Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent. The yes and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 41, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Ex.]

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kelly) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following law clerks to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be granted floor privileges until August 1, 2026: Mark Maddock, Sydney Rogers, Zaria Chatman, Nicholas Talley, and Margaret Sturm.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the President called it the Big Beautiful Bill--his budget--the Big Beautiful Bill. That Big Beautiful Bill did give tax breaks--there is no question about it--primarily to the richest people in this country. Is that what you think is a priority for America? It is not what I think. It is one of the reasons I voted no. The second thing it did was to cut Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals and healthcare providers by $1 trillion over the next several years--$1 trillion. Do you know what the hospital administrators in Illinois told me would happen as a result of those cutbacks of Medicaid payments? Hospitals will close, particularly downstate hospitals in rural areas and those in the inner cities. We went to those administrators of the hospitals directly and said: Forget the political hype in Washington. What is going to happen on the ground in the State of Illinois and across the Nation when $1 trillion in Medicaid reimbursement disappears? They said: Well, first, the hospitals will close certain departments. I have noticed in Central Illinois--my own experience--that means usually the delivery of babies, as well as behavioral medicine, mental health counseling. Those are the first to go. But some hospitals won't make it. The hospitals in rural areas, as you know, are small and willful and do their darnedest, with volunteer help from the communities, to stay open, and they are critically important. If you happen to live in rural Illinois, maybe you are a farm family, and there is a terrible accident that occurs on the farm. Driving 20 minutes versus driving an hour and 20 minutes can be life or death. So the Republicans who want to cut $1 trillion from Medicaid--$1 trillion--and give tax breaks to wealthy people? Vote me no. Vote all the Democrats no. Those aren't the priorities of this country.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when it comes to fraud, there is no excuse for it, but let's not overstate the obvious. Government Agencies across this country are doing the best they can in some instances but can always do better. I don't think that we have a monopoly when it comes to virtue in our party or any other party. There are those who break the law and should be held accountable, and there are those who are doing their best to uphold the law, and they should be encouraged. To suggest that the Democrats are the party of fraud and the Republicans are the party of virtue--you know better than that. People in both political parties could have a tuneup when it comes to virtue, and I add myself to that list as well. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is a powerful tool for collecting information that has been abused for way too long. Most Americans would flunk the test of, what is FISA? what is 702? Here is what it boils down to: We approve, under law 702, allowing our intelligence Agencies to collect the private communications of foreigners overseas without a warrant. Why? We suspect those foreigners are involved in activity that is not safe for the United States. Am I supportive of that? Count me in. But section 702 enables surveillance of more than just foreigners overseas; millions of innocent Americans' texts, emails, and phone calls are swept up in this dragnet if they communicated with a foreigner. So if you find somebody in a foreign country whom you suspect of illegal or dangerous activity and you wiretap their telephone communication, the person on the other end of the phone may not be a foreigner but an American citizen. Unfortunately, it turns out that thousands and thousands of American citizens have their texts and phone conversations tapped under section 702. Our intelligence Agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations, puts these communications in searchable databases that they use to spy on Americans without a warrant. The independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Board and the FISA Court have documented shocking abuses of section 702 by our own government intelligence Agencies. And 702 has been used to spy on American religious leaders, American political parties, American journalists, and protestors from across the political spectrum. Such abuses have been documented under both Democrats and Republicans. But the prospect of placing warrantless--that means no court approval ahead of time--surveillance power in the hands of this administration is particularly alarming. President Trump and his appointees have repeatedly weaponized the power of the Federal Government to target President Trump's perceived enemies. Take Bill Pulte, President Trump's first choice to serve as the Acting Director of National Intelligence. Pulte currently serves as the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, where he has pushed for criminal referrals against those who have angered President Trump, from New York attorney general Letitia James to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Even though Pulte himself has no--no--intelligence experience, President Trump chose him to lead our national intelligence apparatus and to help oversee that powerful section 702. The public outcry changed the President's mind. The President, after he heard from both Democrats and Republicans what a terrible choice Pulte would be, dropped him and now has nominated Jay Clayton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, to serve as Director of National Intelligence. This episode demonstrates the inherent danger of warrantless surveillance. No single branch of government in the United States should have unchecked power to spy on Americans, whether this power is