so stay with us. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. government. >> the u.s. senate will be gavelling in shortly to continue debate today on

judicial nominations, including district court nominees for arkansas and pennsylvania, as well as appeals court nominations for the 9th circuit covering the western u.s. and the 2nd circuit which includes connecticut, new york and vermont. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, thank you for not leaving us

alone in a challenging world. you remain our refuge in every storm. we call you when troubles arise, and you rescue us even from self-inflicted wounds. you clean up our debris, restoring us to your sweet fellowship. as our lawmakers commit this day to you, help them navigate through its turbulence. may your spirit impinge on their minds, guiding them by the light of your truth. be the resource they need to be faithful stewards of your unfolding providence.

we pray in your gracious name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: i'd like to speak one minute as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: oh, boy. i have to scratch my head about hearing some criticism of the finance committee's prescription drug reduction act from supposedly fiscally conservative and pro-taxpayer organizations, to mention a couple, like freedom works and america's for tax reform. the grassley-wyden bipartisan bill should have a lot of support. it will save taxpayers $100 million. you would think that fiscally conservative organizations would want to back that. of course some of these fiscally conservative organizations receive substantial funding from big pharma. i can't think of a better

opportunity to enact bipartisan entitlement reform that would significantly lower the debt and help rein in entitlement spending bill, and this bill happens to be judged by the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan group working for the congress as a whole saying it would save a little over $ 100 billion. so i think reining in entitlement spending is a goal that i campaigned on and nearly won every one of my republican colleagues have campaigned on that same platform. so now's a chance to carry out those campaign promises. in other words, stand on the platform you run on. in an era of gridlock and

partisanship, do supporters of less government spending and balanced budgets really think their goal can be achieved without bipartisanship? because nothing gets done in the united states senate that isn't somewhat bipartisan. the good news is that my legislation is bipartisan and support for the bill is growing every day. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday, the senate confirmed david tapp of kentucky to serve on the u.s. court of federal claims. today we will turn to more of president trump's impressive nominees for the federal

judiciary. last week, senate republicans had hoped to proceed to their urgent priority of funding our national defense. but for the second time in two months, senate democrats filibustered defense funding. they blocked the senate from funding our armed forces. over the summer, the speaker of the house and my colleague, the democratic leader, both signed on to a bipartisan, bicameral budget deal that democrats hammered out with president trump's team in order to avoid exactly, exactly the kind of partisan stalemate that we're now experiencing. and avoid a 12-bill omnibus. the agreement laid out specific top-line numbers and ruled out poison pills. the agreement we all reached just a couple of months ago with respect to presidential transfer

authorities, the agreement specifically stated that we all agreed to two months ago, the agreement specifically stated, quote, current transfer of funding levels and authorities shall be maintained. the present transfer authorities as they relate to border funding or anything else were to remain exactly as they existed in current law. this is the deal we signed off on just two months ago. the deal just simply preserved the status quo that was established by bipartisan legislation last fiscal year. the same transfer authorities, by the way, would also be preserved if democrats tank the appropriations process and we end up with a continuing resolution.

so that was the deal. democrats were on board. i entered the terms into the "congressional record," and both the sprerk and the senate democratic leader posted the terms of the deal in their press release. oh, but now our democratic counterparts have gone back on their word. contrary to the agreement, democrats are now insisting on poison pills and thus blocking the resources and certainty our men and women in uniform need. and while senate democrats block defense funding, house democrats continue to hold up usmca and the 176,000 new american jobs it would create. all their time and energy seems to go into house democrats'

three-year-old impeachment journey and the unprecedented breaking process by which the house has conducted its inquiry so far. last week, house democrats cast their first votes on impeachment and codified their irregular process. they passed a resolution that fails, fails to provide president trump the same rights and due process that past presidents of both parties have received. here's what democrats' resolution effectively said. no due process now, maybe some later, but only if we feel like it. no due process now, maybe some later, but only if we feel like it. well, mr. president, while we wait for our democratic counterparts to come back to the table and allow this body to complete urgent bipartisan legislation, we're going to continue confirming more of president trump's impressive

nominees, and giving the american people the government they actually voted for. now, on another matter, i have come to the floor frequently in recent months to warn about dangerous antispeech, anti-first amendment headwinds blowing out of washington, d.c. i've warned about proposals from our democratic colleagues that seem tailor made to chill the free exchange of ideas and make it more difficult for americans to engage in political speech. just a few days ago, on october 23, i explained how the threat of heavy regulatory burden has already, quote, frightened media platforms into rejecting political ads altogether. it's a textbook example of policy designed to reduce the amount of free speech in this country, end quote. and then, mr. president, seven days later, here's what happened. twitter announced their platform will ban all political ads. the online platform is banning

advertisements for candidates for office and political campaigns. what is more, they say they are also banning issue ads which do not even reference a specific campaign but merely seek to give one perspective on a subject. twitter's leadership has tried to produce a rationale for banishing paid political speech, but the argument boils down to the same misunderstandings that have been used to undermine free speech for decades. here's what twitter's c.e.o. said. quote, we believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. this kind of surface level argument may sound good at first, but it quickly gives way to an arbitrary process of picking winners and losers in the competition of ideas. here's what i mean. twitter's new rules would seem

to forbid either a small liberal nonprofit or a small conservative nonprofit from putting money behind an issue ad to amplify their perspective. but what about the press? will media corporations large and small remain free to buy paid advertising to promote editorials and opinion writers? will cable news networks and national newspapers remain free to advertise their political speech? it would seem, mr. president, that twitter will either have to ban opinion journalists and the press from advertising their own work or else create an enormous double standard that would suggest -- just amplify the already privileged speakers who already possess multimillion-dollar platforms. it would just help clear the field for those elites by denying the same tools to

fledgling speakers who are not already famous. so consider this. back in july, the c.e.o. of twitter praised two democratic presidential candidates in a twitter post of his own. this gentleman has 4.3 million followers. it seems fair to conclude that these subscribers have not followed him solely due to the stand-alone merits of his commentary, but in part because they are interested to hear from a powerful person who runs a hugely influential company. and, of course, twitter has worked hard and spent money for years to grow its business and make itself famous, efforts that have raised the profile of their c.e.o. nothing wrong with that. but it illustrates the impossibility of any top-down standard to determine who has earned an audience, who has earned an audience.

