[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 147 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5192-S5196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018--MOTION TO
PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 2810,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 175, H.R. 2810, a bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such
fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
DACA
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was 1 week ago when President Trump and
Attorney General Sessions announced that they were going to rescind the
DACA Program. This is a program created by President Obama by Executive
order that allowed those who had come to the United States as children
to have an opportunity to be given 2 years on a renewable basis where
they would not be subject to deportation and could work.
These young people are known as the Dreamers, a term that came about
when I introduced the bill 16 years ago called the DREAM Act. These are
young people who, frankly, are just asking for a chance, an opportunity
to be part of the only country they have ever known.
The laws of the United States are very tough and very strict, and
they say that, if you are undocumented, in their situation, you have to
leave America for 10 years and then petition to come back in. That is
why I introduced the DREAM Act. So these young people who were brought
to this country by their parents would have a chance.
President Obama used his authority in an Executive order to allow
them to apply for DACA protection. They had to pay a substantial filing
fee and submit themselves to a criminal background check before they
would be allowed to stay. So 780,000 young people did just that, and
they are protected currently, but only for a few more months, under
this DACA provision.
What is going to happen to them, we don't know. The only thing that
makes any sense at this point is for Congress to act, for us to do
something to replace the DACA Program, which the President is going to
rescind, with a law--a law that establishes clearly the requirements,
as well as the rights, that will be given to these individuals under
the law.
That is why I have introduced the Dream Act with my cosponsor Lindsey
Graham, a Republican of South Carolina. There are three other
Republican cosponsors at this point, and we hope to move this forward.
President Trump has said he is interested in working with us, and we
are going to take him at his word. Despite rescinding DACA, I hope the
President will be on our side to come up with a replacement that is
fair.
Also, I want to address many of the myths that have come up about
DACA, as well as the Dream Act. I am going to quote an unusual source
for this Senator. The source is a man named David Bier. David is an
immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Those of us who live
in this Washington environment of politics know that the Cato Institute
is not a liberal think tank. It is the opposite. It is a conservative,
largely Republican think tank, and Mr. Bier has published an article
that has been seen in the Washington Post, in the Chicago Tribune, and
in other papers entitled the ``Five myths about DACA.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the Washington Post article entitled ``Five myths about DACA.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 7, 2017]
Five Myths About DACA
(By David Bier)
The Trump administration's move to rescind the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, has created
an uncertain future for the 800,000 young unauthorized
immigrants who had been granted protection from deportation
and permission to work legally. A six-month delay provides a
chance for Congress to save the 2012 program. But if we're
going to debate the merits of DACA, we should know what we're
talking about. Here are some common myths.
Myth No. 1
DACA incentivized an increase in illegal immigration. House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is among
those who support ending DACA because it has ``encouraged
more illegal immigration and contributed to the surge of
unaccompanied minors and families seeking to enter the U.S.
illegally.'' Statements like this betray a misunderstanding
of who is eligible for deportation relief under the program.
DACA applies only to immigrants who entered before their 16th
birthdays and who have lived in the country continuously
since at least June 15, 2007--more than a decade ago. No one
entering now can apply.
Perhaps the chairman thinks that children coming to the
border are confused on this point. But the facts don't
support that view either. To begin with, the timing is wrong.
According to data from the Border Patrol, the increase in
migrant children in 2012--the year President Barack Obama
announced DACA--occurred entirely in the months before the
president announced the policy. The rate of increase also
remained the same in 2013 as it was in 2012. Even then, the
total number of juveniles attempting to cross the border--
unaccompanied and otherwise--never returned to the pre-
recession levels of the mid-2000s.
Another problem with the theory is that although the
majority of DACA beneficiaries are of Mexican origin, the
increase in children crossing the border stems from El
Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. These countries share one
common trait: much higher than average levels of violence
than anywhere else in North America. A careful study of this
phenomenon by economist Michael Clemens found that more than
anything else, a rise in homicides between 2007 and 2009 set
off a chain of events that led to the rise of child
migration.
Regardless, overall illegal immigration is far below where
it was before the United States' last legalization program,
in 1986, when each border agent caught more than 40 border
crossers per month. Last year, it was fewer than two per
month. DACA had no effect on this trend.
