[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6414-S6418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. President, 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 3 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 3 weeks. Justin Walker, 
confirmed last week to the Western District of Kentucky, has never 
tried a case and was deemed ``unqualified'' to serve as a judge by the 
American Bar Association. Sarah Pitlyk, under consideration for a seat 
in the Eastern District of Missouri, has never tried a case, examined a 
witness, or picked a jury. Lawrence VanDyke is up after that. The ABA 
found that their interviewees with experience with Mr. VanDyke said he 
was ``arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking knowledge of the day-
to-day practice including procedural rules.''
  How 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 ideologically agree with me, but these people are 
abjectly unqualified based on their persons--who they are, how they 
behave in the courtroom, their knowledge, their experience. This is a 
lifetime appointment and one of the most important appointments we 
have, and when the ABA 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. They are rightwing 
ideologues with views cut against the majority of Americans on nearly 
every issue. The judges he is nominating disagree with the vast 
majority of Americans on issue after issue after issue. Whether it is 
women's health and the right of a woman to make her own medical 
decisions, whether it is legal protections for LGBTQ Americans, whether 
it is the right of workers and collective bargaining, whether it is 
fair access to the ballot box and voting rights, whether it is the most 
commonsense gun laws and environmental protections, these nominees have 
views 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 loathe to 
oppose President Trump on anything have actually opposed him so that 
those few nominees didn't get on the bench. The nominations of these 
hard-right people are way over--hurting the average American, siding 
with big special interests over working Americans 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?

[[Page S6415]]

  I understand why the President and Leader McConnell try to celebrate 
judicial nominees. They hardly have a legislative accomplishment to 
name. The truth is, when it comes to judicial picks, the President and 
Senate Republicans should be downright ashamed of their record.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2603

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, I was 
asked to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I considered it 
quite an honor. It is an extraordinary committee with a rich history of 
involvement in some of the most important issues of our time, and that 
has been the case for generations.
  Recently, when it was reformed, I was asked on which subcommittee I 
wanted to serve. I chose the Immigration Subcommittee. I took it for 
two reasons. First, I am 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. 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. She had 
an eighth grade education, but was one of the smartest people I have 
ever known. I guess that is a son talking, but you might expect it.
  I often thought I was lucky that she lived long enough to see me 
sworn into the U.S. Senate. This immigrant girl, who became an American 
citizen, saw her son become the 47th Senator from the State of 
Illinois. That is my story. That is my family's story. That is 
America's story. That is 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, or 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. They left everything 
behind--left behind their families, their places of worship, their 
language, their culture, their food--and came to a place they had never 
seen before because they heard what America was all about--a land of 
opportunity. So I wanted to be on that subcommittee.
  The second reason I wanted to be on the subcommittee is that 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 the diversity we need for our future. I have known this for a 
long time.
  It was 6 or 7 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 was Senator Schumer, who just spoke on the floor; 
Senator Menendez of New Jersey; Senator Bennet of Colorado; and I. We 
sat down for months, night after night, looking at every section of the 
immigration law--this broken law--to say: How will we change this? How 
can we reach political compromises and 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. We finally found a 
bipartisan answer--just exactly what the American people sent us to do.
  We sent our work product over to the House of Representatives, and 
they refused to even consider it. They wouldn't bring our bill up for a 
vote. They wouldn't debate it, wouldn't offer an amendment, an 
alternative substitute--nothing. And here we sit with this broken 
immigration system.
  I want to describe to my colleagues--or at least those listening in 
the Senate--one of the issues that came up recently. Here is 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-1B visa. It is a specialty 
visa, and it says that in this situation, this company cannot find an 
American to fill the job and wants to bring a talented person from 
another company on a temporary visa to work. Thousands come under this 
program each year. 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 who are needed in communities all across our 
country.
  Well, we have run into a problem because once they are 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 am 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 are using that education, working here, but 
now they want to be permanent residents in this country.
  There is a difficulty in the problem because we limit the number of 
people who can apply for what is 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 hundreds of thousands more who are seeking 
these visas.
  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 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. There are only 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. The law also says that no more than 7 
percent can come from any 1 country of the 140,000. If you do the 
simple math of about 10,000 each year and with there being 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. Many of them are desperate, and they should 
be, for their plights are now so uncertain.

