn't use a filibuster.

So now things are quiet on the floor of the Senate again this week and next week because whatever you bring here is subject to a threat of a filibuster, and you need 60 votes. I have watched this play out on an issue near and dear to my heart. It is called the DREAM Act, which I introduced 20 years ago--20 years ago. It basically says that if you were brought to this country as an infant, toddler, or a child--your parents made the decision--you grow up here and you ought to have a fighting chance to earn your way to legal status and citizenship. That is it.

Overwhelming majorities of people in all political parties support it. They think it is a good idea. And you say: Durbin, you came here to be a legislator, and, in 20 years, you can't pass one bill?

Well, I tried. Five times I brought the DREAM Act to the floor of the U.S. Senate, and it was stopped with a filibuster each and every time. I got a majority, and I still have a majority in support of it, but I can't get that 60 votes--that magic 60 votes that is needed under a filibuster.

Well, I am frustrated by that, and I hope my frustration is manifest by what I said on the floor. My challenge to the Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle is very simply this: If you believe in the filibuster and if you believe in working, show me that you can pass an important bill subject to the filibuster. Do it next week or the week following. Bring something to the floor. Let's debate it, let's amend, and let's vote it. I don't think that is unreasonable to ask. In fact, I think that is the reason we were elected to come here.

So I would say to the defenders of the filibuster: Try to defend what has happened on the floor of the Senate the last 2 years--almost nothing. We can do better. The American people expect it of us

Madam President, last night, near Atlanta, GA, a gunman murdered eight people in what appears to be an act of domestic terrorism. Six of the eight victims were women of Asian descent. We mourn the lives of those lost and pray for the families and loved ones.

While local and Federal authorities are still investigating the gunman's motives, we know that in the past year it has been a perilous time for Asian Americans and those from the Pacific Islands, especially women.

Since the pandemic began last March, nearly 3,800 hate incidents targeting these Americans have been reported. I expect the number of unreported incidents is much higher.

Asian-American women have had racist insults shouted at them from across streets. Grandparents have been assaulted and killed while running errands. Some Asian Americans have even begun carrying pepper spray, wearing body cameras, and walking in groups to protect themselves from wanton violence. Increasingly, AAPI Americans do not feel safe in their own neighborhoods.

This palpable fear is proof of how dangerous racist stereotypes and demagoguery can be. When former President Trump insists on calling the coronavirus the ``China virus,'' as he did again last night on FOX News, he is not simply spouting hateful, childish rhetoric. He is granting people permission. Permission to target neighbors and fellow citizens. Permission to hate.

This kind of language divides and preys on fears. It offers the kind of answer to every problem that you might expect from these people. There is always somebody you could fear and someone you can hate. The sad reality is that racist fear-mongering has always been part of the American story.

Today, we know, by testimony from the FBI Director, that it is a growing danger to every American. Intelligence analysts warn us that White supremacists and other far-right extremists are the most significant domestic terrorism threat facing the United States. Of course, we look across the ocean to the threat of terrorism after 9/11. Sadly, now we have to look across the street.

For far too long the Federal Government has failed to adequately address this growing threat. We saw the lethal results of that inattention on January 6, right here in this Senate Chamber. Groups of far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis, provoked by former President Trump, stormed our Capitol in an attempted insurrection.

I have introduced a bipartisan bill in the Senate that would give law enforcement the resources to address this threat. It is called the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. It would establish offices to combat domestic terrorism in the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. Those offices would assess the domestic terrorism threat regularly so that law enforcement can focus their limited resources on the most significant threats, like those facing AAPI Americans today.

My bill would also provide training and resources to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement in addressing those threats. I am sure communities across this Nation could use that support.

And there is the issue of how these terrorist acts are committed. Last night's attack near Atlanta was a mass shooting, a uniquely American threat. Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, will hold a hearing on gun violence in America. Too many people get shot in America--not just near Atlanta but in the cities of Chicago and St. Louis and all across our country. How many times have we seen images in those communities like we did last night of another mass shooting? America is better than this.

We need to take action to reduce the number of gun deaths in this Nation. We are going to get to work in the Senate Judiciary Committee to try to find some common, bipartisan ground to address it. Maybe we will fail. I hope we succeed. We have to try.

It is time for the Senate to stop cowering before any special interest group and pass commonsense gun safety policy. To the people of Atlanta, to members of the AAPI community, and all across America, we are standing with you. We are grieving with you. We will do everything in our power to protect you

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, it is flattering when the Republican Senate leader comes to the floor and mentions your name, and Senator McConnell did just that this morning.

The issue was the filibuster. Senator McConnell found a quote several years ago where I spoke in favor of the filibuster to protect minority rights in the Senate. It is true. I did say that. It was based on life experience. Having already served in the Senate for a number of years, I came to understand how it evolved as one of the procedures in the Senate.