MYTH NO. 2
DACA has taken jobs from Americans. In announcing the Trump
administration's decision this past week, Attorney General
Jeff
[[Page S5193]]
Sessions said that DACA ``denied jobs to hundreds of
thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to
illegal aliens.'' This myth even has a name in economics: the
lump of labor fallacy. It supposes that the number of jobs in
the economy is fixed, and that any increase in workers
results in unemployment. Yet this notion is easily disproved.
From 1970 to 2017, the U.S. labor force doubled. Rather than
ending up with a 50 percent unemployment rate, U.S.
employment doubled.
If adding workers made the economy poorer, we might expect
that people would try to ``free'' themselves from competition
by moving to a desolate mountain and making everything for
themselves. That no one does so is an admission that
competition is actually good. We depend on other workers,
DACA recipients included, to buy the products and services we
produce. That's one reason earlier efforts to restrict
immigration did not produce any wage gains.
MYTH NO. 3
Repealing DACA would benefit taxpayers. Sessions also
argued that ending DACA ``protects taxpayers.'' But the
opposite is true. According to the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), first-generation immigrants who enter the
United States as children (including all DACA recipients)
pay, on average, more in taxes over their lifetimes than they
receive in benefits, regardless of their education level.
DACA recipients end up contributing more than the average,
because they are not eligible for any federal means-tested
welfare: cash assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, health-care
tax credits or anything else.
They also are better educated than the average immigrant.
Applicants must have at least a high school degree to enter
the program. An additional 36 percent of DACA recipients who
are older than 25 have a bachelor's degree, and an additional
32 percent are pursuing a bachelor's degree. The NAS finds
that among recent immigrants who entered as children, those
with a high school degree are positive to the government, to
the tune of $60,000 to $153,000 in net present value, meaning
it's like each immigrant cutting a check for that amount at
the door. For those with a bachelor's degree, it's a net
positive of $160,000 to $316,000. Each DACA permit canceled
is like burning tens of thousands of dollars in Washington.
MYTH NO. 4
DACA repeal protects communities from criminals. DACA
repeal, the attorney general further claimed, ``saves lives''
and ``protects communities.'' He implied that DACA ``put our
nation at risk of crime.'' But DACA participants are not
criminals. Unauthorized immigrants--the applicant pool for
DACA--are much less likely to end up in prison, indicating
lower levels of criminality. More important, to participate
in DACA, applicants must pass a background check. They have
to live here without committing a serious offense. If they
are arrested, DACA can be taken away even without a
conviction.
Only 2,139 out of almost 800,000 DACA recipients have lost
their permits because of criminal or public safety concerns--
that's just a quarter of 1 percent. Four times as many U.S.-
born Americans are in prison. About 35 times as many
Americans have ended up behind bars at some point before age
34.
MYTH NO. 5
DACA repeal is just about politics. Obama criticized the
DACA move this past week as ``a political decision'' that was
``not required legally.'' But legal issues certainly factored
into the Trump administration's calculation. The timing
coincided with a deadline that several states imposed on the
administration, stating that if the president did not wind
down DACA by Sept. 5, they would sue. If President Trump
wanted to end DACA for political reasons, he could have done
so on his first day in office.
Obama should know that defending DACA legally could be
difficult. After all, when he attempted to implement a
similar but much broader program in 2015 for undocumented
parents of U.S. citizens, courts shut him down. Obama
implemented DACA without going through Congress, and although
some legal scholars dispute whether it faces the same legal
issues as the 2015 program, the Trump administration would
have confronted a real possibility of defeat had it chosen to
defend DACA in court.
The correct response, however--for economic reasons and
security reasons, but above all for moral reasons--would have
been to actively push for Congress to enact the program, not
to announce its demise and leave the chips to fall where they
may.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in this article, he spells out in some
detail why some of the myths that were perpetrated by Attorney General
Sessions and others last week need to be explained. One of them is that
DACA somehow incentivized an increase in illegal immigration. Mr. Bier
makes it clear that, when it comes down to it, you cannot arrive in the
United States today and expect to be protected by DACA tomorrow. In
fact, you have to have arrived in the United States at least by June 15
of 2007, more than a decade ago. So to argue that DACA was an incentive
for more immigration in this country is just plain wrong.