how many millions of dollars go into publicity campaigns for hollywood actors or musicians or media personalities? how many millions of dollars in advertising and corporate strategy have made cnn, fox, msnbc, and "the new york times" into what they are today? when these people and these institutions speak out on politics, are they using megaphones they have earned or megaphones that have been bought? obviously, such distinctions are impossible to draw. this is exactly why the act of free speech is not separate from the resources that make speech possible. let me say that again. this is exactly why the act of free speech is not separate from the resources that make speech possible. twitter's announced policy would not level the playing field. it would only reinforce echo chambers. it would prevent a local

candidate on a shoestring budget from using a small amount of money to promote a tweet so more of his neighbors can learn about his campaign. and it would seemingly reserve a special privilege for major media corporations while denying nonprofits the same opportunity. such a policy would not bolster our democracy. it would degrade democracy. it would amplify the advantage of media companies, celebrities, and certain other established elites while denying an important tool to the americans who disagree with them. my personal view is that the american people do not need elites to predetermine which political speakers are legitimate and which are not. i believe that holds true whether the elites live in washington or silicon valley or anywhere else. obviously, twitter can set whatever policy they want, this

is a private sector company, but companies respond to incentives. it's easy to see the influence of washington and leading democrats behind this announcement. pretty easy. my democratic colleagues have threatened to impose huge regulatory liability on platforms that run political ads, and now a prominent platform has preemptively decided that allowing certain kinds of political speech is more trouble than it's worth. so, mr. president, it does not serve our democracy for democratic leaders to chill or suppress the free exchange of ideas through federal policy, and it does not serve our democracy for private sector leaders to take away a crucial tool that helps less prominent speakers make their case to the american people.

now, i understand there is a bill at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the leader is correct. the clerk will read the title. the clerk: h.r. 4842, an act to authorize the secretary of state to provide funds for a united states pavilion at expo 2020 dubai and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under rule 14, i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, lee phillip rudofsky of arkansas to be united states district judge for the eastern district of arkansas. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? i would ask unanimous consent it be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, last friday was an exciting day. i was home at sue falls, south dakota, to mark a huge milestone for the city and for south dakota. the unveiling of sue falls' first 5g small cells.

by the end of this month, sioux falls will have a limited albeit working 5g network, one of the first cities in the entire country to have one. most people take internet access for granted these days. we assume anywhere we go we will be able to access our g.p.s., check facebook, or text message, but the truth is there are still areas of the united states where it can be difficult to get reliable internet access. some of those areas are in south dakota. and that's why expanding access to broadband internet in rural communities has been a priority of mine since i came to the united states senate. while it can be nice to turn off our phones and to take a break, in this day and age, americans need reliable internet access. more and more of the business of daily life is being conducted over the internet, from scheduling appointments to figuring out the shortest way from point a to point b. the internet has also become an integral part of commerce. small businesses and farms in areas without dependable

internet access miss out on a lot of opportunities that most businesses take for granted. both as chairman and as a member of the senate commerce committee, i have had the chance to draw attention to the state of broadband access in rural communities. i have conducted numerous hearings with testimony from rural broadband providers, farmers, tribal representatives, and federal officials, both here in washington and in my home state of south dakota. over the past several years, we have seen the number of americans lacking access to broadband decrease significantly, but there's more work that needs to be done. with the advent of 5g technology, we now have to expand our efforts to make deploying 5g technology to rural communities a priority. mr. president, most of us think today's internet is pretty fast. we get traffic updates that are basically in real time, we receive e-mails seconds after they have been sent, and we stream our favorite shows at home or on the go, but 5g, 5g,

mr. president, will make 4g look like dialup. it will deliver lightning-fast speeds up to 100 times faster than what today's technology delivers. that's hard to imagine. after all, as i said, today's technology seems pretty fast, but 5g will enable near-instant responsiveness from our phones and other devices. however, 5g is about a lot more than streaming more shows on more devices or receiving e-mails instantly. in addition to being up to 100 times faster than current speeds, 5g will be vastly more responsive than 4g technology and we would be able to connect 100 times the number of devices that can be connected with 4g. because of this, 5g will enable massive breakthroughs in health care, transportation, agriculture, and other key industries, and it will bring new opportunities and benefits to rural communities in particular. 5g will pave the way for the widespread adoption of precision

agriculture, which uses tools like robotics and remote monitoring to help farmers manage their fields and boost their crop yields. the u.s. department of agriculture estimates that precision agriculture will reduce farmers' operational costs by up to $25 per acre and increase farmers' yields by up to 70% by the year 2050. 5g will also make it easier for residents of rural communities to access business and educational opportunities in long-distance health care. mr. president, the technology for 5g is already here and is actually being implemented, as friday's event in sioux falls demonstrates, but there's more work to be done before 5g is a reality across the united states. in order to deploy 5g, wireless providers need access to sufficient spectrum, and they need to be able to deploy the infrastructure needed to support the technology in a reasonable and timely manner. last year, the president signed into law my bipartisan mobile

now act. it was legislation that i introduced to help secure adequate spectrum for 5g technology. and earlier this year, senator schatz and i reintroduced the streamlined small cell deployment act to address the other part of the 5g equation, and that's infrastructure. 5g technology will require not just traditional cell phone towers but small antennas called small cells that can often be attached to existing infrastructure like utility poles or buildings. while the federal communications commission under chairman pi has modernized its regulations under small cell siting, there is more work to be done. that's where my bill comes in. the streamline act will expedite the deployment of small cells while respecting the role of state and local governments in make deployment decisions, and importantly it will make it more affordable to bring 5g to rural areas by addressing the costs of small cell deployment.