in the hands of Bill Pulte; Jay Clayton; Kash Patel, the leader of the FBI; or whoever President Trump installs next. Repeated efforts to rein in the abuses of section 702 with minimal reforms have failed time and time again. And now the Trump administration refuses to disclose the latest ruling from the FISA Court detailing ongoing abuses. The long and ongoing history of abuse makes it clear that without checks from a separate branch of government, section 702 will always be at risk of abuse as a massive delegation of power to an executive Agency. That is why the drafters of the Constitution many years ago-- 250--decided that we should never have warrantless searches of Americans. They prohibited it. It is time to stop tinkering around the edges of 702 and make meaningful changes once and for all. That is why I joined Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah to introduce the SAFE Act--a bipartisan bill in the Senate that would require the government to obtain a judicial warrant before searching Americans' communications collected under section 702. But Republican leadership have refused to hold a vote on the SAFE Act and instead have attempted to extend FISA's authorization without any serious reform. I have been through this many times since 9/11. I am obviously skeptical of this power being given to the government. And I have watched, when we find abuses, well-documented abuses, the limited reforms that are finally accepted, and they just don't do the job. Let me give you, from the Brennan Center for Justice report, some numbers that tell the story. Congress and the FISA Court have attempted to place some modest limits on the government's use of backdoor searches. That is what they call it when Americans are swept up. Intelligence agencies, and the [Federal Bureau of Investigations] in particular, have habitually violated those limits. In 2022, the FISA Court observed that ``compliance problems with the FBI's querying of Section 702 information have proven to be persistent and widespread.'' Indeed, in March 2022, the government reported more than 278,000-- More than 278,000-- noncompliant searches of information obtained through FISA. These noncompliant searches would include eavesdropping on Americans without government approval--278,000. Moreover, from 2018 through 2024, the law required the FBI to obtain a warrant before conducting backdoor searches in a very small subcategory of cases involving certain criminal investigations. Despite conducting dozens of such searches during that time, the FBI never once got a warrant. As required by our Constitution. The abuses continue, and there are those we know nothing about that are going on as of this day. There was an investigation of the use of FISA, leading to a classified report, which I have seen myself in the Senate intelligence SCIF. Members of the Senate can have access to it, but the Trump administration refuses to make it public for the rest of America. That is unfortunate. It makes the argument that I believe is compelling in this case. Republican leadership have refused to hold a vote on this reform measure Senator Lee and I have introduced. They have argued this program is just too essential to allow for any delay in reauthorization or consideration of real reforms. Yet, just recently, President Trump said that before we reauthorize FISA, we have to agree to add his elections reform measure--the one that requires ID requirements before you can vote. Now, there are certain IDs which are easy, but in the original version of this bill that the President wants, driver's licenses, which we use all over the country, would not be acceptable. Congress has time to get this right. Section 702 surveillance operates under yearlong certifications approved by the FISA Court, and it has already been recertified through March of next year, 2027. This means intelligence collection under 702 will be able to continue until next March even if the law technically expires this week--or last week. But if my colleagues want to reauthorize section 702 quickly, there is a simple solution, and my colleague Senator Wyden of Oregon made this point on the floor last week. We can bring reform to section 702 and give larger numbers to support it and its reauthorization. Support these commonsense, bipartisan reforms supported by a majority of American citizens to prevent 702 from being used to violate basic constitutional rights. Unfortunately, our demands for reform have received no help from the President. He is more concerned with pushing the SAVE America Act, changing every election--his bill to make it harder for Americans to vote. Over the weekend, President Trump announced that he opposes any FISA reauthorization that does not include Save America, as I mentioned. This act would slap undue burdens and excessive costs on Americans seeking to exercise their most fundamental right--the right to vote. So why would the President support adding this measure to critical 702 reauthorization? Because he is afraid of the next election. That is what it comes down to. He is afraid his party is going to lose in November. He saw when he went to Texas and argued that the Republicans in control there should redraw all the congressional maps for the November election on the chance that the Republicans will pick up more seats. We will see what happens. Section 702 must not be linked to President Trump's efforts to suppress the vote. Instead, Congress should reauthorize it with reasonable reforms, bipartisan reforms that protect our national security and safeguard America's constitutional rights. Trump's campaign of retribution and attacks on America's ability to vote make this mission all the more important. We cannot allow a President consumed by vengeance to monitor Americans' private communications with no external checks or limits. Our Nation's Founders understood this well, which is why they created the Fourth Amendment to safeguard Americans from government overreach into their lives. For too long, section 702 has jeopardized those protections, but we have a chance to end that abuse now. Let's not wait any longer. Congress should reauthorize section 702 with sensible reforms and finally put an end to the unconstitutional surveillance of innocent American citizens. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am honored to rise in concert with my friend and colleague from Virginia Senator Kaine for this measure that is going to be pending on the floor. I rise in support of S.J. Res. 190 to disapprove of an interim final rule entitled ``Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,'' a regulation from the Justice Department that would greatly limit opportunities for appeal in immigration courts. This rule would reduce the time to file an appeal from 30 days to just 10 days, and if an applicant manages to meet this unreasonable deadline, the appeal is still likely to be thrown out under this regulation. That is because the regulation requires that appeals be summarily dismissed unless a majority of the Board of Immigration Appeals agrees to take on the case. This new regulation is just the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration to end judicial independence in our immigration court system. Last year, the Trump administration fired hundreds of immigration judges. There is a huge, multithousand backlog that needs to be decided by our immigration courts. The response by the Trump administration: eliminate immigration judges. Make sense? Of course not. One of those who was eliminated was Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jennifer Peyton. She worked for nearly 10 years at the Chicago Immigration Court, through Democratic and Republican administrations. What was the cause for the dismissal of this woman who had spent almost 10 years before the court? I can tell you because I witnessed it personally. Do you know what she did? Do you know what she had the nerve to do? When I called the immigration court and said: Can I sit in the audience and listen to an immigration hearing, she said: I will meet you at the front door and escort you to the courtroom. She met me, introduced herself, took me to the courtroom, and left. I didn't see her again that day. That was grounds for dismissal by the Trump administration. The fact that she would communicate with a Member of Congress, actually shake hands with a Member of Congress, actually escort a Member of Congress into her courtroom into what was supposed to be a public setting: grounds for dismissal. Gone. The end of a career. Why would the Trump administration want to fire an experienced, nonpolitical judge like Judge Peyton? Well, I explained it to you. She was dismissed and fired without any stated cause whatsoever. The administration has taken the same approach with the Board of Immigration Appeals, firing 13 judges appointed during the Biden administration and decreasing the number of Board judges from 28 to 15. These firings paved the way for the administration to hire what they are calling ``deportation judges.'' The name says it all. These changes are not about efficiency; they are about finality, the end of the road for people who have been following the law every step of the way. They are finished. They are about dismantling due process and destroying any means by which an immigrant might have a fair chance at making their case. Make no mistake, this policy has Steve Miller written all over it. He may be the President's closest adviser, but I will also tell you he is relentless in his war against immigrants. Whether they are here legally or illegally makes no difference to him. He wants them gone. Just take the Board of Immigration Appeals' recent decision in ``Matter of Santiago.'' It confirmed what we already knew: Even though DACA is supposed to protect Dreamers from immigration enforcement, this administration wants to find a way to deport Dreamers. Well, of course, they are going after the worst of the worst: the rapists, the murderers, the terrorists, the criminally insane, the child predators. They snuck across the border, and now they have to go. But wait a minute; that is not DACA. DACA is about kids, children, infants brought to the United States, living their whole life in the United States, who go through a background check, which includes serious efforts to determine whether there is any criminal activity in their background. Then they pay a $600 filing fee. Then they are protected for 2 years to work in the United States without fear of deportation. Does that sound like the worst of the worst criminals? They are teachers. They are nurses. They are doctors. They are police. They are members of our military. But they have to be gone in the world of Steve Miller. They might have an accent or something or maybe look like they are Hispanic, which tends to be, for Mr. Miller, just enough to deport them. And that is what we are up against. This decision paved the way for immigration judges to issue deportation orders to DACA recipients who grew up in this country and are legally protected from deportation. But even that is not enough for the Trump administration. I urge my colleagues to reject the attempt to cut due process in our immigration court system and vote in support of this resolution. How many times have I heard my Republican colleagues say: Oh, well, I am not against immigration; I am just against illegal immigration. Really? If you eliminate the legal process where an individual who is seeking status in America can assert their rights under the law, it seems to me you have already prejudged the case. I am happy to join with Senator Kaine in supporting this measure on the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just left a rally across the street. There are probably 200 young people there. And it was a rally because today is the 14th anniversary of the creation of something called DACA. The story behind it is worth repeating. It was more than 21 years ago that I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act said if you were a child--infant, toddler, young child--brought to this country by your parents, you ought to deserve a chance--you deserve a chance--to aspire to become a citizen in the United States. But it is a path that you have to fight and walk down personally. I introduced the DREAM Act. I have called for it on