What about those kids who showed up on the borders years ago,
thousands of them? Well, it turns out that they weren't eligible for
DACA or the Dream Act, and it also turns out that most of them were not
from Mexico but from parts of Central America, which has been
devastated by crime waves and gang activity.
The second myth that Mr. Bier addresses is that these DACA
recipients--780,000--are taking jobs away from Americans. What he
points out is that, if you start with the premise that we have a static
amount of jobs in this country--what he calls a ``lump of labor
fallacy''--then, it is dog-eat-dog to fight for those jobs.
It turns out that we have an expanding economy, and he proves it by
giving us a statistic. Between 1970 and 2017, the U.S. labor force
doubled. So rather than ending up with a 50-percent unemployment rate,
our U.S. employment doubled. It is an expanding and dynamic economy.
The case can be made effectively that the DACA recipients are people
who can add to the economy. All of them have to have the equivalent or
a high school education. Many of them--large percentages of them--have
college degrees and even more. So they can bring a lot to the economy.
The other point or the other myth that Mr. Bier addresses is whether
repealing DACA would benefit taxpayers. The point he makes is that
these DACA recipients are paying taxes in the jobs they are working
and, by and large, are ineligible for any Federal programs or any
Federal assistance.
So they are a net gain in terms of our Treasury and in terms of what
they can do. For example, if you are protected by DACA today on a 2-
year renewable basis, you do not qualify for a Pell grant to go to
college. You don't qualify for a Federal Government loan. You have to
find out how you are going to do it some other way. So these young
people who are working and paying taxes are not drawing from any of the
government programs that other people their age draw from.
There is also this argument that DACA somehow is going to make
America less safe and that there will be more criminals. Don't forget
what I said earlier. To qualify for DACA, you have to submit yourself
to a criminal background check. The likelihood of the next crime being
committed by a DACA recipient is very narrow. The likelihood that it is
committed by someone who is already an American citizen is much more
likely.
Finally, there is the argument that DACA is just about politics.
Well, it can be about politics, unless we do our job in Congress. We
are supposed to pass the laws. The President has challenged us to pass
a law that will help deal with DACA. We have, I think, an awesome
responsibility to do just that.
I was at Loyola University's medical school on Friday and met several
of the DACA students who are in medical school at Loyola. They are
extraordinarily bright individuals who competed and were accepted at
Loyola's medical school. Now they have a program. As they complete the
4 years of medical school at Loyola, they want to apply for residencies
so they can specialize. If you are going to be a resident, you had
better be prepared to work. If you don't have DACA protection, you
can't legally work in the United States. Thirty-two aspiring, really
bright, young medical students soon to be doctors will be stopped in
their tracks if we don't replace DACA because they cannot apply for
residency because they cannot legally work in America without DACA
protection or something like it.
Would we be better off in America if those 32 individuals did not
become doctors? Of course not. We want them to become doctors. In
Illinois, the State is helping to pay for their education with the
promise that they will practice medicine in an underserved area of our
State. I am from downstate Illinois, small-town Illinois, and I will
tell you that we desperately need more doctors, not just in individual
towns but at the hospitals that serve those towns. If these 32 can help
us reach those goals, we are going to have better medical care across
our State, but that depends on Congress and Congress meeting its
responsibility.
I have come to the floor of the Senate over 100 times now to tell the
stories of individuals who are affected by
[[Page S5194]]
DACA and the Dream Act, and I want to do that again today. I found that
speeches are great and statistics are fine, but when you hear the
stories about these individuals--who they are, what they have done, and
what they aspire to do--you can understand the context of this
important national debate.
The person I want to introduce today in the Senate is this young
lady, Cristina Velasquez. She was brought to the United States at the
age of 6 from Caracas, Venezuela. She went to elementary school in
Madison, WI. She wrote me a letter. Cristina wrote the following:
I spent my formative childhood years in the Midwest where I
learned to assimilate and learned the values this country was
founded on. The salt-of-the-Earth quality of people around me
and extraordinary kindness between strangers shaped my own
values and attitude toward others. Growing up in Madison
taught me a great deal about compassion, patience, and hard
work.