mr. president, 5g has tremendous promise for rural areas, but it will only deliver on that promise if we ensure that 5g cells are actually deployed in these areas. i'm proud that we have made a good start in south dakota. sioux falls' mayor has moved aggressively to remove barriers in communications investment in sioux falls. nationally, we urgently need to take action to remove the final barriers to large-scale 5g deployment. while we have made good progress on securing low and high-band spectrum, china and south korea are far ahead of us in opening up mid-band spectrum to 5g. if we don't want china or south korea to win the race to 5g and seize the economic benefits that 5g will bring, we need to substantially, substantially increase the amount of mid-band spectrum available to u.s. companies, and we need to do it quickly. we also need to take action on legislation like my streamline act to pave the way for the

widespread deployment of 5g infrastructure. mr. president, america can lead the world in the 5g revolution. the technology, as i said, is here. we just need to take the final steps to bring 5g into our communities. lie forward to continuing to work to support the nationwide deployment of 5g and all the benefits it can bring to the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: good morning. i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, the house of representatives continues to interview key witnesses as part of its impeachment inquiry. each witness has reportedly added details and context to the central focus of the inquiry that the president allegedly pressured a foreign leader to interfere in domestic politics and use the power of his office for personal political gain. the house must follow the facts where they lead and continue the investigation until all the facts come out. when and if there's a potential trial here in the senate, it will be our job to impartially look at all the evidence and

come to our own independent judgment. i remind my colleagues of this fact because in recent days, a few of my colleagues seem to be jumping to conclusions. we all know about our colleagues in the house republican caucus who have made a show of storming classified hearings even though many could participate in those hearings, who have shifted their defenses of the president on a near daily basis, who only weeks ago made the idea of no quid pro quo the linchpin of their argument in support of the president but now admit that the president might have engaged in a quid pro quo but there's nothing wrong with that. in the house, the shifting sands of argument to embrace, to almost kneel at the feet of the president is appalling. they contradict themselves. they turn themselves into pretzels all before all the

facts come out because they just blindly want to say the president is right. that's not -- that is not how the constitution asked us to conduct ourself as legislators. in the senate, we're beginning to get that germ, that germ of coming to conclusions before we hear all the facts, before the trial occurs. that germ is spreading, that nasty germ. a senior member said yesterday that they will refuse to read any transcripts from the house investigation because they have written the whole process off as a bunch of b.s. using taxpayer dollars, much-needed foreign aid, an important part of our foreign policy tool, to gain an advantage on a political rival, if that's true, that is b.s.?

our senate judiciary chairman knows better, but his blind loyalty, his abject following of whatever president trump wants it seems makes him say things like that. and yesterday, leader mcconnell stepped over the line, in my judgment, when he said that if an impeachment vote were held today, the president would be acquitted. instead of speculating about the hypothetical trial, writing off the entire process before it is even concluded, how about we all wait for the facts to come out? that's our job, and facts can be stubborn things. just yesterday, we learned that a key figure provided supplementary testimony that he told a top ukrainian official that u.s. military assistance was conditioned on an

announcement by ukraine that it was opening the investigations president trump requested. so instead of leaping to the president's defense to declare no quid pro quo, as many house republicans did, a claim now contradicted by several witnesses, everyone should wait for the facts to come out. fairness demands that of us. before i move on to another topic, there's another troubling development in this area. efforts by the white house and a member of this chamber to disclose the identity of the whistle-blower. let me repeat that. the white house and even a member of this chamber are openly advocating that federal whistle-blower protections be violated, that laws be broken, and that the health and safety of the whistle-blower and their family be put at risk. shame. shame. just outrageous. we are in an extraordinary moment of history when

republicans over only a few weeks have shifted from saying no laws were broken to saying laws were broken but it's not impeachmentable to outright advocating that laws be broken. this is wrong. this is against democracy. this is against the grain of this country that we have been so proud of for 200-some odd years. whistle-blowers who stand up for the constitution should not be targeted by the president or powerful members of the legislative branch for sure, and even if you don't agree with that, you have to agree that if it's the law, you shouldn't break it. we're a nation of laws. president trump should hear that. so should the junior senator from kentucky. please. now, on a good note, i was pleased to hear that several of my republican colleagues stood up yesterday and did the right thing.

they defended the whistle-blower's legal protections, including a member of the republican senate leadership. later today, i hope these senators and indeed all senators join democrats in approving a resolution offered by my colleague, senator hirono, that supports the whistle-blower protections. senator hirono will be asking unanimous consent to pass it, and we should. for the sake of the safety of this whistle-blower, whether you like what he or she did or you don't, for the sake of rule of law, for the sake of what balance of power is all about. now, on judges. later today, president trump will give remarks from the white house on the judiciary, presumably to give himself one big pat on the back for the federal bench. he is good at that. he likes doing that. he does that almost more than governing. as a senator, i have now worked with four separate administrations, democrat and

republican. on the appointment of federal judges. i can say with perfect confidence that over the last three years, president trump has nominated and senate republicans have approved the most unqualified and radical nominees in my time in this body. the list of unqualified nominees is so long that for the sake of time, let's only consider nominees for the past three weeks. justin walker, confirmed last week, western district of kentucky, has never tried a case and was deemed unqualified to serve as a judge by the american bar association. sara pit lick, -- sarah has never tried a case, examined a witness, or picked a jury. lawrence vandyke is up after that. the a.b.a. found the interviewed

that their interviewee's experience with mr. vandyke said he was arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking knowledge of the day-to-day practice, including procedural rules. how in the heck do we put these people on the bench? forget ideology for a moment. i understand that the president is not going to nominate people who might not ideologically agree with me. but these people are qualified based on their persons, who they are, how they behave in the courtroom, their knowledge, their experience. it's a lifetime appointment, one of the most important appointments we have. and when the a.b.a. finds that a nominee was arrogant, lazy, an ideologue and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules and we go ahead and nominate him, what is the matter here?

even more damaging, president trump has nominated judges who are way out on the very extremes of jurisprudence, right-wing ideologues whose views cut against the majority of americans on nearly every issue. the judges he's nominating disagree with the vast majority of americans on issue after issue after issue, whether it's women's health and the right of a rahm to make her own medical decisions, whether it's legal protections for lgbtq americans, whether it's the right of workers in collective bargaining, whether it's fair access to the ballot box and voting rights, whether it's the most commonsense gun laws and environmental protections. these nominees have used way to the right of even the average republican, let alone the average american. president trump has nominated several judges who have been so extreme and overtly racist that my republican colleagues who are loath to oppose president trump

on anything have actually opposed him, so those few nominees didn't get on the bench. this, mr. president, the nomination of these hard-right people, way over, hurting the average american, siding with big special interests over working americans over and over and over again, finding every excuse to side with the rich and the powerful over the working class people, this is what president trump calls an accomplishment? i understand why the president and leader mcconnell tried to celebrate judicial nominees. they hardly have a legislative accomplishment to name, but the truth is when it comes to judicial picks, the president and senate republicans should be downright ashamed, ashamed of their record. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, when i first came to the united states senate, i was asked to serve on the senate judiciary committee and considered it quite an honor. it's an extraordinary committee with a rich history of involvement in some of the most important issues of our time, and that's been the case for generations. recently, when it was re-formed, i was asked which subcommittee i wanted to serve on, and i chose the immigration subcommittee. i took it for two reasons -- first, i'm a lucky american. my mother was an immigrant to this country. she was brought here at the age of 2 from lithuania. her mother who brought her didn't speak english, but my mom was a pretty smart little girl,