the floor of the Senate several times over the last 20 years. I have gotten a majority vote, but I never could hit that magic number of 60 at the right moment. There came a time when a new Senator came to this Chamber to join me in Illinois with an unusual name: Barack Obama. He was my colleague, my junior Senator, and he was a cosponsor of the DREAM Act, which I just described to you. The time came, in 2008, when he was elected President of the United States. I had hoped, with his leadership and help, we could finally pass the DREAM Act. But fate didn't give us that opportunity. There came a time when I realized I had to appeal to him personally to help us with these young people, so that they wouldn't be deported, and he did. I wrote a letter with Richard Lugar, a Republican Senator from Indiana, to President Obama. Then, on a bipartisan basis, we asked him to do something by Executive order to protect these young children from being deported. He created DACA, and the DACA Program was very straightforward. By Executive order, if you were one of those people brought to the United States as a child and you were living in this country and had no strikes against you--anything serious--you ought to deserve a chance to work without fear of deportation. That is what DACA is. It allows the individuals who qualify to work in this country without fear of being deported. President Obama signed that Executive order 14 years ago today. Mr. President, 835,000 individuals are protected by DACA, protected from deportation and arrest--835,000. Who are they? Teachers, nurses, caregivers. They do a myriad of jobs, but they do them all proud to be a part of America. And every 2 years, they have to be examined again to continue with DACA. Every 2 years, they have to pay a $600 filing fee to go through a background check--a criminal background check--to make sure they are no danger to anyone. They have to pass that every 2 years. Now, what has happened under President Trump is the worst. What they have done is to shut off this renewal of DACA status for these thousands of people as they become due. It means that many of them are now being deported by Trump--by President Trump--and his administration. I have heard his speeches so many times I can repeat sections of it. He said he was going to go after the undocumented immigrants in America. He was going after the rapists, the murderers, the terrorists, the criminally insane, and those who prey on our children. Well, that doesn't apply to DACA at all. Each of these individuals has gone through a thorough background check--a criminal background check--and they don't have anything like that in their background. If something terrible should occur involving them, I would be the first to say they have to be forced out of this country and leave. But for those who were brought here as children, who really want to be part of our future, this is their only chance. So I left the rally across the street, in the shadow of the Capitol, with hundreds of DACA recipients who are asking for protection to continue, which they believe that they are entitled to under the law. The courts--the Federal courts--have ordered this administration to start renewing DACA applications. The administration ignores them and doesn't do it. That, to me, is wrong--just plain wrong. When you think that these kids grew up in America, went to their classroom every day and pledged allegiance to that flag, believing they were part of this great Nation, you must believe, as I do, that they deserve a chance to prove it. Many of them are doing it to this day. So there will be several of my colleagues joining me on the floor a little later this afternoon to talk about DACA. But this is an important program for over 800,000 individuals who are critically important to America's future, and I hope that we can find a way in our hearts to realize they are not the worst of the worst. In many cases, they are the best of the best. All they are asking for is a chance to be part of America's future.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a separate issue, the Senate will soon vote on the confirmation of one of the President's personal attorneys to the Federal appellate court. If it sounds familiar, it is because we have seen it before. Last summer, the Senate confirmed another of the President's personal attorneys, Emil Bove, to be on the Third Circuit. It was previously unheard of for a President to do anything like this, but those rules are out the window. That is why the President nominated Todd Blanche, who represented him in cases that were filed against him, to serve as the next Attorney General. And that is why President Trump nominated Justin Smith, who is currently representing him in civil cases brought by E. Jean Carroll. Ms. Carroll is one of dozens of women who have come forward to credibly accuse the President--credibly accuse the President--of sexual assault. In Ms. Carroll's lawsuits, juries found President Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Ms. Carroll nearly $90 million in damages. And that is being appealed. But this conflict of interest raises serious questions. These are lifetime appointments to Federal judgeships--lifetime appointments which have to be given to people who have been carefully scrutinized. We have not done that when it comes to Mr. Smith. We can do better. Mr. Smith has filed numerous briefs and motions in which he has challenged the verdicts against the President. While all litigants deserve a zealous advocate, Mr. Smith repeatedly attacked Ms. Carroll-- a sexual assault survivor--in court filings. Mr. Smith baselessly dismissed Ms. Carroll's allegations as ``facially implausible'' and `` politically motivated.'' He also falsely claimed that her allegations are a story that precisely matches the plotline from an episode of one of admittedly her favorite TV shows, `Law & Order'.'' In addition to these lawsuits, Mr. Smith assisted in President Trump's defense in defense in Trump v. United States, the Presidential immunity case. But even apart from Mr. Smith's personal representations of the President, his record shows he is too ideological and too extreme for