Cristina was an outstanding student. In high school she was a member
of the National Honor Society. She was elected vice president of her
class, and she managed the track team. She found time to volunteer at a
local summer camp for pre-K students. She graduated from the Honors
College at Miami Dade College. She is currently a student at Georgetown
University, majoring in international law, institutions, and ethics.
She has received the President's Volunteer Service Award 2 years in a
row and is a Walsh Scholar. As a graduate of Georgetown, I can tell you
nobody ever named me a Walsh Scholar. This young lady obviously is very
talented.
During her time at Georgetown, Cristina has interned in the House of
Representatives and has piloted a college mentorship program at a local
high school. In addition, she also has found time to have two part-time
jobs. She has to. You see, as a person who is protected by DACA and
undocumented, she doesn't qualify for government assistance to go to
college--certainly not at the Federal level. So these students have to
work extra hard to stay in school.
She has dedicated two of her undergraduate summers and a full school
year volunteering to teach in Miami and in San Francisco. In both of
these cities, she worked with high-achieving, low-income students
trying to get them into college. You see, Cristina's dream ultimately
is to be a teacher.
Last week in my office, Cristina joined 15 other students from
Georgetown who came in as we were debating DACA and the Dream Act on
the floor. I am sure they wanted to hear my speech on the floor but,
just to make sure, we bought a dozen pizzas and the crew seemed to be
pretty happy with that decision. It was an impressive group of
students. Every one of them was a DACA recipient.
These young people have so much potential, but they are worried. They
don't know what their future will be with the decision made last week
by the Trump administration to repeal DACA. Congress hasn't acted to
pass the Dream Act, and we should.
As for Cristina Velasquez, she will graduate from Georgetown in
December. She has been accepted into Teach for America. Most of us know
that organization well, but for the record, it is a national nonprofit
organization that places the most talented recent college graduates in
challenging school districts in urban and rural areas where they have a
shortage of teachers. Teach for America has 190 teachers working in
these challenging districts who are currently DACA Dreamers. They are
teaching kids all across America.
What does it say about us? What does it say to their students if
these Teach for America Dreamers are invited to leave the country? That
is exactly what Mr. Steve Bannon said on 60 Minutes on Sunday when he
came out against our efforts to pass the Dream Act. He wants Cristina
Velasquez gone. He thinks America is a better place if she is gone. I
think he is wrong, and I think most reasonable people would agree.
Cristina is going to start the program, Teach for America, next
summer and teach next fall, but without DACA or the Dream Act, Cristina
and 190 other Teach for America teachers will be forced to drop out and
leave their students behind.
Instead, many would have them deported back to countries they have
never known, saying they are not part of the United States and they
don't have anything to offer us. Will America be a stronger country if
we deport Cristina or if she stays here to teach children in
challenging districts? I think the answer is clear to any reasonable
person.
When we introduced the Dream Act, Senator Lindsey Graham and I--a
Republican of South Carolina and a Democrat of Illinois--cosponsored
the measure. We gave a press conference. Senator Graham said: The
moment of reckoning is coming. Well, that moment has arrived.
Republican leaders in Congress need to help us to pass the Dream Act
once and for all and make it the law of the land. We need to bear
responsibility for these hundreds of thousands who can make America a
better country. They show with their lives that the promise of America
is still very much alive.
As for this Senator, I have been at this for a long time. I am going
to see it to the finish line. I still have that dream of the day when
President Trump signs the Dream Act into law in the Oval Office. It
will be a great day, particularly for this country to recognize that
these young people offer special talents and a special commitment to
the future of America, which we desperately need.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
Thanking the Senator From Illinois
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, once again I want to thank my colleague
from Illinois for both his passion and his intelligence in terms of his
approach to the Dream Act. We are getting closer to getting this done.
It is hardly done yet, but without the Senator from Illinois, we would
not be as close to ``as close,'' so to speak, as we are today.