  It is complicated by the fact that if you come here in an employment-
based situation--on a temporary visa, an H-1B--you can bring your 
family with you, meaning your spouse and your children. Yet, if you 
stay here for a period of time and if your children reach the age of 
21, they can no longer stay based on their parent's visa. Frankly, they 
are subject to deportation, and some are deported.
  The other night, I met a large group of these Indians in the State of 
Illinois who came to me pleading for help. I want to help them. I hope 
they understand and those who are listening understand as well that 
when it comes to immigration, I am in favor of border security and of 
orderly immigration, but I am in favor of immigration and the diversity 
it brings to this country and the talent it brings to this country.
  I have a bill before us, known as the RELIEF Act. It would lift that 
cap of 140,000 so we could absorb more people each year into our 
country who have been here already or who have been working here 
already and whose families have been established here already but who 
just want a chance to, ultimately, apply for citizenship. That is what 
my bill would do.
  It would do two other things, and I want to bring these points up for 
those who are considering my unanimous consent request that I am about 
to make. I want them to understand how personal and important this is 
to the people I am talking about.
  One of the provisions I mentioned relates to the fact that if you 
bring children to the United States while you are working on those 
temporary visas, those children are protected until they reach the age 
of 21, but they are then subject to deportation. I cannot tell you the 
emotional scenes I have witnessed in the last few weeks as these 
parents have introduced me to their children and have said to me: 
Senator, I am in this long line waiting for a green card. My 12-year-
old daughter could end up being 21 years old and deported while I am 
still waiting. I want to take care of her. I want her to have a chance 
to go to school, and I want her to have a bright future. Yet her fate 
is tied to the fact that there are not enough green cards for me to 
stay in this country.

[[Page S6416]]

  One of the provisions in the RELIEF Act that I urge my colleagues to 
consider when I make this unanimous consent request is 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. Those children cannot 
age out while you are waiting in line if you applied while they were 
still minors. This will protect these children from deportation. This 
is one of the most important and humane things we can do.
  The second thing is, if we are going to establish any standards or 
quotas for those who are allowed in this country to have employment-
based 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 in order to allow more to come in each year who are qualified, 
who have already been vetted, and who have gone through the background 
checks. It is not to penalize the minor children who might age out 
while their parents are waiting. We should make sure the spouses and 
dependent children aren't counted toward 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 that we currently have. 
Yet lifting these caps alone will not clear the green card backlog. 
Without more green cards, which is what I am calling for, the current 
backlog of 800,000 people total--I mentioned 500,000 were from India--
who are waiting for employment-based green cards will actually increase 
if we don't lift the cap by 300,000 in the next 10 years.
  The RELIEF Act is not novel or controversial. You will remember that 
earlier I talked about a comprehensive immigration bill. What I am 
proposing today is included in it. It is a bipartisan proposal, and it 
is one that, I think, we should return to in order to solve the 
problem.
  The RELIEF Act has been endorsed by many national business, 
immigrant, and labor organizations, including the New American Economy, 
the National Education Association, the American Immigration Lawyers 
Association, United We Dream, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, South 
Asian Americans Leading Together, United Chinese Americans, the 
National Iranian American Council, the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers, the American Hellenic Educational Progressive 
Association, which, incidentally, is the largest Greek-American 
organization, and the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which is the largest 
Irish-American organization.
  In light of the failure of our immigration subcommittee's taking any 
action to solve this problem, I will ask for unanimous consent to move 
this bill forward.
  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 of 
the plights they face today. They are trying to follow the law, and the 
law is not responsive.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 2603 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I come 
to the floor to, first, compliment Senator Durbin on his remarkable 
story and his family's story about legal immigration to this country. 
It is something I support. I think we should all consider it a 
compliment when people want to leave the countries of their births to 
come to the United States, for they know what we know--that it is a 
great place in which to live and thrive.
  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 on which we have bridged the gap but have not quite gotten 
there.
  First off, it could lay the groundwork for a significant increase in 
legal immigration, but I am also concerned with the mechanics we find 
ourselves in right now. As I understand it, the RELIEF Act has six 
cosponsors--all Democrats. Yet there is another bill that is moving 
through the Senate right now that was offered by Senator Lee. It has 
been offered in other Congresses, but it is actually making headway. It 
has 35 cosponsors, and 15 of them are Democrats. They include Senator 
Harris, of California, and Senator Duckworth, the junior Senator of 
Illinois. I believe this is a very narrowly focused effort to address a 
lot of the concerns that Senator Durbin has.
  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 Senator Durbin and others will recognize that we do 
have a shortage of high-skilled workers in this country and that we do 
need to fix a number of problems, but I don't think they can be fixed 
with the RELIEF Act.
  I encourage Senator Durbin to work with Senator Lee and with the 34 
other Senate Members on a bipartisan basis to address this so we can 
bring the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act to the floor and 
send it to the House for its consideration.
  Because of the lack of consensus on many of the provisions in the 
RELIEF Act, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina and I both 
serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. What I have asked for is a 
hearing before the Immigration Subcommittee so Senator Lee can bring 
his bill forward and so I can bring my bill forward so we can try to 
work out the differences between us. That is usually how the Senate 
operates. Unfortunately, last week, on the floor, Senator Lee announced 
that he was opposed to having any hearing on his bill. He didn't want 
there to be a hearing and a markup. I think it is unfortunate. It 
really will not lead us to having a bipartisan agreement that might 
actually solve this problem.
  I also 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 the issues of the immigrants from virtually every other country, for 
they would be denied the opportunity to apply for green cards while we 
would be taking care of the backlog from this one nation. I don't think 
that is the way to approach this.
  As the Senator from North Carolina said, if we truly believe more 
legal immigration of those with talents would be good for America, this 
is our chance to do it. At this point, I am disappointed. I have told 
these families who come to see me regularly that I will continue to 
fight for them--to give them a chance to protect their children and to 
have a future in America.
  I hope Senator Lee will reconsider and allow for a hearing to take 
place so we can move this bill forward and not just exchange unanimous 
consent requests on the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2059