the Federal bench. Mr. Smith was an election denier long before he was hired by President Trump. While working in the Missouri Attorney General's Office, he joined the baseless effort to challenge the results of the 2020 election. When asked about this, he told the Judiciary Committee he was ``proud to add [his] name'' to that effort, once again demonstrating his loyalty to President Trump over the rule of law. During his legal career, in both government service and private practice, Mr. Smith has repeatedly worked to restrict abortion rights and the rights of LGBTQ Americans. His personal commentary on those subjects shows that his efforts reflect not only his legal positions but also his personal beliefs. In a blog post, Mr. Smith wrote: The Republican Party must have positions painted in bold colors on the critical issues that face this country. Abortion is murder. Gay marriage is sin.'' He added: On these core principles of our party, there must be no equivocation. When asked whether he still holds these beliefs about abortion and same-sex marriage, Mr. Smith refused to condemn them. Those words are unbefitting of a judge and reveal a level of bias and partisanship that is unacceptable in a judicial nominee. Mr. Smith also has extensive rightwing political affiliations and ties to dark money entities. He has volunteered on dozens of Republican campaigns and participated in numerous events sponsored by conservative groups. He has also served as a board member of several Republican- aligned organizations, including super PAC and entities affiliated with Leonard Leo. Mr. Smith's record makes his extreme ideology and partisanship clear. It is equally clear that President Trump believes Mr. Smith will continue to place the interests of the President ahead of the interest of justice and the rule of law if he is confirmed. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a separate topic, over the weekend, we learned that the United States and Iran had reached a preliminary deal to end the current conflict. While I am glad that we might be seeing an end to the hostilities, I am deeply concerned about what might be in that agreement. What was announced was only an end to the fighting, Iran's stranglehold over the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. blockade--moves that return us to the status quo before the President's invasion of Iran, over 100 days ago. In fact, after months of being promised an imminent deal by President Trump, the current loose framework stunningly avoids critical issues related to Iran's nuclear program. Don't you remember that was the reason he gave for invading this country? And from what was being reported, the terms and the sanctions relief sound very similar to an agreement which was reached by President Obama and the Iranian people, before the election of Donald Trump--the JCPOA. Let me be clear. Iran and its proxies and its nuclear program are all threats to the United States and its allies. But did we really start a war to return to the same deal President Trump abandoned during his first term as President? Is that it? Now, I have heard my colleagues lament the Obama-era deal was weak and ineffective, compared to what President Trump has negotiated. Let's be clear on the key points from that Obama agreement. It severely restricted Iran's enrichment capabilities, notably extending nuclear weapon breakout time. It also included some of the most intrusive inspections ever agreed to--international inspections of Iran during the Obama administration. In fact, I hosted the IAEA Director General a number of times in my office. I sat across from him and asked him point-blank: Are there any doors locked? Are there any doors blocked that you can't get into to find out what is going on? He said: No. Every time we identify anything like that, they open the doors. Inspections, though difficult, were working. The deal included the backing of the P5+1 nations under President Obama. He didn't go it alone, as President Trump did in his invasion of Iran. The nations that joined in supporting the JCPOA of President Obama included, of all things, Russia and China. Today, we stand alone in our negotiations with Iran. The Obama agreement included specific wording, which said: Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. I was watching one of the television shows yesterday. One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle obviously missed this point. He said there was no guarantee in terms of nuclear weapons in Iran. Well, there was never a guarantee, but there was a pledge and a promise--an enforceable one--and enforceable inspections. It sounds to me, under the best case scenario, in which all enriched uranium--the most dangerous of which was developed under Trump, after he withdrew from the JCPOA--is removed from Iran, we are simply moving toward the same type of agreement all over again, at a cost of billions of dollars to the American taxpayer. I sure hope my Republican colleagues, who so loudly objected to the JCPOA, will scrutinize Trump's deal with the same zeal and that we have just that opportunity, because we passed a measure, back during the early Obama negotiations, called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. Several Senators joined in that effort and won. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia still serves in this body. This was bipartisan legislation, passed overwhelmingly in 2015, which will apply to any new agreement with Iran. The law requires the administration to submit to Congress, within 5 days, any agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, after which the Foreign Relations Committees will hold hearings. And then Congress can vote to approve or disapprove the deal. So I look forward to a close look at what the final deal looks like. And if, as predicted, it is similar to what Trump abandoned, we have to ask ourselves whether this war was really worth the American lives and the cost in American servicemembers.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Maine (Mr. King), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Warnock) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I want to reflect on the 14th anniversary--it is the 14th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. After years of congressional inaction, in 2010, I wrote a letter to my former Senate colleague President Barack Obama, cosigned by my late Republican colleague Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, asking President Obama to stop the deportation of Dreamers. Who are the Dreamers? They are kids who came to the United States with their parents. They were infants, toddlers, young boys and girls, maybe even teenagers. But they didn't make the family decision. They got in a car and headed north. They grew up in the United States, never knowing that they were undocumented and didn't have the proper legal identification. When everybody stood up in the classroom and pledged allegiance to that flag, they joined in. That was their flag, for their country and their future. And somehow, a little later in life, around their teenage, adolescent years, one of their parents sat down and said: I have got to tell you the grim reality. You are not legally in the United States. You are undocumented. No matter how hard you studied, how many times you pledged allegiance to that flag, you don't legally belong here. As a consequence, I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act basically said: If you keep your nose clean, if you work hard, if you pursue the path the right way--now that you are here--we are not going to hold it against you that you were sitting in the back seat when your mom and dad drove up here. We are going to give you a chance for your future to prove that you are of value to the United States. That was the DREAM Act. I tried to pass it on the floor of the Senate many times. Often, I would get a majority vote, but the requirement on the floor would be 60 votes, and I would fall just short of it. So it was about 14 or 15 years ago that I wrote this letter, cosigned by Senator Richard Lugar, to President Barack Obama. When he was in the Senate, he sat over here. He was a cosponsor of the DREAM Act. So I knew that I had a pretty good audience, sending him this letter. I asked him if there is anything, as President of the United States of America, he can do to protect these young people from being deported. It took a while. It took months. There was some fierce negotiations even within his administration. But 14 years ago today, he came up with the DACA Program. The DACA Program is fairly simple and straightforward. If you want to stay in the United States and legally work and also pay your taxes, if you want to make sure that you are not going to be deported, you come to the government every 2 years, and you pay a filing fee of $600. They process you and do an extensive criminal background check. If you pass that check, you can work here for 2 years and then do it all over again. If something happens in the intervening 2 years, where you have broken the law with a serious crime, you are gone. It is just that simple. No more DACA protection, nothing. So how many young people stepped up? I was surprised. I expected some, but I didn't expect the overwhelming turnout. It was in August of that year that we held a meeting at the Navy Pier in Chicago. Congressman Luis Gutierrez and I had thought, well, we will bring in some volunteer immigration attorneys. We will bring in the notary publics that may be needed. And we will let these young people-- by and large, young people--sign up for the DACA Program. We were expecting about 500; 20,000 came--20,000. They stood in line, starting at midnight, and snaked around the Navy Pier--parents bringing their kids in to finally have a chance to have peace of mind that their son or daughter had a future in the United States. How many all together across the Nation signed up? Mr. President, 835,000--835,000. They came forward. They received the protection of DACA. And now who are they, and where are they? They are teaching their kids in the classroom at school. They are the nurses that answered the buzzer when your spouse was in the hospital. They are engineers, small business owners, caregivers. They are taking care of your mom and dad in that nursing home tonight--DACA. These young people grew up in America, alongside our own kids. This is the only place they ever called home. DACA recipients--with peace of mind that they could go to work--started families, with 37 percent having U.S. citizen children. And 935,000 U.S. citizens live with DACA holders. This program, created because of a letter that Senator Lugar and I sent to President Obama, has reached out and touched the lives of millions of young Americans. DACA recipients pay their taxes. They contribute nearly $16 billion a year to the U.S. economy. Let me highlight the story of one of these DACA recipients so that you come to know at least one person who has benefited from DACA. I have come to the floor of the Senate many times to tell these stories of Dreamers. This is No. 152. Her name is Diana Perez. She was born in Mexico City. Diana was brought to this country when she was 7 years old. She grew up in one of the best cities in the world, as far as I am concerned, a city which has a pretty good baseball team too. That is, of course, the city of Chicago in my home State of Illinois--two pretty good baseball teams. I better be careful. Before Diana obtained DACA, her academic advisor laid out the barriers she would face, questioning how she would support herself and how she would be able to afford her education. For young people like Diana, this is a hill to climb and a responsibility that they have to face that many kids don't ever face. She was a determined person. She wasn't going to let anybody discourage her from her goals in life. She cleaned houses. She served coffee to pay her tuition and cover the cost of books. She was so passionate about her education and it being the key to her success, she confronted every barrier head-on. Ultimately, Diana graduated with a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in media and communications from Northeastern Illinois University. She is a proud Golden Eagle of that great school. Her experiences in college and graduate school inspired her to fight for the rights of others and combat discrimination. Diana now serves as the community engagement director for the city of Chicago's Committee on Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which is chaired by Alderperson Andre Vasquez of the 40th Ward. Since joining the committee, Diana has collaborated with community partners, nonprofits, and government officials, and she has advocated on behalf of the people of Chicago. I met Diana here in the Capitol in April. She and her colleagues with the Chicago Latino Caucus Foundation traveled to Washington, DC. Diana explained to me that DACA changed her life. It provided her with the opportunity to pursue the career that she is so passionate about. Her goal is to work in the Federal Government someday. And wouldn't we all be lucky to have her represent us? Despite multiple court challenges, DACA still survives. And the Trump administration is under court order to resume processing DACA renewals and work permit applications. When they couldn't just stop the program, they tried--in the President's first term, they tried to find some way to slow it down with a challenge in court. They lost in court. The judge ordered them to proceed with DACA as written, but they refused to do so. We know that President Trump attempted to eliminate DACA in his first term. Now his administration is stripping away many of the Dreamers of their lawful presence and deporting them from the country they grew up in. How does that work? They show up to renew their DACA status, protecting them from deportation and allowing them to work and pay taxes, and someone is waiting at the front door. They say: Before you sign up, we are going to detain you, question you, and deport you. That is a fact. The data tells the story. In Illinois alone, my office is working on 92 DACA constituent cases as of May of this year. This month, that number has climbed to 145--a 50 percent increase. The Trump administration is gaming the system, not giving people like Diana the opportunity that they are entitled to, to show up, pay their fee, go through a background check, and have 2 more years of protection. The slow-walking of renewals has resulted in many Dreamers-- individuals who are following every rule--to lose their DACA protection, lose their jobs, and risk deportation through no fault of their own. Additionally, the Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals, which has been totally politicized by this administration, recently issued a controversial decision, holding that DACA would no longer necessarily protect Dreamers from deportation. When President Obama created DACA 14 years ago, some Dreamers and their families expressed concern. I heard them. I saw them at the Navy Pier. Why would we possibly give all our personal information about our family to protect our daughter under DACA if that information could be used against our family in later years and deport people in our family? Why should we cooperate? Why should we come out of the shadows? Well, many of us said to them: Just follow the law. The law is established by this executive order. Do what you are supposed to do. Pay your $600 fee every 2 years. Go through your criminal background check. Make sure you show up in time to renew your DACA protection. Do those things, and you will be following the law. You will be fine. We were wrong. The information, which these families turned over for DACA applications, is now being used to seek them out, detain them, arrest them, and deport them. What a heartbreak. After years of waiting, I think it is long overdue for Congress to honor the Dreamers' patience and persistence, act on our own promises, and provide them with a pathway to citizenship. Only Congress can give Dreamers the stability they crave and deserve. The time to pass the DREAM Act is now. To the Dreamers watching, I say: I am not going to give up on you. Don't give up on me, and don't give up on this Congress. We can do the right thing. I am going to continue to fight for the Dreamers and continue to fight for DACA. In the face of this administration's actions, Congress must finally act to protect these young people who know no other home than here. This is a matter of simple American fairness and justice. If you could meet Diana--or the thousands of others who take advantage of DACA to give back to this country--you can understand why this is the right thing to do. I don't believe that we should knowingly accept any dangerous person who wants to come into this country, nor should we allow any dangerous person to continue to stay in this country if they have committed a serious crime or are threatening. They are gone. But for those who were brought here as kids, as children, who became part of America--because they fell in love with this country, like we all do--and just want a chance to be a part of its future, this is not too much to ask. You can be tough on border enforcement. You can be tough on crimes committed by those who are not here legally. I will join in that effort. But in the meantime, have a heart for those who are really trying their best to make a life in America and make this country a better place. The DACA recipients are just those people. They deserve our help. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Republican leader said that we could continue in session so long as there were Democrats to speak. To my knowledge, there are no additional Democrats. I want to thank you and the staff and the pages for this extra time this evening.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you or a loved one is diagnosed with a life-altering medical condition, the last thing you want to face is a mountain of government paperwork in order to get your care. But when Republicans in Congress passed their One Big Beautiful Bill, President Trump's budget--that is what they call it--last year, they placed themselves in the middle of whether or not you get treatment. In that law, the Republicans created a requirement for all Medicaid recipients between the ages of 18 and 64 to either work 80 hours a month or verify they are too sick to do so in order to maintain Medicaid coverage. At first glance, that might just sound like a reasonable requirement. The reality is, the plan drowns eligible patients in paperwork, requiring those who are poor and sick to navigate a maze of government redtape to see a doctor. To qualify for Medicaid, you need to have low or no income or perhaps have a disability. Now the Republicans want to put a paperwork requirement on this to prove that you can't work 80 hours a month. Last week, the Trump administration took a look at this and decided to make a bad situation even worse. They announced the rules to implement these work requirements. The administration decided that documenting that you have a serious condition like cancer or Alzheimer's is not enough to avoid work requirements. Instead, they are further requiring patients to verify that these conditions actually impede your ability to work. In case it is not obvious, a 64-year-old cancer patient, traveling 30 miles each direction every week to undergo chemotherapy, might not have the ability to show up to their shift, waiting tables. Under Republicans' work requirements, one misstep by a patient, provider, or State employee could mean the difference between having health coverage or not. Is this a burden? What if we suggested that you file your income tax returns not only on April 15 but on October 15 as well--twice a year--to make sure we catch up with you? Is that a burden? Of course, it is. Have Republicans in Congress really deemed you unworthy of getting cancer treatment because a signature was missing on one of the dozens of pages in the forms you had to submit to prove that you are unable to work? In addition to creating this work requirement, Republicans in Congress also refused to extend the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits in their Big Beautiful Bill--tax breaks for wealthy people but no benefits for those trying to pay their health insurance premiums. Twenty-four million Americans rely on these tax credits to afford their health insurance, but they expired at the end of last year. Without them, insurance premiums have doubled or tripled for many families, the same families that are struggling to buy groceries, to pay their utility bills, to make sure that they have enough money for rent or mortgage. And how about the cost of gasoline while we are at it? We have decided these folks need to have an additional expense of health insurance premiums, according to my Republican colleagues. Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune newspaper reported that more than 92,000 people living in my State have lost or dropped their health insurance this year due to the skyrocketing premiums and the Republican policy change eliminating tax benefits to help people pay for their health insurance. Illinois is no outlier. Millions of Americans nationwide lost their insurance coverage because the Republican decision to change the policy priced them out of care. Listen to one of the stories. Sharon Dunham, from Grand Rapids, MI, told the Wall Street Journal that she beat cancer twice and has multiple health challenges, but she had to drop her insurance altogether--drop her insurance altogether-- this year when her monthly premiums increased by $300. With inflation, which the President embraced yesterday and said that he dearly loves--add that to the health insurance premiums, she just couldn't hack it. Sharon plans to go without insurance until she turns 65. She prays that she will last long enough to reach the Medicare eligibility age. In the meantime, she is terrified that her cancer might return and knows that without health insurance, ``I can't do anything if it shows up.'' Think about that for a minute. A vote here on the Senate floor has put this lady in a situation where she is battling cancer without health insurance. Countless other families are making similar heartbreaking decisions like Sharon. Without health insurance, they are just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. Republicans' Big Beautiful Bill doesn't stop just at that point. It also enacted the most severe cut to the SNAP program in history. From July 2025 to February 2026, more than 3\1/2\ million people have lost access to the program that actually puts groceries on their table. One SNAP recipient, Presley Nassise, told the Public Broadcasting System that his benefits went from $200 to zero after the Republican cuts, after which he could only afford 1\1/2\ meals a day. Go to your local food bank and ask them what is going on. They are being deluged and swamped by people who are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay for groceries. And folks with limited income need a helping hand. I have been there. I have seen those food banks. And thank goodness for the people who open them, the churches and the volunteers that keep them open. It is no wonder that more Americans are going without the food that they need now in 2026 than during the peak of COVID-19. As the Big Beautiful Bill's provisions take effect, Republicans can no longer hide behind the statement that they have only tried to target waste, fraud, and abuse. Americans are waking up to the reality that Republicans abandoned working families so they could provide tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. While Republicans are content to act like nothing is wrong, Democrats are continuing to fight to restore these programs. It may not be popular in some circles to speak out for the poor and low-income people in this country, but I think we have an obligation to do so. If these people are trying to get by--struggling to get health insurance, to put food on their table, to be able to go to the kind of healthcare that keeps them alive--we have got to speak up for them. I don't believe these are cheaters and chiselers and frauds. These are people who are trying to get by. And putting additional paperwork requirements on them--making it more and more difficult--making someone who has Alzheimer's file papers regularly with the government to prove they can't go to work, for goodness' sake, what has this Nation come to? We can do better than that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.