and she spoke english and lithuanian, and she was the translator for the family. they even called her into a courtroom as a little girl to translate for a person who was being charged so that they understood the law. my mother was an extraordinary woman. eighth grade education, but one of the smartest people i have ever known. i guess that's a son talking, but you might expect it. and i've often -- i have thought that i was lucky that she lived long enough to see me sworn into the united states senate, this immigrant girl who became an american citizen saw her son become the 47th senator from the state of illinois. that's my story. that's my family's story. that's america's story. that's who we are. we are a nation of immigrants. but for those blessed to be able to trace back their roots to indigenous people and native americans, all of us have come to this country, either ourselves personally, our parents, our grandparents.

immigration means a lot to me because i think the diversity of this country is its strength. the fact that people were willing to sacrifice so much to come to the united states of america tells me something about them. many of them risked everything, left everything behind, left their families behind, their places of worship, their language, their culture, their food, and came to a place they had never seen before because they heard about what america was all about, a land of opportunity. so i wanted to be on that subcommittee. and the second reason that i wanted to be on the subcommittee is the immigration laws of the united states are a disaster. they are terribly broken. they do not serve our nation, either in terms of security or bringing diversity which we need for our future. i've known this for a long time. it was just six or seven years ago that we put together a group of senators, four democrats, four republicans. john mccain was leading the republicans with lindsey graham, marco rubio, jeff flake.

on the democratic side, myself hrks senator schumer who just spoke on the floor, senator menendez of new jersey, and senator bennet of colorado. we sat down for months, months night after night after night looking at every section of the immigration law, this broken law to say how would we change this, how can we reach political compromises that serve the best needs of this nation, and we came up with it. we came up with this comprehensive bill and brought it to the floor of the senate. and it passed with 68 votes, 68 votes. we finally had found a bipartisan answer, just exactly what the american people sent us to do. we sent our work product over to the united states house of representatives. they refused to even consider it. wouldn't bring our bill up for a vote. wouldn't debate it. wouldn't offer an amendment, an alternative substitute, nothing. and here we sit with this broken immigration system.

one of the issues that came up recently i want to describe to my colleagues, or at least those listening in the united states senate. here's what it comes down to. there are people who come to the united states to work. many of them come on what is known as an h-1-b visa. it's a specialty visa. it says in this situation this company cannot find an american to fill the job and wants to bring in a talented person from another country on a temporary visa to work. thousands come under this program each year, and many of them come from the country of india. they are trained engineers, by and large, but they are also doctors and they are professionals that are needed in communities all across our country. well, we have run into a problem because once they're here and have been here for some time, many of them want to stay.

that in and of itself is a good thing, as far as i'm concerned. if they are productive employees, making a business profitable, creating new jobs in the process, i want them to stay. some of them were actually educated in the united states, and they're using that education working here, but now they want to be permanent residents in this country. there is a difficulty and a problem because we limit the number of people who can apply for what's known as green cards, employment-based visas each year. the limitation is 140,000. it may sound like a lot, but believe me, there are many more, hundreds of thousands more who are seeking these visas. and we have a problem particularly when it comes to those of indian descent. the problem is the fact that so many of them have come to fill these temporary jobs, work jobs, and are applying for green cards, that there are many more applications for green cards than there are actual cards to be issued.

140,000 total each year for the entire world. there are over 500,000 indians who have come to this country and are asking for green card status. and the law says no more than 7% can come from any one country of the 140,000. if you do the simple math of about 10,000 each year, over 500,000 indians waiting, imagine what that means. it means that many of them will never live long enough to qualify for a green card. so this has become very controversial and many of them are desperate and they should be. their plight is now so uncertain. it's complicated by the fact that if you come here on an employment-base situation, a temporary visa, h-1b, you can bring your family with you. your spouse and your children. but if you stay here for a period of time and your children

reach the age of 21, they can no longer stay based on their parents' visa. they frankly are subject to deportation and some are deported. i met the other night a large group of these indians in the state of illinois who came to me pleading for help. i want to help them. and i hope they understand and those who are listening understand as well that when it comes to immigration, i'm in favor of border security. i'm in favor of orderly immigration. but i'm in favor of immigration and the diversity it brings to this country and the tat lent it brings -- talent it brings to this country. so i have a bill before us known as the relief act. it would lift that cap of 140,000 so that we could absorb into our country more each year who have been here already, are working here already. their families are established here already. i just -- they just want a

chance to able to apply for citizenship ultimately. that's what my bill would do but it does two other things. and i want to bring these points up for those who are considering my unanimous consent request which i'm about to make. i want them to understand how personal and important this is to the people i'm talking about. one of the provisions i mentioned to you relates to the fact that if you bring children to the united states while you're working on those temporary visas, those children are protected until they reach the age of 21. but then they're subject to deportation. i cannot tell you the emotional scenes which i have witnessed in the last few weeks as these parents introduce me to their children and say to me, senator, i'm in this long line waiting for a grown card. my daughter, my 12-year-old daughter could end up being 21 years old and deported while i'm still waiting. i want to take care of her. i want her to have a chance to go to school. i want her to have a bright

future, but her fate is tied to the fact that there are not enough green cards for me to stay in this country. so one of the provisions of the relief act -- and i urge my colleagues when i make this unanimous consent request to consider it -- one of my provisions says that if you apply for a green card as a parent, the age of your children at that moment is basically frozen for legal purposes. that child cannot age out while you're waiting in line if you applied while they were still minors. this will protect these children from deportation. and it's one of the most important and humane things we can do. and the second thing is if we're going to establish any standards or quotas for those who are allowed in this country to have employment-base visas and green cards, we shouldn't count the spouses and dependent children. let's just count those who are frankly going to work as engineers and doctors in our communities. the net result of the relief act is to create a realistic way to

lift the cap to allow more to come in who are qualified, already been vetted and gone through the background checks, but to allow more to come in each year, not to penalize the minor children who might age out while their parents are waiting, and to make certain that the spouses and dependent children aren't counted towards any ultimate quota. the relief act would lift country caps that limit the number of green cards that go to immigrants from any particular country. these country caps have contributed to this terrible backlog we currently have. but lifting these caps alone will not clear the green card backlog. without more green cards which is what i'm calling for, the current backlog of 800,000 people total, i mentioned 500,000 were from india, waiting for employment-base green cards will actually increase if we don't lift the cap by 300,000 in the next ten years. this relief act is not novel or controversial.