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come to talk about another issue of 
immigration that concerns me in North Carolina, and I think it is 
something about which every American should be concerned. It is the 
sanctuary policies that have been implemented in counties and cities 
and, at least in one case, statewide.
  ``Sanctuary city'' sounds like a great concept as the United States 
is a sanctuary to which so many people seek to immigrate. Yet the 
policy of the sanctuary city actually breaks down the relationship 
between Federal authorities and local authorities. I think this is 
dangerous and could potentially--and not only potentially--have serious 
consequences in communities. I will use a few examples.
  Over the past year in North Carolina, we have had over 500 people who 
have been released who had been arrested by local authorities. Many of 
them had been arrested for having committed serious crimes. They had 
been charged with murder, rape, indecent liberties

[[Page S6417]]

with a child, heroin trafficking--a very, very long list--in cities 
just 25 minutes from where I live, down in Charlotte, in Mecklenburg 
County. They arrest people but not simply because they are illegally 
present. In fact, you can find virtually no instance in which a local 
authority would arrest somebody just because one is illegally present. 
The people who are in these jails have been charged with crimes, and in 
many cases they have been serious crimes.
  Two weeks ago in Mecklenburg County, the Mecklenburg County sheriff 
had made the decision to release four people--one who had been charged 
with murder, two who had been charged with indecent liberties with a 
minor, and one who had been charged with heroin trafficking. They had 
been illegally present but had not been in jail because they had simply 
crossed the border or had had their visas expire. They had been in jail 
because they had committed serious crimes.
  When Immigration and Customs Enforcement hears about these folks who 
have been detained, they issue what they call detainer orders. A 
detainer order is a request to hold a person in jail for at least 48 
hours so ICE can go to the jail, interview him, and determine whether 
they want to transfer him into ICE's custody and potentially deport 
him.
  This is a very dangerous policy that has actually, ultimately, 
resulted in other people being harmed. Think about those people being 
released who have been charged with rape or murder or heroin 
trafficking. They go back into the community and cause harm to someone 
else.
  What I have decided we need to do is to at least provide a private 
right of civil action to a victim of that unwise decision. If that 
charged murderer or heroin trafficker goes out and assaults someone or 
murders someone--in some cases, someone who has a DWI is charged with 
vehicular homicide and goes back out and while under the influence 
harms someone else in, say, an automobile accident--I think the person 
who gets harmed or, sadly, his survivor should be able to bring a case 
against that governmental entity that has the sanctuary policy.
  For those who think sanctuary policies are safe and that only safe 
people are being released, this shouldn't be an issue to them--right?--
because no harm is going to occur. Yet, if harm occurs, I believe the 
victim should have a right to seek restitution.
  Our bill is fairly simple. It is called the Justice for Victims of 
Sanctuary Cities Act. It is a bill that reads, if you as a governmental 
entity refuse to cooperate with ICE and then release someone who does 
harm to someone else, that person has the right to sue that 
governmental entity.
  Our governments in the United States--the local governments and State 
governments--have the right to say they are immune, that they can't be 
sued. They have that right, and I respect that right. Yet, if they 
refuse to allow themselves to build their cases in court and say that 
what they did was appropriate and safe, then it should come at the 
consequence of the Federal funding for which they would otherwise be 
qualified to receive.
  Again, if sanctuary cities are safe and if all we are doing is 
releasing people who are not threats to the community, this should be a 
nonissue for any sanctuary jurisdiction. It would only be an issue if 
there is a victim as a result of the jurisdiction's political 
decisions.
  That is why we have introduced the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary 
Cities Act. In fact, we listened to some of the sanctuary 
jurisdictions, and they said: Well, we could get into legal trouble if 
we hold them for 48 hours, and for that reason we release them after a 