But I have to say to you that my impression of the filibuster changed, and the reason it changed was none other than the Republican Senate majority leader, now minority leader, Senator McConnell. You see, the filibuster really was created in the Senate through its own rules, as I explained yesterday, and it came to define the Senate in this respect. The Founding Fathers looked to the Senate to provide two representatives--literally, Senators--from each State, regardless of population, so smaller States, back in the original Colonies, like Delaware, would have the same number of Senators as a large State, like Virginia. That was their intention.

So the protection of minority rights was kind of built into the definition of the U.S. Senate, and the filibuster became its manifestation in the daily procedure of the Senate. Under that filibuster, of course, one Senator could stop the debate, or at least slow it

down, by insisting on a filibuster, only to be stopped by an extraordinary majority of the Senate voting to return to the regular business.

That was the case in 1957 because, in August of 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond took to the floor of this U.S. Senate and initiated the longest filibuster in its history. For 24 hours and 18 minutes, the man stood by his desk and spoke without stopping. He didn't have any permission to leave the floor for any reason and certainly couldn't sit down without losing his filibuster. He did it. He did it for the wrong reason, I am afraid, because he was trying to stop the march of civil rights in this country, but he did it. Determinedly, he achieved that goal.

When he did, in 1957, that was the broken fifth filibuster in the history of the Senate in the previous five decades. In other words, if you went back to 1919 and all the way to 1957, Strom Thurmond's was the fifth time in history a filibuster was broken. Once every decade, a filibuster was broken on the Senate floor.

Well, that world has changed--dramatically changed. We can now have five filibusters in a couple of weeks. We now have, on average, 80 filibusters a year because of the urging and direction of the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. He has institutionalized the filibuster to the point where it is now the normal course of business, not an extraordinary procedure.

I recounted the fact that I introduced the DREAM Act 20 years ago--20 years ago. Durbin, what kind of a Senator are you that in 20 years you can't pass the DREAM Act? Well, I brought it to the Senate floor on five different occasions, and on five different occasions it was stopped by the filibuster. Other Members can tell the story of their legislative experience on the floor too.

The point I am getting to is this: It wasn't until Senator McConnell and the Republicans who follow him decided to make the filibuster just daily business in the Senate that it was abused to the point where the Senate stopped doing regular legislative business.

I would like Senator McConnell to come to the floor the next opportunity he has and explain this to me. In the last calendar year, 2020, the Senate considered 29 amendments on the floor of the Senate in the entire year. Now, that doesn't count a vote-arama, which is an aberration that I don't think would ever be accused of being deliberative. But 29 regular-order amendments during the course of a year--embarrassing, isn't it? When you think of this great so-called debating society, 29 times we brought an amendment to the floor? Well, it was an improvement--an improvement over the previous year, a 30- percent improvement, in fact--because in the year 2019, under Senator McConnell's leadership, we had 22 amendments.

So when Senator McConnell and others come to the floor and plead for us to hang on to the traditions of the Senate, I would tell you that their interpretation of the traditions is strangling this body. They have beaten the old filibuster to the point where it is hardly recognizable and is now the regular order of business in the U.S. Senate.

That is why many of us, frustrated with having worked so hard to come here, wanting to do the best we can to represent the people who have sent us here, are so frustrated by the current state of procedure. And for Senator McConnell and other Republicans to come to the floor and plead for hanging on to this tradition is actually pleading for the Senate to continue to do less and less each year.

There are those of us now in control on the majority side--the bare majority side--on the Democratic side, who really believe there is much more to be done in the Senate. The American people expect us to respond.

Now, you might ask: Well, how did you pass the American Rescue Plan if there is a filibuster used so frequently? It was under a process called reconciliation, which depends on a majority vote. You can't filibuster under the reconciliation. That is why this amazing bill, this new law, the American Rescue Plan by President Biden, is so sweeping in its reach. We had to try to combine, under this law, so many provisions that had been affected by the pandemic and the state of the economy because we knew that returning to the regular order of business with the filibuster looming every single day would tie our hands just as sure as we have seen in the past several years.

So, Senator McConnell, thank you for mentioning my name, but if I became skeptical of the filibuster, it is because of your use of it. I hope that you understand that you can't have it both ways. It can't be a rare procedure and be a procedure that dominates the actual business of the Senate as this has done for so many years.

Mr. President, last year I came to the floor on multiple occasions to ask consent for a simple, sensible resolution. It called for the United States to cooperate in global efforts to address the COVID pandemic. At that time, that point was obvious, and it is even more obvious today.

Pandemics don't respect borders. None of us is safe from highly infectious diseases until all of us are safe. That is especially important to keep in mind as we begin to turn a corner here in America.

Last week, during his first address to the Nation, President Biden announced that all adults in America over the age of 18 will be eligible for vaccinations on May 1 of this year. If all goes to plan, we can look forward, as President Biden mentioned, to a Fourth of July with family and close friends at a close distance.

Considering what they inherited, the Biden administration deserves credit for dramatically scaling up vaccinations in America. The administration helped to strike a historic partnership between rival drugmakers, ramped up manufacture of the vaccine, and improved coordination with State officials everywhere.

We are seeing a world of difference that this makes. When you put competent, qualified leadership in charge in the White House and in State capitols, good things happen. Our weekly vaccine shipments in Illinois have nearly doubled. The Federal Government has erected a mass vaccination site at the United Center in Chicago. It has also supported partnerships with community health centers and retail pharmacies to expand access to vaccines. A cautious hopefulness is washing over America, but we can't lose momentum in our fight against COVID.

To put this pandemic really behind us and to bury it in history, we need to lend a hand to the many poor nations that have yet to receive a single dose of vaccine. The inequities are stark. Ten countries have accounted for 75 percent of the total vaccinations administered worldwide, while approximately 100 countries have yet to administer any vaccine doses. This dangerous shortfall has the potential to undermine the good work that is happening here in America. Closing this gap is not only the right and moral thing to do, it is the safest and smartest thing to do to stop the threat COVID, and its increasingly contagious variants, pose to us all.

Remember back a little over a year ago, an obscure city in China generated a virus--we think they did--that ended up circling the world many times over and changing life on this planet.

Last month, I received a briefing from Dr. Fauci on the new genetic mutations of COVID-19. He shared troubling news about variants that are emerging in the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Brazil. Some of them may have more resistance to our current vaccines than we care to see. He warned that if we fail to stamp out the virus globally, then we will continue to see risks within our own borders. Variants of the virus could counteract the tremendous progress we have made and the progress that we are poised to make in the near future.

As I said at the outset, viruses don't recognize borders. Crushing the virus in other countries is a strategic investment in our own national safety and security. President Biden understands this. He is serious about addressing the virus first in America and then around the world. He has set us on a pace to vaccinate all eligible Americans over the course of the next several months.

Let me urge those who are hesitant or skeptical as to whether it is the right thing to do, do it, please--for yourself, for those you love, and for this Nation.

President Biden wisely halted President Trump's withdrawal from the World Health Organization. He joined

the global COVAX vaccine effort, and he allocated significant funding toward global vaccination efforts, funding that is expanded under the American Rescue Plan, which we passed just a few weeks ago in the Senate.

Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen recently announced that the United States will support the issuance of special drawing rights, a type of IMF foreign exchange reserve that can help poor countries buy vaccines and weather the economic fallout from the pandemic, a welcome move that I encouraged and was a coauthor of with Senator Sanders and Congressman ``Chuy'' Garcia.

Just last week, the President announced a partnership with key allies in the Pacific region to provide at least 1 billion COVID vaccines in countries in Asia. This is prescient, global leadership long overdue. The President's actions will save lives here at home and abroad, and these investments will fuel a global economic recovery, which we all want to see.

To understand why a global strategy is called for, look at history. Some of you who are witnessing this statement on the floor at home may be old enough to have a distinct circular scar on your upper arm. Maybe you have seen it on the arms of a parent or grandparent. That mark is a relic from one of the world's greatest public health victories: the eradication of the deadly smallpox virus.

The fact that so few people living today remember the death and misery caused by that disease is a testament to the global public health strategy that stopped it. Smallpox was one of the most devastating diseases to afflict mankind. It is estimated to have killed up to 300 million people in the 20th century, 500 million people in the last hundred years.

In 1967, the World Health Organization launched a historic international effort to eradicate it. It was one of the most successful public health initiatives in human history. Next month marks the 41st anniversary of that historic achievement.

In the years since, America has led similar global efforts to stamp out diseases like polio and Ebola. If we follow in these footsteps, historians will one day add COVID to the top of that list of historic achievements.

Pursuing a global strategy is the most effective way--maybe the only way--to accelerate vaccine production and distribution in every corner of the world. By sharing our wealth of knowledge and resources with the world, we reap lifesaving benefits, not just around the world but right here at home.

We all know public health is bigger than partisanship and always has been. In the 2000s, for example, I called on then-President Bush to help stem the scourge of AIDS around the world through the historic PEPFAR Program. At the time, many of my Republican friends in the Senate supported it. I hope and expect that they will do the same when it comes to supporting the global effort against COVID-19. The moment calls for nothing less.

Public health experts understand that. President Biden understands that. I know we here in Congress understand that. We can end the threat of COVID once and for all. It is within our power.

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

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