you remember earlier i talked about a comprehensive immigration bill. what i'm proposing today was included in it. it was a bipartisan proposal. it's one i think we should return to to solve the problem. the relief act has been endorsed by many national business, immigrant and labor organization, including the new american economy, the national education association, the american immigration lawyers association, united we dream, asian americans varnsing advancing justice. south asian americans leading together, united chinese americans, national iranian-american council, institute of electrical and electronic engineers, the educational progressive organization which is the largest greek america organization and the ancient order of hibernians, the largest irish organization in america. in light of the failure of our immigration subcommittee to take any action to solve this problem, i'm going to ask for unanimous consent to move this

bill forward. and i would say to those who are considering whether they will accept or reject it, meet with these people in your state. sit down with them and hear the plight that they face today. they are trying to follow the law and the law is not responsive. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged of s. 2603 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: thank you, mr. president. mr. tillis: reserving the right to object. i come to the floor to really first compliment senator durbin on his remarkable story and his family's story about legal immigration to this country. it's something that i support and i think we should all consider it a compliment when people want to leave the country

of their birth to come to the united states because they know what we know, it's a great place to live and thrive. mr. president, i have a concern with the unanimous consent request before us, the relief act. senator durbin and i have worked on a couple of immigration issues to where we've bridged the gap but we haven't gotten quite there. the concern that i have with the relief act is that first off, it could lay the groundwork for a significant increase in legal immigration but i'm also concerned with the mechanics that we find ourselves in right now. the relief act has, i understand, six cosponsors, all democrats. there's another bill moving through the senate right now. it's a bill that was offered by senator lee. it's been offered in other congresses but it's actually making headway. it has 35 cosponsors, 15 of them democrats, including senator harris from california and senator duckworth, the junior senator from illinois. i believe that it ha -- it is a

very narrowly focused effort to address a lot of the concerns senator durbin has but i do not believe senator durbin has the support of the senate to take this through regular order at this point let alone through unanimous consent. i hope that senator durbin and others who recognize that the high-skilled workers in this country, we do have a shortage. we do need to fix the -- fix a number of problems, but i don't think it can be fixed with the relief act. i encourage senator durbin to work with senator lee and the 34 other senate members who are working on a bipartisan basis to address this, to work together so that we can bring the fairness for high-skilled workers -- high-skilled immigrants act to the floor and send it to the house for consideration. but because of the lack of consensus under many of the provisions in the relief act, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: the senator from north carolina and i are both

serving as you are on the senate judiciary committee. what i've asked for is a hearing before the immigration subcommittee so that senator lee can bring his bill forward. i can bring my bill forward, and we can try to work out our differences between us. that is usually how the senate operates. unfortunately senator lee announced on the floor last week he's opposed to any hearing on his bill. he doesn't want there to be a hearing and a markup. i think that's unfortunate. it really does not lead us to a bipartisan agreement that might actually solve this problem. and i might also say i think there is a fundamental flaw in senator lee's approach. he would take care of the issues facing those from india at the expense of immigrants from other countries. virtually every other country who would be denied the opportunity to apply for green cards while we take care of the backlog from this one nation. i don't think that's the way to approach this. if as senator from north carolina said we truly believe that more legal immigration of those with talents would be good

for america, this is our chance to do it. and so at this point i would just say i'm disappointed and i've told these families that come to see me regularly i will continue to fight for them to give them a chance to protect their children, to have a future in america. i hope that senator lee will reconsider and allow a hearing to take place so that we can move this measure forward and not just exchange unanimous consent requests on the floor. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak on a different topic. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'm going to make this very brief because i see here waiting for me is my friend from the state of iowa to discuss a separate issue unrelated. the senator from north carolina, did you want to make -- mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. thank you, senator durbin. i come to talk about another

issue of immigration that concerns me in north carolina but i think it's something that every american should be concerned with. it's the sanctuary policies that have been implemented in counties and cities and at least in one case statewide. the concern that we have, sanctuary cities sounds like a great concept as the united states is a sanctuary for so many people that seek to immigrate to. but the sanctuary cities policy is actually a policy that is breaking down the relationship between federal authorities and local authorities that i think is dangerous and could potentially cause serious consequences in communities, and not only potentially. i'll use a few examples. in north carolina over the past year, we've had over 500 people released who were arrested by local authorities, many of them for serious crimes, charged with murder, rape, indecent liberties with a child, heroin trafficking, a very, very long

list and cities just 25 minutes from where i live down in charlotte in mecklenberg county, they are arresting people not because they're simply illegally present, in fact you can find virtually no intans where -- instance where a local authority would arrest somebody just because they know they're illegally present. the people in these jails have been charged with a crime and in many cases a serious crime. in mecklenberg county two weeks ago, the mecklenberg county sheriff had made the decision to release four people, one charged with murder, two charged with indecent liberties with a minor, one charged with heroin trafficking. they were illegally present but they weren't in jail because they had simply crossed the border or had a visa expire. they were in jail because they committed a serious crime. now, when immigration and customs enforcement hears about these folks who have been detained, they issue what they call a detainer order. that's a request to hold that person in jail for at least 48

hours so that i.c.e. can go to the jail, interview them, and determine whether or not they want to transfer them into i.c.e. custody and potentially deport them. this is a very dangerous policy that's actually ultimately resulted in other people being harmed. so think about that person charged with rape or that person charged with mudd or that person charged with hair -- with murder or that person charged with heroin trafficking released. they go back into the community and they cause harm to someone else. what i've discussed we need to do is at least provide a private right of civil action to a victim of that unwise decision. so if that charged murderer or heroin trafficker goes out and assaults someone or murders someone or in some cases someone who has d.w.i. and charged with vehicular homicide goes back out and harms someone else in another, say, automobile accident under the influence, i