Hurricane Irma
Now, Mr. President, I want to first start off by saying that I hope
that everyone in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina is staying safe
as Hurricane Irma continues up the coast. Reports indicate that as many
as 9 million Floridians have gone without power during the storm. Large
parts of Miami and Jacksonville are under water. The Florida Keys have
taken a particular beating. I saw the pictures on TV this morning.
As with Hurricane Harvey, the road to recovery will be long. As I
said yesterday, I am ready to work with the administration and my
Republican colleagues, when the time comes, to pass an aid package for
the States dealing with Hurricane Irma.
National Defense Authorization Bill
Mr. President, as discussions continue on NDAA, I would highlight a
few amendments that are important to the Democratic side. We will be
offering two amendments as part of our Better Deal agenda, including a
``Buy American'' provision and an amendment that would drastically cut
down on outsourcing.
For too long, loopholes in our ``Buy American'' rules have allowed
Federal agencies to waive ``Buy American'' requirements and skirt the
spirit of the law. A single loophole--the overseas exemption, which
allows a Federal agency to waive ``Buy American'' rules if the product
is intended for use overseas--accounts for 65 percent of the exemptions
that the Department of Defense issues in a given year.
Senator Baldwin has an amendment that would eliminate these loopholes
and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent by Federal agencies to
purchase products that are made here in the United States.
My friend Senator Stabenow has been a leading voice on this issue as
well. She has an amendment that would also roll back the overseas
exemption by requiring the DOD to identify and give consideration to
domestically sourced items before soliciting any offers for anything
that is not ``Buy American'' compliant.
Right now, there are also several American companies with records of
outsourcing American jobs that are receiving defense contracts, and
companies receive a tax credit for outsourcing expenses rather than
incentives to
[[Page S5195]]
bring jobs back to the United States. We should put a stop to both, and
Senator Donnelly's amendment will do that. His amendment will give a
tax credit of up to 20 percent for expenses that companies incur to
bring jobs back to our shores.
Another critical amendment is a bipartisan amendment offered by
Senators Graham and Klobuchar on the issue of election security. The
consensus of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies was that Russia, a foreign
adversary, interfered in our elections. Make no mistake--their success
in 2016 will encourage them to try again. We have State elections in a
couple of months, and the 2018 election is a little more than a year
away. We must improve our defenses now to ensure that we are prepared.
The Graham-Klobuchar amendment would greatly strengthen our defenses,
helping to prepare States for the inevitable cyber attacks that
threaten the integrity of our elections. We should pass it as part of
the NDAA.
As Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed continue discussions on
this bill--and I know their relationship is a good and strong one--I
hope they strongly consider the inclusion of these three critical
amendments.
Election Integrity Commission
Mr. President, speaking of elections, a word on President Trump's
Election Integrity Commission, which is meeting with the public for the
first time today in New Hampshire. I have three points.
First, I would like to dispel the idea that this Commission has
anything to do with election integrity. It was borne out of the
President's baseless claim that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally
in the 2016 elections. That is just not true. The Commission will never
find evidence to support that claim.
Second, the public officials on this Commission must stop making
similarly outrageous claims about voter fraud in elections. Recently,
the Commission's Vice Chair, Kris Kobach, claimed that the New
Hampshire Senate election could have been swung by illegal votes
because they found a number of voters who had out-of-State licenses. Of
course, there are several reasonable, legal, legitimate reasons as to
why someone would vote in a State while having a license from a
different State. Most likely, if you live at a college in New Hampshire
but come from out of State, your car has an out-of-State license plate.
By State law, if you are registered at a New Hampshire college, it is
perfectly legal to vote there.
We all know that the States set these laws. In fact, when the
Washington Post tried to identify some of these voters, the first four
they randomly called were all college students who lived in New
Hampshire but who went to school elsewhere.
Yet this Commission and, I would say, particularly its Vice Chair,
Mr. Kobach, are so eager to prove their point--which is virtually
unprovable--that there is a huge amount of voter fraud that they come
up with these baseless claims and then have to back off. Throwing these
kinds of deeply misleading, bogus claims around about stolen elections
and massive voter fraud without there being any actual evidence is
extremely irresponsible and damaging to our democracy. They are so
eager to prove their point about voter fraud, which is demonstrably
false, that they are resorting to these crazy claims, discrediting
their Commission and discrediting themselves.