judge has ordered their release.
  We have another bill that addresses that problem so that liability 
will go away. We are 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 is 
something that law enforcement, county commissions, and city councils 
should take a look at.
  I think they should work with ICE. Here is the last reason why I 
think working with ICE is very important: ICE has a legal 
responsibility to pursue these people if they are released by the local 
government.
  Here is what happens. You release somebody who is charged with murder 
or vehicular homicide or heroin trafficking or rape. You release them 
in the community, and ICE has to go pursue them in the community.
  So instead of allowing ICE to go into a jail and have a safe transfer 
from one jail into the ICE detainee system, they have 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 to do 
that.
  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 is a dangerous situation when they are trying to apprehend this 
person whom ICE has a legal responsibility to apprehend.
  I think this is a commonsense bill. Hopefully, it is 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 into the community, whom the Federal authorities have to 
pursue no matter what.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 2059 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed and 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. Mr. President, there is more to the story. What he just 
described to you seems pretty obvious: A dangerous person, subject to 
deportation, why release them into the community? That is a perfectly 
valid point, one that we ought to be discussing and debating. But there 
is more to the story, and here is what it comes down to: Why did the 
major city 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 is going to change 
their ability to keep communities and neighborhoods safe.
  Now, why would I say that? Let me give you an example. It was just 
about 4 months ago when ICE 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 call DACA.
  They said: We want to go to your home.
  They went to her home, and her grandmother was there. They asked her 
grandmother for proof of her citizenship. Her grandmother had 
overstayed her 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 will not get cooperation in 
the community when it comes to fighting crime.
  Let me give you an example that is timely. On 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 Giselle Zamago was shot twice. She barely survived. They got her 
to the hospital, and 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 the 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 are telling me is that 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 legally in the United States.
  That is why the whole question of sanctuary cities is boiling up and 
why

[[Page S6418]]

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.
  The last point I want to make is this. If you visit the Senate 
Chamber this week in Washington and want to see 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 U.S. 
Senate this week, but it is not an unusual week. We hardly ever take up 
legislation in the committees and bring it to the floor for debate in 
the Senate.
  So the real question I have is why the Senator from North Carolina--
who is 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 is in the 
majority. We could bring this bill to the floor for debate and for 
amendment. We could bring it before the committee for a markup, but he 
chose not to do that.
  Sadly, it is a commentary on what has happened to the Senate floor. 
It has 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 is 
unfortunate. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, maybe just to add another chapter to that 
story, first, we did have a hearing on this bill about 2 weeks ago in 
Judiciary. That is 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 is a commonsense bill. It is a bill that actually has a safe-
harbor provision for people in the community who may be illegally 
present who want to work with law enforcement. We are listening to the 
concerns that law enforcement 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 the 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 and 
could have been transferred into ICE custody and deported to make our 
communities safer, including the communities of illegally present 
people, who are less safe as a result of the current sanctuary 
policies.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the Senator from 
Iowa who has waited 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.