think that that person who gets harmed or sadly their survivor should be able to bring a case against that governmental entity that has the sanctuary policy. now, for those who think sanctuary policies are safe and they're only releasing safe people, this shouldn't be an issue to them, right, because no harm is going to occur? but if harm occurs, i believe that the victim should have a right to seek restitution. so our bill is fairly simple. it's called the justice for victims of sanctuary cities act. it's a bill that says if you as a governmental entity refuse to cooperate with i.c.e. and you release someone who does harm to someone else, then that person has the right to sue that governmental entity. now, our governments in the united states, the local governments and state governments have the right to say they're immune, that they can't be sued. and they have that right and i respect that right. but if they renoose to allow themselves -- refuse to allow

themselves to build their case in court to say what they did was appropriate and safe, that it should come at the consequence of federal funding that they should otherwise be qualified for. now, again if sanctuary cities are safe and we're releasing people not a threat to the community this should be a nonissue for any sanctuary jurisdiction. it would only be an issue if a victim gets convicted as a result of their political decision. and that's why we have introduced the justice for victims of sanctuary cities. in fact, we listened to some of the sanctuary jurisdictions and said well, we could get in legal trouble if we hold them for 48 hours, and for that reason, we release them after a judge has ordered their release. we've got another bill that addresses that problem so that that liability will go away. we're hearing what they have to say and trying to address it in additional legislation. but i think this is a bill that makes sense, and i think it's something that law enforcement, county commissions, and city councils should take a look at. i think they should work with

i.c.e. here is the last reason i think working with i.c.e. is very important. i.c.e. has a legal responsibility to pursue these people if they are released by the local government. so here is what happens. you release somebody who's charged with murder or vehicular homicide or heroin trafficking or rape. you release them in the community, i.c.e. has to go pursue them in the community. so instead of allowing i.c.e. to go into a jail and have a safe transfer from one jail into the i.c.e. detainee system, they have got -- they have got to actually create a task force. they have got to go into a community and they have to apprehend them. they have a statutory responsibility for doing that. and ironically in some of those instances, the very law enforcement agency that released them now has to go into the field and back them up if it's a dangerous situation when they're trying to apprehend this person that i.c.e. has a legal responsibility for apprehending. so i think this is a commonsense bill. hopefully it's one that will

give sanctuary cities some pause before they release somebody charged with murder or rape or heroin trafficking. a potentially dangerous person back in the community that the federal authorities will have to pursue no matter what. so, mr. president, i ask as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that a committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of senate 2059, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: there is more to the story. what he just described to you seems pretty obvious. dangerous person, subject to deportation. why release them into the community? perfectly valid point, one that we ought to be discussing and debating. but there's more to the story. and here's what it comes down to.

why did the major cities police chiefs across the united states oppose what the senator from north carolina has just suggested? because they know that if the federal government and its immigration authorities are going to use local police to enforce immigration laws, it's going to change their ability to keep communities and neighborhoods safe. now, why do i say that? let me give you an example. it was just about four months ago when the i.c.e. officials pulled over a young woman and said to her are you here in the united states legally? she said i am. i am protected by a program called daca. they said we want to go to your home. they won't to her home and her grandmother was there. they asked her grandmother for proof of her citizenship. her grandmother had overstayed a visitor's visa. they deported her grandmother. so the local police are fearful that if they are now going to be recruited to enforce immigration laws, they won't get cooperation in the community when it comes to fighting crime.

let me give you an example that's timely. halloween night in a section of chicago, the little kids were out with their parents in a hispanic neighborhood walking along, and a little girl 7 years old named shazelle simago was shot twice. she barely survived. they got her to the hospital. they saved her life. she is making a miraculous recovery. what is important about this story and relevant to what the senator from north carolina asks is the fact that now community members have come forward to the police to help them find the shooter. they have arrested a 15-year-old gang member. this gang member was aiming at a 32-year-old gang rival standing next to a little girl, and he wasn't worth a damn when it came to shooting a gun. this poor little girl was shot. what the police in chicago were telling me is we need the community to be willing to talk to the police and not be afraid somebody is going to follow

someone home and check whether their grandmother is here illegally in the united states. that's why the whole question of sanctuary cities is boiling up and why the police chiefs in major cities have basically said this is too simplistic. let's sit down and do this carefully. not as the senator from north carolina has proposed. and the last point i will make is this -- if you visit the senate chamber this week in washington and want to seek deliberation on legislation, you are out of luck. there are no bills, no substantive legislative bills scheduled to be considered on the floor of the united states senate this week. but it's not an unusual week. we hardly ever take up legislation in the committees and bring it to the floor for debate in the united states senate. so the real question i have is why the senator from north carolina, who was in the republican majority, who serves on the senate judiciary committee, who could ask for a markup of his bill if he wished, has decided instead to bypass the whole process and just say i want to take this bill straight

to the senate with no debate. he's in the majority. he could bring this bill to the floor for a debate and for an amendment. we could bring it before the committee for a markup. we chose not to do that. sadly, it's a commentary on what's happened on the senate floor. it's become a legislative graveyard. we just don't do what the senate used to do, debate amendments, deliberate, agree on things and compromise. it doesn't happen anymore under senator mcconnell. it's unfortunate. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. tillis: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: maybe to add another chapter to that story, first, we did have a hearing on this about two weeks ago in judiciary. that was the first step before you move to a markup. i will be asking for a markup on this bill because i think it is a bill that's a commonsense bill. it's a bill that actually has a safe harbor provision for people in the community who may be illegally present that want to work with law enforcement. we are listening to what law enforcement -- the concerns that they have expressed, we have

addressed them, like so many times we have addressed these sorts of matters before. so we will have a markup on this bill, we will have a vote out of committee, and i hope that we have a vote on this floor, because at the end of the day, some of the examples that senator durbin noted are sad and should be avoided, but the real sad examples are the people who are dying, being raped, and being poisoned by people who were detained, could have been transferred into i.c.e. custody and deported to make our communities safer, including the communities of illegally present people who are least safe as a result of the current sanctuary policies. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i'm going to yield to the senator from iowa who is waiting patiently on a separate issue that he and i are working on together and allow him to speak first if he wishes. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: yes. senator durbin and i are working on something that successful

passed the house last year and was not taken up -- successfully passed the senate last year and was not agreed to by the house of representatives, so we're back to bring some transparency to pricing of drugs, and that's what i want to speak about now. i'm here to share a secret with the american people. it's about prescription drug pricing. as chairman of the senate finance committee, it's no secret that one of my biggest priorities is to rein in soaring costs of prescription medicine. it's no secret that americans are having a hard time paying for medicine. it's no secret that big pharma doesn't want us to change the status quo. in fact, big pharma is spending big money to stop congress and the trump administration from legislating a cure of these high