Lastly, a broader point. The Election Integrity Commission is a
punishment in search of a transgression that never happened, which
shows that it likely has an ulterior motive.
Voter fraud is extremely rare. A comprehensive study by the
Washington Post in 2014 concluded that out of over 1 billion ballots
cast between 2000 and 2014, there were only 31 credible instances of
voter fraud, and even some of those were debatable, according to the
study. The Brennan Center for Justice concluded that an American has a
better chance of being struck by lightening than impersonating another
voter at the polls.
So why the need for a Presidential advisory commission? Because the
real target of the Election Integrity Commission is not voter fraud but
voter suppression, especially the suppression of African-American
voters, poor voters, elderly voters, and Latino voters. Just like the
campaigns for outrageous voter ID laws in State after State--many have
been thrown out by the courts for being blatantly discriminatory--the
Election Integrity Commission seems focused on throwing up barriers to
voting through intimidation, misleading claims, and controversial
tactics, like the widespread collection of sensitive, personal voter
information.
I think what this Commission is trying to do flies in the face of
what the country is all about. We want everyone to vote. We do not want
to scare people, intimidate people, or make it harder for people to
vote. If there were overwhelming evidence of fraud, obviously we would
need to do something, but there is not. As I said, it is a solution--a
nasty solution--in search of a problem. The Election Integrity
Commission ought to be disbanded, and we will be looking for ways to do
that legislatively.
The real threat to election integrity comes not from voter fraud but
from foreign meddling and cyber attacks. We should pass the Graham-
Klobuchar amendment rather than continue with the nonsense of this
Commission.
Moreover, with voter participation rates being so low, we should be
spending our time and energy encouraging more Americans to exercise
their fundamental right to vote rather than wasting taxpayer dollars
for a commission to solve a problem that does not exist.
50th Anniversary of the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation
Mr. President, before I yield the floor, today is the 50th
anniversary of the founding of the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation, which
does great work in my State in combating a very debilitating type of
disease. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
accomplishments of the foundation and encouraging more research, better
access to care, and improved treatments for patients with Crohn's
disease and ulcerative colitis.
The New York-based Crohn's & Colitis Foundation, along with its
partnering chapters across the country, is the largest national
voluntary health group seeking the cure for Crohn's disease and
ulcerative colitis. It also works to improve the quality of life of
children and adults affected by these diseases.
One in every 200 Americans struggles with Crohn's disease or
ulcerative colitis, collectively known as inflammatory bowel diseases,
IBD. Although no cause has been identified for Crohn's disease, recent
research suggests hereditary, genetics, and/or environmental factors
contribute to the development of the disease. Further complicating
matters, ulcerative colitis is the result of an abnormal response by
the body's immune system.
The Crohn's & Colitis Foundation sponsors basic and clinical research
of the highest quality and offers a wide range of educational programs
and supportive services for patients and healthcare professionals. In
2015, IBD Plexus was launched. IBD Plexus is a groundbreaking
initiative that provides the infrastructure and capacities to
facilitate and accelerate research into the causes and treatments of
Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.
Federal agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health through
the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases,
the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control and Prevention, and the
Department of Defense each support meaningful research and public
health activities on Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.
Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services both play a significant role in
approving new treatments and facilitating health care financing
policies that impact patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative
colitis.
I deeply appreciate the work of the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation and
its longstanding dedication to the patients it represents. They have
endeavored to improve the quality of life of so many Americans, and the
U.S. Senate recognizes the foundation's 50th anniversary.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S5196]]
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Hurricanes Harvey and Irma
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, let me say that my heart goes out to the
people of America who are, right now, dealing with Hurricanes Harvey
and Irma and their aftermaths.
Tribute to Steve Gleason and Donna Britt
Mr. President, ALS, which I think most of us refer to as Lou Gehrig's
disease, has hit us hard in Louisiana. It has hit our world hard, but
it has hit especially hard in my State.
A number of my colleagues and a number of Americans, I hope, were
watching the night the New Orleans Saints returned to the field after
our State was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. That night in the
Superdome, a young man named Steve Gleason became a legend. I know it
was just a football game, but he blocked a punt deep in the territory
of the Saints' opponent, the Atlanta Falcons, for a touchdown. It was
more than just a touchdown; it was a declaration that Louisiana was
going to come back, that our spirit was not broken.
Today, Steve Gleason is battling ALS. The medical term for ALS is
``amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.'' We call it, as I said, Lou Gehrig's
disease. It is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that destroys
nerve cells in the brain and in the spinal cord. Regrettably, there is
no cure. Steve, however, is determined to thrive and help others who
have ALS.
Within the past few weeks, we have also learned that another
Louisianan has ALS--well-known Baton Rouge television news anchor Donna
Britt. I will tell you, like Steve, Donna is showing true grit in the
face of this horrible disease. Most of us would probably curl into a
fetal position and cry if we were told we had a progressive
neurodegenerative disease that is almost always fatal--but not Steve
and certainly not Ms. Donna Britt. Their valor and their courage is
inspirational to me and, I think, to all Louisianans. As Donna herself
put it, she is going to continue living as a living person and not as a
dying person.
There is a famous line in a famous movie in which the main character
says: I have a choice here--it is time to get busy living or get busy
dying. Donna has chosen to get busy living. She is going to keep going
to work, and she is going to keep caring for her family. Donna is
educating herself about ALS. She has ordered a state-of-the-art
wheelchair with Bluetooth technology, and she is adding words to a
voice bank for when she can no longer speak because of this horrible
disease. Donna Britt--I am not surprised--is determined to meet every
challenge.
Let me say it again. This is pure valor. It is the type of courage in
the face of adversity that inspires us all. It is also Donna. I do not
know how to put that any other way. That is Donna Britt. Donna is a
person who plays the oboe and who has survived breast cancer. She
donates books to school libraries, and for charity she sings outside
the Walmart during the holidays. She travels the world, and she
delivers the news. She is a voice of comfort to all of those in her
television media market, and she loves her family. She and her husband
Mark Ballard have a son and a daughter. Her daughter Annie is a
scientist working in DNA research, and their son Louie is a bright,
young student in high school.
Donna has delivered the news in the Baton Rouge metropolitan area for
36 years. She spent her entire career, which is very unusual, at one
television station--WAFB in Baton Rouge, which Donna has helped to make
a powerhouse in Louisiana media. Donna has done her job so
extraordinarily well that she has become a role model for young
journalists--all journalists but particularly female journalists. I can
tell my colleagues that folks in Baton Rouge feel Donna Britt is a part
of their family. They trust her. That is because she is impartial, she
is objective, and she is insightful. Since 1981, she has been on the
air with the people of the Baton Rouge metropolitan area through
storms, through inaugurations, through just about every major news
event, good times and bad, that one can imagine. Donna also takes our
people into the community and introduces them to interesting people.
A few months ago, Donna realized her health wasn't what it should be.
There is no definitive test for ALS, as perhaps my colleagues know.
Basically, the doctors have to rule everything else out before
determining that one has ALS. As she struggled to figure out why she
was losing the use of her fingers and her legs, Donna didn't keep her
viewers in the dark. She brought them along for the journey in frank,
candid Facebook videos. Along the way, she educated them--ever the
journalist--on what it is like to have a degenerative disease.
At a family reunion this summer, Donna all of a sudden could not
stand any longer. Now, that is a problem when you stand behind a desk
to deliver the news--not for Donna. It was just another challenge to
conquer. She promptly ordered a wheelchair that would adapt to her new
reality.
Now Donna Britt is working with Louisiana State University to prepare
for the day when her respiratory and diaphragm muscles are too weak for
her to vocalize what she is thinking. With LSU's help, she is putting
words into a voice bank for the future. Once again, it is just another
challenge for Donna Britt to conquer.
I am very proud of Steve Gleason, and I am also very proud of Donna
Britt. As angry as I am that anyone has to live with this dreadful
disease ALS, I am proud they are inspiring an army of ALS sufferers by
meeting every challenge and battling to thrive. I am proud that Steve
and Donna are inspiring all of us with their valor and their courage.
Thank you.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________