prices. that's the secret. they want to keep drug pricing a secret from the american people, so what does that mean? it means that big pharma wants to keep secrecy baked in when it benefits big pharma. right now, the very murky drug-pricing supply chain is a mystery to consumers. there seems to be no rhyme or reason what consumers will owe at the pharmacy counter when they pick up their prescription prescription -- their prescriptions. american taxpayers, american seniors, and this u.s. senator are fed up with the lack of consumer information when it comes to pharmaceuticals. that's why i'm working to inject some midwestern common sense into prescription drug pricing. as you can see, i'm working with

my friend, senator durbin. we have teamed up before on issues that naysayers said couldn't get done. you might recall that president trump signed our first step act into law last year. that landmark reforms are protecting public safety, saving taxpayer dollars, and bringing fairness to the criminal justice system. today we're teaming up once again to fix an injustice with prescription drug advertising. big pharma spends billions of dollars a year advertising to the u.s. consumers. the f.d.a. regulates what these direct consumers ads must tell consumers. for example, advertisers must include in their ads potential side effects. you hear it all the time on tv,

things about nausea, diarrhea, depression, weight gain, or even death if you might buy one of their drugs. but let me tell you what seems to scare big pharma to death -- price transparency. they do not want to tell consumers how much a drug costs when they saturate the airwaves with advertising that shows happy families enjoying the grandkids, celebrating birthdays, and going on vacations. senator durbin and i believe that americans have a right to know about the price of drugs like they need to know the side effects of drugs or the value of drugs. consumers should then know what the advertised drug costs. it happens that the trump

administration agrees with senator durbin and this senator on that point. but, of course, big pharma sued to stop the department of health and human services regulations from taking effect. it's up to congress then to change the law. that's what senator durbin and i are here to talk about today. almost exactly one year ago, i sat here on the floor of the united states senate -- i said here on the floor of the united states senate that it's time foa to talk turkey on this subject. yet here we are again one year later, and big pharma has ridden the taxpayers' aggressive train for another 12 months, and part of that gravy train is keeping the price of drugs off of the television screen when they advertise all the value of the

drugs and the dangers of the side effects of those drugs. as americans get ready to count their blessings around the thanksgiving table a couple weeks from now, i hope they can count on all 100 members of the united states senate to approve the durbin-grassley bill. there is no good reason to oppose it unless you would rather keep secrets for big pharma. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: let me thank my colleague from iowa. senator grassley and i are friends, colleagues, and we work together on a lot of issues. we come to this body with different fulfill fill os -- with different political philosophies. occasionally our ideas converge and that is one of them. we know that the pharmaceutical industry spends $6 billion a year on television advertising. if you have never seen a drug ad on tv, i know one thing for sur. you can't get away from them.

everywhere you turn around, another ad. and what do they tell you in the ads? don't take this drug if you're allergic to this drug. how are you supposed to know that? you may die if you take this drug. they tell you everything under the sun except a very fundamental fact, that senator grassley has pointed out. how much does this cost? xarelto. i know it takes a long time for the drug xarelto to finally reach the point where the average consumer, the average american can even spell it, let alone pronounce it, so they can go ask their doctor for it. do you know how much xarelto costs, this blood thinner each month? it's about $520 a month. but it's not the most heavily advertised drug on television. at least a few months ago, the most heavily advertised drug was human air a. psoriatic arthritis. remember that ad that showed the person with the little red spot on her elbow and they said if you take humera, this may help relieve psoriasis, the patchy

skin and such? now, there are serious cases of psoriasis, don't get me wrong, butt motion we would take humera to clear up psoriasis belies the reality. here is the -- here is the reality. humira costs $5,000 at that month. it is beyond anybody's mind that we would spend $5,500 a month to get rid of the little red patch on your elbow. why won't they tell us what it costs? because they know it is a stunning number. $5,500 a month. so what senator grassley and i did a year ago was say to the pharmaceutical companies, go ahead and run your ads. but in the ad, disclose how much your drug costs. i think it's going to be -- create a pressure on these pharmaceutical companies when they decide to raise humira to $6,500 a month.

the american consumers will know right off the bat what's going on. well, we passed it. we passed it in the senate and it died over in the house of representatives. but things have changed in the house. there is a new democratic majority there. i think we've got a better chance to pass it. later on today i'm going to ask for unanimous consent on this very simple bill, direct-to-consumer advertising to say that the pharmaceutical companies, disclose in your add how much your drug costs. that's it. just disclose it. we've come up with a price that they have to declare each year as their standard price for the drug. disclose that price to the american people. we think folks will slow down from deciding to buy humira at $5,500 a month to deal with the little red patch on year elbow. it's beyond their reach. what i want to do is later on make this unanimous consent request, and i ask consent now, since i appear to be the only one on the senate floor, to speak on a different topic for a moment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, it was 19 years ago when i

introduced a bill called the dream act. the dream act said, if you came to the united states under the age of 18, if you grew up in this country, went to school, no problems with the law, you ought to be given a chance at some point later in life to earn your way to legal status and citizenship. that was the bill. it was introduced, as i mentioned, about 19 years ago. it's never become the law of the land, but at one point i went to one of my national cosponsors, who happened to be elected president, named barack obama, and said to him, can you do anything as president to help in this situation? so many of these young people are undocumented. they're living in the only country they've ever known, and they have no future because of their doesn'tship status, immigration status. -- because of their doesn'tship status, immigration status. he created the daca program. you would pay $500 or $600 for a filing fee, go through a criminal background check. if you were approved, you would be allowed to stay in the united

states nor to years at a time and you would be able to stay without fear of deportation and be allowed to legally work in this country. president obama agreed to do it. and when i did, 800,000 young people came forward and received daca protection. for the longest time president trump would give speeches talking about these wonderful young people who deserve a chance to have a future in the united states. but then in september of 2017, he changed his mind. when he changed his mind, unfortunately, he eliminated the daca program. now, it's being contested in court, and next week, six days from now, across the street in the supreme court they're going to argue as to whether or not the president had the power to end this program. as you might imagine, there are almost 800,000 young people who will be listening carefully to those arguments and waiting for a decision of the supreme court. they currently have temporary protection because of the pending lawsuit. but if we lose before the supreme court, they will be a --

they will be subject to deportation. that will be a sad outcome. in many cases it will be a tragic outcome. i'm hoping that my colleagues in the senate will follow this carefully. this is one thing we ought to agree on. senator lindsey graham, conservative republican, south carolina, is my my cosponsor of the dream act and he has joined with me in saying that we ought to make legal status available to these young people through the dream act. i hope that ends up being the case. i would like to close by telling a story on the floor here about this young man. his name is ernesto delaroso. this is the 108th story i've told on the floor of the senate about dreamers. as i said, he is the 118th example i can give to my colleagues in the senate and those following this debate as to why we need to have daca or

the dream act as the law of the land. let me tell you a story. ernesto was brought to the united states when he was a child. he grew up in the midwest in dodge city, kansas. he came toless united states legally. he applied fora green card while he was still in the legal status. he wanted to become a legal permanent resident but the line for green cards was too long. the line was so long that ernesto's visa expired before he received his green card. under the laws of america, he was undocumented. it is not well known that millions of undocumented immigrants came to the united states legally in the first place. but they're unable to become permanent legal residents because our immigration system is broken. here's what he says about it. quote, we all hear comments about get back in line and do it legally. well, we tried. but the system right now is so complex that it takes up to 20

years to attain legal status. when he first arrived, ernesto from mexico did not speak or read english. but he worked hard and became an honor student in his school. he earned an associate's degree, a bachelor's degree from fort hay's university and master's. because of his immigration status, he was not eligible for any federal financial aid as a student. how did he get through school? he worked two jobs. here's what he says about that experience. often kids my age enjoy the college lifestyle, hanging out with friends, partying. but i wasn't able to do that. i was so disciplined, i said to myself, i cannot fail a class because i'm going to have to pay out of my pocket to take it again. what is he doing today? he's the assistant city manager of dodge city, kansas. he manages a budget of more than

$55 million and directly oversees to employees. he's responsible for his city's legislative affairs, working with federal, state, and local representatives on issues such as housing, transportation, and energy. here's what he says about his job. i love this profession because i'm able to make a difference in my community and advocate to meet the needs of our residents. imagine that. ernesto came to dodge city unable to speak or read english. now he is the assistant city manager. this is his story, but it's also america's story. without daca, which protected him, gave him the right to this job, none of this would have been possible. ernesto's dream is to become an american citizen and to advance from assistant city manager to city manager so he can continue to make a difference in people's lives. that can only happen if we do something here on the floor of

the united states senate. the u.s. house of representatives passed a measure called the american dream and promise act. it would provide for the dreamers that i mentioned earlier, and it would provide for this young man. senator mcconnell refuses to allow us to debate this bill on the floor of the united states senate. it is unfortunate. next week the ice of ernestor and the eyes of hundreds of thousands of dreamers will be focused on the supreme court. they are counting on the supreme court to do the right thing and reject president trump's illegal repeal of daca. they are counting on us who serve in the senate to solve this crisis that the president has created and to give this young man and thousands just like him a chance. it would be an american tragedy to deport this young man after all that he has achieved and send him back to mexico, where he hasn't lived since he was a little boy. will the majority leader give him a chance? i hope so. the senate should give the american dream and promise act a vote.

mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: this week marks the 40th anniversary of the iran hostage crisis, when 66 americans were seized by an armed mob. fueled by the anti-american risks of the iran's revolutionary clerics. 52 of those americans were held captive for 444 days. during which time they were paraded on television and used as pawns by iran's theocratic dictators. those americans would finally come home safely things to a pressure campaign of financial sanctions and trade impartial by the united states and our -- and embargoes by the united states and our trade partners. but not everyone came home safely from iran. before the crisis ended, five american airmen and three marines lay dead, killed in an ill-fated rescue mission necessitated by iran's lawless deeds.

this week's anniversary is a useful reminder about the true nature of the regime in tehran. behind iran's smooth-talking, western-educated diplomats are a band of radical clerics that act more like a criminal gang than the rulers of a sovereign nation. consider how the regime commemorated the 40th anniversary of their crime. not with apologies, like a civilized nation might. no, with anti-american rallies where uniformed soldiers -- uniformed soldiers, not clerics, not activists, uniformed soldiers led chants of death to america, and death to israel. in other words, iran is unreformed and unrepen tant. it still takes and holds hostages to this very day -- businessmen, professors, engineers, fathers, and mothers. all just bargaining chips to the ayatollahs. that's why i have a bill to

impose new and substantial costs on these kidnappers. the global hostages act would require the president to sanction foreign officials who take americans as their hostages. the goal of our bill is clear -- if you take americans hostage, we will make your life miserable. you won't be able to travel here. you won't be able to bank here. you won't be able to send your kids to fancy schools here. you'll be treated like the pariah you are. which is precisely what the ayatollahs remain 40 years after they took their first american hostages. mr. president, i ask consent that the following remarks be entered in a separate part of the journal. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: i'd like to say a

few words about lee philip rudofsky. in a few minutes, this body will vote to move ahead with this nomination. lee has a long and impressive resume from harvard law school to the white house office of legal counsel to kirkland & ellis and beyond. his early career and qualifications speak for themselves. and lee is no stranger to serving arkansans. he was our state's very first solicitor general. lee left a good job at walmart to take that position and face the many challenges that come with it. he also moved three hours from his loving wife and three young kids to work around the clock for the people of arkansas. that hard work paid off for all of us. according to esteemed members of arkansas' legal community from both parties, lee, quote, established arkansas solicit general's office as one of the

finest legal practices in the state of arkansas, end quote. he has subsequently become a respected professor and recruiter at one of our state's two law schools. and lee is also a leader at his local synagogue and a member of the local chapter of the american ends of court. after the senate votes to confirm him later this week, lee will draw from this deep well of experience as he continues to serve the people of arkansas with devotion and distinction. he will bring to the bench his intelligence, character, and above all, a commitment to the rule of law and the administration of equal justice under the law. i was honored to introduce lee before the judiciary committee earlier this year. i am now honored again to speak on his behalf today. lee is an exceptional selection for the federal bench. i'm happy to call him a friend and soon i look forward to

calling him a judge. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. is there objection? without objection. without objection. by unanimous consent, the

mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of lee philip rudofsky of arkansas to be u.s. district judge for the eastern district of arkansas shall be brought to a close. the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of lee philip rudofsky of arkansas to be united states district judge for the eastern district of arkansas, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: