Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York passed away after representing the Rochester area of that State for more than three decades. She was tough, unfailingly gracious, and wonderfully effective in helping people throughout her life. Louise carried titles you don't see often around here. She was the Congress's only microbiologist. She was also a blues and jazz singer as well. She was a fighter, first and foremost, earning the respect of her colleagues and even those who disagreed with her. I have counted her as a friend and an ally in many causes. She hailed from Harlan, KY, the daughter of a blacksmith in a coal mine. Louise can trace her lineage to the legendary Daniel Boone, and you can hear it in her voice. She went to college and graduate school at the University of Kentucky to study microbiology and public health to honor her sister who passed away due to pneumonia at a young age. She went on to serve in both the Monroe County legislature and the New York State Assembly before joining Congress in 1986 to represent the Rochester New York area, which includes the area around the historic Seneca Falls Convention. She was one of only 29 women in Congress when she first arrived and quickly became a champion and a trailblazer for the American worker and the American women. Louise coauthored the landmark Violence Against Women's Act in 1994, curbing domestic violence and aiding its victims. She also helped shepherd the Affordable Care Act through Congress as the very first woman to chair the House of Representatives Rules Committee. Louise's storied career has included defending her constituents against Big Business and bringing national attention to pressing medical issues. She introduced the first legislation barring genetic discrimination in 1995. It finally became law in 2008. She introduced a bill every Congress to fight drug-resistant bacteria. In 2015, President Obama incorporated parts of Louise Slaughter's plan to identify superbugs and increased funding for new antibiotics and vaccines into the administration's initiative to encourage the responsible use of antibiotics in livestock. Louise also introduced the first bill to ban insider training by Members of Congress. She did all of this, and some of it controversial, and still won the respect of her colleagues. I worked with her on many projects, from the Bicameral High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Caucus, to demanding the Supreme Court adopt an ethics code. It was not a coincidence that on the day when news of her passing broke, the words ``nicest'' and ``Rochester'' were trending on Twitter in Washington, DC. Through all of her hard work, she was smart and kind and always funny. She will be missed by her colleagues and friends and family, including her three daughters, Megan, Amy, and Emily Robin; seven grandchildren, Lauren, Daniel, Emma, Jackson, Mason, Linus, and Ione; and one great-grandchild, Henry. Louise was a great Congresswoman. I am going to miss her as a colleague and a friend.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, back in 1985, I was a second-term Member of the House of Representatives and a member, I was proud to say, of the House Appropriations Committee. The Committee chairman was a man by the name of Jamie Whitten. He was from the State of Mississippi. He was a Mississippi Democrat. Yes, there used to be Mississippi Democrats. Jamie Whitten had been a witness to a great deal of American history. He was on the floor of the House as a newly minted Congressman from Mississippi on December 8, 1941, when Franklin Roosevelt delivered his ``Day of Infamy'' speech. There I was speaking to this same man 44 years later, and I was a junior member of his Appropriations Committee. I knew that Appropriations, under the House rules, had several members who were also represented on the Budget Committee. So one day I went to Chairman Whitten from Mississippi and suggested to him that I wanted to be on the Budget Committee in the slot reserved for Appropriations members. Chairman Whitten looked down at me and he asked: Why do you want to be on the Budget Committee? I said: I think it is good because the Budget Committee makes the spending decisions and blueprints that Appropriations and other committees follow. He kind of sat back in his chair and Chairman Whitten said to me: Well, if you want to be on that committee, you can be on that committee, but I want you to remember one thing, the Budget Committee deals in hallucinations and the Appropriations Committee deals in facts. I will never forget that exchange. I served on the Budget Committee and again in the Senate on the same Budget Committee, and I have come to believe that Chairman Whitten was not that wrong in his conclusion. I call that ``Whitten's Law.'' It remains one of the most important lessons I have learned about the Federal budget. I have learned other lessons from Mississippi politicians, and one of them is a man by the name of Thad Cochran, my colleague from the State of Mississippi and one of my friends who cochairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with me. I shouldn't say cochairs; I am the ranking member on that committee and he, of course, is the chairman. Thad Cochran taught me and others many important lessons about the Federal budget and about public service in general. Thad Cochran is a man of humility and integrity, and he is a man of his word. He is a conservative Republican who values principle and cooperation over pointless confrontation. He prefers common ground to scorched Earth because he knows it is better to build on. Senator Cochran and I have served together in the Senate for more than two decades. For much of that time, we have both been on the Senate Appropriations Committee. He has been the committee's ranking member and chairman twice. In all of those years, I can only think of a time or two when he and I disagreed so completely on an issue that we found ourselves unable to find that principled compromise. Some may call that ``old school.'' I call it leadership in a representative democracy. As a member and two-time chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran's skill as a negotiator has served Mississippi and the United States exceedingly well. He has helped keep his State and our Nation strong and safe and economically sound. In a time that increasingly prizes the quick profits and short-term vision, Thad Cochran has helped to protect and increase America's investments in scientific, technological, and medical research. That is a proud part of the legacy he leaves. His voice is common and quiet, but don't be fooled. When it comes to protecting the interests of his State or this Nation, he is tenacious. That was never more apparent than in the weeks and months after Hurricane Katrina pummeled the Mississippi gulf coast and other States in 2005. Senator Cochran helped secure appropriations that enabled thousands of homeowners in Mississippi to rebuild after their insurance companies turned them down. As the former chairman and now ranking member of the Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, I worked closely with Chairman Cochran to protect critical national security priorities in my State of Illinois, and he has worked hard for his State. Behind every Senator, of course, there are hard-working staff members without whom we could not do our jobs. Senator Cochran's personal staff and his committee staff are first-rate public servants. I want to thank them too. They have been part of a winning team with Senator Cochran. Their hard work and loyalty on his behalf and on behalf of the Senate has served this Nation well. I wasn't surprised the other day when I learned that Senator Cochran had been an Eagle Scout. I was surprised to learn, however, that he once failed in pursuit of a Boy Scout merit badge as a young man. He learned a lesson from that experience that he said has stayed with him all his life: Always be prepared. Thad Cochran's adherence to that lesson, his remarkable skill as a negotiator, and his deep integrity and honesty are qualities we could all do well to emulate. I thank Senator Thad Cochran and wish him all the best as he departs the Senate, and I thank him for his great service to Mississippi and to America.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this crisis we face in this country involving DACA is a crisis that was created when President Trump announced the end of the program on September 5 of last year and gave us a deadline of March 5 of this year to come up with an alternative. Many of us, including the Presiding Officer, battled mightily to do that--a bipartisan effort with compromise on both sides--but we never could come up with a proposal the President accepted. As a consequence, the destiny of the DACA recipients is uncertain. They are now temporarily protected by an injunction from two different Federal lawsuits--an injunction which could end in a matter of weeks or months. In the meantime, their status is so uncertain that it is difficult for them to make plans for their lives. That is where we are today. DACA has been a huge success. It is a program designed to give those who were brought here as children, toddlers, and infants an opportunity to become part of America--a legal part of America--and an opportunity to one day become citizens. DACA was an Executive order of President Obama's which President Trump has now abolished. There is no protection, other than the court injunction for those who are facing the end of DACA. Yesterday, I convened a meeting with some of my Senate colleagues with the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen. Here is what we learned: As of yesterday, more than 35,000 DACA renewal applications are pending because of these court orders. Of these pending renewal applications, 10,000 were from recipients whose DACA protection had already expired. Tens of thousands more Dreamers have DACA protection due to expire soon. Around 13,000 DACA permits could expire in March, another 5,300 in April, and nearly 14,000 more in May. Understand what happens: When a person is protected by DACA and loses that protection, technically, they can be deported. In addition, they cannot legally continue to work in the United States. There is some good news, though. Secretary Nielsen promised me that the Department of Homeland Security will not deport any DACA recipient with a pending DACA application, even if their DACA status has expired. I thank her for that commitment, and I intend to hold her to that commitment. Many lives are at stake. However, for DACA recipients whose status has expired, that same Department will not authorize them to work unless and until DACA is renewed, so there can be a gap in their employment. Understand that the people we are talking about are not folks, by and large, with part-time jobs. They are teachers. They are medical professionals. Some of them are serving in our military. What we now know about the expiration of this work permit is that tens of thousands of DACA-eligible individuals could be forced to leave their jobs while their applications for renewal are pending and before those applications are approved. Then consider the fate of Dreamers who are eligible for DACA but never reached the necessary age to attain that status. They can no longer apply for DACA because President Trump's decision prohibits them after September 5. If a child turns 15, the youngest age at which they can apply for DACA, they are now blocked from applying because of the President's decision. The nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute estimates that in addition to 800,000 DACA recipients, there are an additional 1 million Dreamers eligible for DACA. Because of President Trump's decision to end DACA, 1.8 million Dreamers are at risk of deportation and cannot work to support themselves and contribute to the only country they know and the country they love. President Trump called on Congress to legalize DACA, but he has, unfortunately, refused to accept six different bipartisan offers to achieve that. One of those offers also included $25 billion for his wall. Yet he wouldn't accept it. Let me tell my colleagues the story of one of these young people, as I have done before. I have come to the floor of the Senate more than 110 times to tell these stories. I just think when you hear the stories of an individual, it helps us understand what the real issue is. This is a photo of Irving Calderon. He is the 112th Dreamer I have talked about on the Senate floor. When he was 7 months old, Irving was brought to the United States from Mexico by his parents. He lived in California for 10 years and then moved to Texas where he currently lives. His childhood memories include Disneyland, going to the beach, and celebrating Christmas and the Fourth of July with his family. Irving found out he was undocumented when he was 12 years old. At first he didn't believe it because he said there is nothing about him that wasn't American. Then, as he got older, he realized he couldn't get a driver's license, he couldn't work, he couldn't save money for college, but he didn't give up. In high school, Irving maintained a 4.0 grade point average. He was a member of the Honor Society and the student council. He served as president of the school's chapter of the Future Business Leaders of America, played varsity basketball and tennis. Because of his accomplishments, Irving was accepted into the University of Texas at Austin. In college, he served as director of the Hispanic Business Students Association, and under his leadership, the group adopted a street to clean. Irving organized events for underrepresented high school students and middle school students and volunteered at an orphanage every Thanksgiving. He graduated from the University of Texas with a bachelor's degree in business administration. Thanks to DACA--created by President Obama and then eliminated by President Trump later--Irving was able to put his degree to work. For the last 3 years, he has worked as an information technology business analyst at General Motors. He creates software systems for one of the largest automakers in the United States. He wrote me a letter, and here is what he said: I've always felt completely American. I've been here since I was 7 months old. It's the only place I know and the only place I've ever considered home. Being an American is not something that is just given to you; it's about the work you put in. . . . I feel that I have contributed to America. I do too. It would be an American tragedy to deport someone like Irving, who has overcome so many obstacles and has so much to contribute to our country. People like Irving Calderon are the reason more than 400 business leaders signed a letter to Congress urging us to pass a bipartisan Dream Act. The letter and these business leaders say: Dreamers are vital to the future of our companies and our economy. With them, we grow and create jobs. They are part of why we will continue to have a global competitive advantage. President Trump created this crisis, but instead of working toward a solution, he has sabotaged every effort we have tried to make on behalf of Dreamers. Now it is up to Republican leaders in Congress to take yes for an answer and accept any one of the six bipartisan solutions we put on the table to save these young people. Congress should do our job and make the Dream Act the law of the land, or we will be responsible for forcing hundreds of thousands of talented young immigrants out of the workforce and putting them at risk of immediate deportation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this afternoon there is going to be a vote on the Senate floor which is of historic importance. It is rare that I use those words to describe what is going on in the Senate Chamber. It is equally rare for us to actually take up an issue and debate it in this Chamber, but this afternoon we will face a critical vote. I can recall, as can most Members, many votes we have cast in the course of service in Congress, both in the House and the Senate, but the votes that cause loss of sleep and worry, time and again, are votes involving war. You see, part of my responsibility in the Senate, shared by my colleagues, under article I, section 8, is to actually vote to decide whether the United States of America shall go to war. The Founding Fathers were explicit. They wanted to give to Congress that responsibility so Members of Congress could represent their constituents--House districts and States--whom we all represent. That created an opportunity--in effect, an obligation--for us to really measure this grievous, important, historic decision against the feelings of the families who would be asked to support a war with their tax dollars or with the lives of people they love. I can recall, back in 2001, what occurred on 9/11. Those of us alive on that date will never forget it, but I also recall that a year later we faced a decision right here in the Senate Chamber about whether, as a result of 9/11, we would go to war against Iraq and Afghanistan. There was a long debate about whether we should invade Iraq. If you will remember, the leaders of the government told us there were weapons of mass destruction which threatened the region and the world, including the United States, and if we didn't move into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein in his capacity, we would leave the United States in danger. The debate went on for a long period of time, and the final vote was cast in the early morning hours in October of 2002. I remember it well and, for reasons I can't explain, I stayed on the floor after the vote. There were only two or three Members of the Senate still here. It was one of those moments where we had voted to go to war and weren't certain about what the next step would be. There were 23 of us--1 Republican and 22 Democrats--who voted against the invasion of Iraq. I think it was one of the most important votes I ever cast. The representations about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false. We had no intelligence to back up that assertion. Yet that was the reason we were off to war. Well, here we are, some 16 years later, still engaged in a war in Iraq. I don't believe there is a single Member of the Senate who that night cast a vote for the invasion of that country who believed that 16 years later we would still be engaged in a war in Iraq. Subsequently, there was a vote on the invasion of Afghanistan. It was a different circumstance. We believed Afghanistan had literally been the sourcing point for the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 innocent Americans. The argument made by the administration was, no one can do that to the United States of America without paying a price. I joined the overwhelming bipartisan majority supporting the invasion of Afghanistan to go after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. I voted against invading Iraq. I voted for the invasion of Afghanistan. I can tell you, I would never ever have been able to stand here and say, with any certainty, that 16 years later, we would still be engaged in a war in Afghanistan, but we are. The obvious question to ask is, In 16 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places in the world, how many other times has the United States and the House of Representatives come together to debate the wisdom of a decision about continuing a war or declaring a war? The answer is none--not once. For 16 years, we have been observers and bystanders, through Presidents of both political parties, and the Congress has stood by and observed military action being taken all over the world. Brown University did a survey called the Costs of War Project and recently published data saying that the United States fought terror in 76 countries, between October 2015 and October 2017, using its own troops and bases, through training of host country counterterrorism forces or through drone and air strikes. In 76 different countries, we are engaged in military operations. How often has the Senate or the House come together to debate the wisdom or to even question whether those military actions were authorized? I think none. Perhaps someone could point to one, but I can't think of one time we have done it. This afternoon is going to be different because we are being asked, as Members of the Senate, whether we are going to exercise our constitutional authority and responsibility when it comes to an ongoing war in a country most Americans couldn't find on a map--the country of Yemen. Yemen now is embroiled in a civil war and an invasion by Saudi Arabia, and we are part of that military operation. There has been no vote in the U.S. Senate on those military activities. There is a loose connection to al-Qaida, which was referenced in the invasion of Afghanistan, as a rationalization for going after this terrorist operation now being found in Yemen, but there is more to that war in Yemen than just the presence of al-Qaida. There is an ongoing surrogate battle between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the United States is engaged. I believe we are engaged because of our friendship with Saudi Arabia; some have argued because we sold them the planes we are now refueling. At the very least, we ought to bring this case to the American people. That is our constitutional responsibility, and that is why this vote is important: Because we took an oath--each of us--when we became Senators, to uphold the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. That Constitution says the people of the United States--the ones I represent in Illinois, the ones who are represented in Oregon or in Texas--are going to have a voice in this decision through us, through our debate, through our decision. I thank the Senators who have brought this matter to the floor today: Mr. Lee, a Republican Senator from the State of Utah; Mr. Sanders, a Democratic Senator from Vermont; and Mr. Murphy, another Democratic Senator, from Connecticut. I have joined in cosponsoring this effort. It really is going to put us to a test to justify what we are doing in Yemen today. What is happening in Yemen has been characterized by the United Nations as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world--and that is saying something. Some 8 million people are dying of famine in Yemen because of this war. Some 16 million are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance immediately. This is no skirmish. This is not just an exchange of fire. This is carnage and destruction the likes of which the world has never seen, and we are part of it. If we are part of it and should be part of it, then we should make that decision as a Senate and a House of Representatives, as the Constitution requires, but going to the bleachers, standing by the sidelines, and watching more and more military operations take place around the world without asserting our constitutional responsibility is a mistake. That is why I have cosponsored this measure this afternoon and look forwarding to voting for it to move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to join with Members of Congress and congressional staff in celebrating Mark Peterson's 30 years of service and retirement from the town of Normal. Mark has honorably served the people of Normal, IL, since 1988 and as its city manager since 1998. He has served on the governing boards for a variety of public and community organizations, including the MetCom Emergency Communications Center, the Bloomington-Normal Economic Development Council, the Central Illinois Regional Broadband Network, the McLean County Regional Planning Commission Executive Committee, the Community Development Corporation, the BN Advantage Leadership Council, and Connect Transit. Mark was instrumental in the planning and successful redevelopment of Uptown Normal, including the Children's Discovery Museum, as well as Uptown Station and its new rail platform, waiting area, bus bays, and related development at the Marriott Hotel and Conference Center and the Hyatt Place Bloomington-Normal Hotel. Under the administration of Mark Peterson, the Shoppes at College Hills grew into a thriving modern retail center. The Constitution Trail also grew to nearly 50 miles of recreational trail through the cities of Normal and Bloomington, providing the community with an outstanding linear park. Mark oversaw a period of tremendous growth in the town of Normal, while maintaining an AAA bond rating and serving as independent confirmation of the town's fiscal health and stability. He also cultivated fruitful partnerships with members of the Illinois congressional delegation, but most importantly, Mark has been a loyal leader and community servant for the residents of Normal and will continue to be an admired citizen of the community. Mark's commitment to the town of Normal can be seen in every corner of the city, and that work will not be forgotten.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, most people cannot remember what happened in the first grade--I have vague memories of being a first grader--but there are certain things that may happen even at a young stage in your life that will be remembered. My 6-year-old granddaughter, who attends first grade in Brooklyn, NY, a few weeks ago was told by her teacher what to do if a shooter, if a gunman came into the first grade classroom. My little granddaughter was told: Don't stand by the window; you could get shot. If they enter the classroom with a gun, get down on the floor. Is there any sane person in America who believes that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights--the right to bear arms--that we would have reached a point in America where the prospects of gun violence in the first grade classrooms and all the way through school, through high school, and college would become a reality in America? I can't imagine anyone in their wildest dreams would have imagined that possibility. Today is March 14. On February 14, a gunman went into a high school in Parkland, FL, and killed 17 people--14 students and 3 members of the faculty. It is not the first, by any means. Ten years before it, at Northern Illinois University, a gunman killed five there and injured many others. The list goes on and on and on. This gunman who went into Parkland, FL, wasn't carrying a handgun. He was carrying an AR-15. It is a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to embellish with a high-capacity magazine that could kill 30 people at a time. Why? Why on Earth would that man, 19 years of age, be allowed to buy a weapon that was created to be used by the military--a military assault weapon, a weapon that sometimes our police may need, but hardly ever an individual American could need or want to buy for a legitimate sporting or hunting purpose? But he did, and 17 were dead after that rampage. There has been a lot of reaction to that--more than I expected, I will be honest with you, because mass killings have become way too common in America. Something happened there--something we saw across America today. High school students in that high school came out and said: Enough, we are fed up with the laws of this land and the politicians who refuse to change them. We are fed up with the fear that comes with just going to school in America. We are fed up with those who say the Second Amendment requires us to live in fear. They have marched in towns across America today. They have marched on Washington. They have come to my office and visited with me. I believe they have become a major force in the national debate. I commend them. I encourage them. I hope they will continue. What can we do? You know, politics is tough. It ain't beanbag, as they used to say. There are forces like the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby that threaten the political existence of Members of Congress if they vote the wrong way. I know they came after me when I was a Member of the House. They almost got me. It was a tough election year. I managed to survive it, but they poured money in and tried to beat me. I have never had their support since, and that is OK with me. But for a lot of Members of Congress, they are just not willing to risk it, not willing to anger the National Rifle Association. Do you remember when President Trump had the meeting 2 weeks ago? He called in the students and parents and others. He let the cameras roll, and they continued the meeting so America could witness it. He admonished the Members of Congress there: Don't be scared of the National Rifle Association. Don't be petrified by the NRA. We have to do something. President Trump came out for universal background checks. In a way, it is not a very bold and courageous position because 97 percent of the American people agree with it. Even gun owners agree with the premise that we should do everything in our power to have a background check to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and mentally unstable people. The President came out for that 2 weeks ago, and he also said: Why in the world do we let someone 19 years of age buy a military assault weapon? We don't need these assault weapons. I thought to myself: What a break; here is a Republican President who is finally standing up to the gun lobby and supporting positions that are overwhelmingly supported by the American people. My fellow Senator who is now presiding over the Senate has shown that on a bipartisan fashion we can move forward on universal background checks. He came together with Senator Manchin of West Virginia on a measure that I supported and one that I think we should revisit. I felt so encouraged 2 weeks ago. Well, what has happened since? That group left the White House and a couple of days later, the National Rifle Association came in for lunch and the President reversed his position. It is nothing new. I saw him do exactly the same thing on DACA and Dreamers. He reversed his position and now, instead of universal background checks that will keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them, they are supporting a bill that is good but is not all we need, called Fix NICS, which fills some of the information in the background checks for purchasing firearms. The 17 lives in that high school in Parkland, FL, are worth more than this weak response by President Trump and by some in Congress. We must do better. Let me tell you that the issue here is more than just the safety of high schools. A few weeks ago--in fact, a day before the shooting in Parkland, FL--an amazing member of the Chicago Police Department, Commander Paul Bauer, was downtown for a training session and heard on his radio an alert that there was a fugitive escaping. Being a man of duty, he responded to join in the pursuit and was cornered in a stairwell by a man who pulled out a gun with a high-capacity magazine, shot him six times, and killed him right in that stairwell. This was an amazing police officer with a great wife and daughter, from Bridgeport, in the city of Chicago. Our whole city was in grief over that loss. They tried to figure out where the gun came from? Where did that criminal get that gun? It was purchased legally outside Madison, WI. It was then sold, without a background check, to another person who, in turn, sold it on the internet with no background check to a person with a record of felony arrests and convictions. It completely defied the system and made the argument again, sadly, of why universal background checks--not just at Federal licensed dealers but also at gun shows and on the internet--are absolutely essential. The Fix NICS bill does not solve that problem. We must solve that problem. Secondly, on the military assault weapons, today at the Senate Judiciary Committee, we talked about the impact of an assault weapon and a bullet that is fired. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who has followed this terrible incident in Parkland and has spoken out so eloquently, reminded us that firing a bullet in a handgun may mean that that bullet passes through your body and injures an organ. Firing a long gun, a rifle, or a semiautomatic weapon like the AR-15 does dramatically more damage. The bullet may enter your body in a small way, but it comes out on the other side with a wound the size of an orange and, in the process, tumbles through your body, ripping through tissue, ripping through arteries, ripping through organs, and creating a situation that is difficult and sometimes impossible to repair. Why would anyone need a weapon like that? You sure don't need it to go hunting. If you need an AR-15 to go shoot a deer, for goodness sakes, you ought to stick to fishing. You obviously don't have the skill necessary. To own it just to own it? Some do. They are collectors, I imagine. But opening those sales to 18-, 19-, or 20-year- olds makes no sense whatsoever, and that is what the students from Parkland and around the country are saying today. I couldn't agree with them more. As for high-capacity magazines, why do you need 30 rounds? Why do you need 60 rounds? What is that all about? It is being used in weapons that are designed to kill other human beings--not just a few, but many. As for bump stocks, I never heard of a bump stock until a few months ago, when the Las Vegas mass shooting occurred, killing innocent people at a country and western concert. We have banned machine guns in America for decades. Well, leave it to the firearm manufacturers. They found a way to create a mechanism that takes a semiautomatic weapon-- meaning that you have to pull the trigger each time for each round--and turns it essentially into an automatic weapon, where you can hold the trigger and use the recoil and it just sprays the bullets until you empty the magazine, with something called a bump stock. I can't imagine why we haven't just flat out passed a bill to ban bump stocks after what happened in Las Vegas, but this Congress, this Senate is frozen by the gun lobby. All across America today, young people are stepping up. I asked a teacher, Ms. Posada, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee today: What is it about the students in your school? Why have they become such national leaders, outspoken on this issue and inspirational on this issue to me? She said: That is the way we trained them, to be part of an America where they can participate and be a leader, and they are. I encourage them to continue to put the pressure on all of us, starting with President Trump, who may switch his position again. He went from all for gun safety to the gun lobby position in a matter of days. Maybe he will come back again to some more reasonable position. Put the pressure on Congress too. We have run out of excuses, haven't we? More and more innocent Americans have been killed, and the best we can come up with is that over 200 years ago, when some men sat down to write our Bill of Rights, that Second Amendment gave the authority to individuals to buy any and everything they want to buy in the name of the right to bear arms. I don't think that is what they had in mind at all. We cannot continue to let the NRA and the gun lobby have veto power over gun policy in America. We are facing an epidemic of violence with hundreds of Americans shot every day--from Commander Bauer in Chicago; to the kids in Parkland, FL; to Las Vegas; to DeKalb, IL. The list goes on and on and on. We have to put the safety of our kids and our neighborhoods ahead of the gun lobby's agenda, which is just to sell more guns. We have to have the courage as a Senate to bring a bill to the floor and to open it to amendments. We don't do that anymore in the Senate. There was a time when the Senate was a great deliberative body, and now the Senate is not. The silence of the Senate, when it comes to this gun safety issue, is deafening. Americans know it well, and the question now is whether we will do everything within our power to reduce the number of shootings, to keep our communities safe, and to spare more 6- year-old first graders that horrible lesson they may remember forever-- to hit the floor when the shooter comes in the classroom. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on September 5 of last year, President Trump announced the repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. As a result of that decision by President Trump, hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the United States as children, known as Dreamers, face losing their work permits and their right to stay in America without deportation. They are threatened with being returned to countries that many of them barely remember, if at all. These Dreamers were brought here as children--infants, toddlers, young kids--by their parents to America, and they grew up here. They went to school in America, to our public schools and other schools that were available to them. They stood up in their classrooms every morning and pledged allegiance to the flag. They grew up believing that this was their home. At some point in their lives their parents pulled them aside and told them the bitter truth--that they were not legally in America, they were undocumented, and they were vulnerable. At any minute, a knock on the door or a stop on the highway could result in not only their deportation but the deportation of every member of their family. Growing up is tough enough for an adolescent. I can't imagine growing up with this shadow over me, wondering whether at any moment a misstep or being in the wrong place might mean that I would be sent from this country and that my parents would be sent with me, but they grew up with that reality and with that danger. They did some extraordinary things. They not only prospered in America and finished their education, they went on with great ambition, believing the day would come when they would get a chance to be part of this country. Seventeen years ago, I introduced the Dream Act. The purpose of that bill was to give those young people a chance--a chance to earn their way to legal status, earn their way to citizenship. If they have a serious criminal record, they are gone and we want nothing to do with them. They had squandered any opportunity they had to be part of America's future. But if they were doing the right thing, leading a good life, working hard, finishing school, many of us believed they deserved a chance. In fact, at this point, 85 percent of Americans believe they deserve a chance, and that includes 60 percent of the people who voted for President Trump. We have never passed the Dream Act and made it the law, but when I asked my former Senate colleague, President Obama, to see if there was something he could do by Executive order, he created DACA. DACA gave these young people a 2-year renewable protection. They had to pay a $500 fee, submit themselves to a criminal background check, and if they passed it, they would end up with a temporary, renewable right to stay in America. About 800,000 came forward and did it. There were many more who were eligible but scared--scared that turning over their family's information and their personal information to this government or any government could turn out badly. Can you blame them? They have lived their whole lives in fear that a highway stop or somebody being arrested next to them could mean they would have to leave the only country they had ever known. But 800,000 stepped up and said: We will do it. I encouraged them. I went to so many meetings in Chicago, around the State of Illinois, and around the country telling them that this DACA Program was for real and that the government was giving them a pledge that they would stand by them on a renewable basis because of President Obama's order. The program was a huge success. As I mentioned, 800,000 signed up, and some even renewed. Then came the decision by President Trump to end the program. What he said was that by March 5 of this year, there would be no more DACA. Those who were protected could play out their temporary protection but no renewals. That is where the issue stood for the longest time. Many of us decided that we needed to do something about it and to accept the President's challenge and create a law--a law that would provide protection for these young people. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina; Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona; Senator Cory Gardner, a Republican from Colorado; Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado; and Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey--we came together and decided on a bipartisan basis to draw up a bill to try to solve this problem, be fair to these young people, and give them a chance to stay in America and earn their way to citizenship. When we proposed the bill to President Trump, he rejected it. In fact, he rejected six different bipartisan proposals to solve this problem. So the deadline was looming and passed last week on March 5, and the program, by the President's proclamation, would have been finished were it not for two Federal courts that intervened and said: No, Mr. President. You may have overstepped. You may have done more than you can legally do. So we are going to protect these Dreamers, these DACA young people, until we resolve the question on your constitutional authority to make that decision. At the current moment, more than 700,000 of these young DACA recipients are protected by a court order that required that they reopen DACA eligibility for those whose DACA protection had expired, the 2-year temporary protection. Now tens of thousands of them are coming forward and applying for DACA renewal. Last week I called Secretary Nielsen at the Department of Homeland Security and said: I have some questions that I am hearing as I travel around. For example, if I was protected by DACA and my protection came to an end and I am now reapplying for DACA and going to your agency, how long will it take your agency to process my application? Secretary Nielsen could not give me an exact date, but there has been speculation that it could take 4 to 6 months. You see, there is a big backlog of cases, and it could take months before they process all those cases. That was my first question. My second question: In that 4- to 6-month period, can these young DACA recipients be deported? She said no. I put out an order, she said, that no one is to be deported if they made an application for DACA renewal. I asked Secretary Nielsen: Can we have that in writing? I will get back to you, she said. I don't think that is too much to ask--whether these young people can be protected from deportation while they are applying for DACA renewal. The third question: There is also a legal ability to work under DACA. Can you protect these young people's ability to have a job while you are processing their applications? She didn't know whether she could. I have since learned that she has the authority to do that, but it is an important question, isn't it? If you happen to be one of these DACA recipients--the vast majority of them are actually working, and most of them are in school or have graduated. They have to. They don't qualify for any Federal Pell grants or government loans, so they need to work to pay off their education. That is understandable. So it is still uncertain as to what is going to happen. Then what happens when the court lifts this injunction, and what will be the future of these young people? President Trump said some harsh things about immigration during the course of the Presidential campaign. We all remember his comments about people of the Muslim religion, his comments about Mexican rapists, and his pledge to build a big, beautiful wall from sea to shining sea and have Mexico pay for it. Do you remember? We all heard those things. But an interesting thing happened after he was elected: He started saying more moderate, positive things about Dreamers, to the point where I actually had some hope that this particular group would have a fighting chance. As of today, there is no indication that President Trump feels the same way. Six different bipartisan proposals have been rejected. So here we stand with this uncertainty. When the issue came before the Senate, we did our best to put together a bipartisan rollcall. We came close but not close enough. There were 4 proposals on the floor, and the one with the largest number of votes received 54 votes. There were three Democrats who disagreed with some parts of it. I think we could have probably found a way to get their support. But we only had 8 Republicans who joined us-- 8 out of 51--to vote for the measure to deal with this issue. So it is still an unresolved issue at this moment as to what is going to happen after the court cases. I have come to the floor many times--in fact, over 100 times--to tell the stories of these Dreamers, and I would like to do that today before I yield to the Democratic leader. This is Maria Torres Mendoza. Maria is the 111th Dreamer I have featured here on the floor of the Senate. She came here to the United States from Mexico when she was 5 years old, and she grew up in the State of Washington. Her family didn't have much money, so she worked pretty hard. She used to deliver newspapers. She delivered 100 newspapers before school each morning. She worked odd jobs--shoveled snow, cut grass. When she was in high school, she worked as a server at a restaurant every day while she was still going to school, kept up with her studies, and delivered the newspapers in the morning. You can tell Maria is not a lazy person. Because of her family's financial struggles, despite her best efforts, her family was homeless for some time. Through it all, she was an excellent student, and despite her family difficulties, she graduated from high school with a 3.8 grade point average. She didn't believe she would ever make it to college, but she did. She was accepted at Washington State University Tri-Cities. She is a senior now, and this spring, she will graduate with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and a minor in computer science. She is currently working as a student engineer at ATI Titanium and Specialty Alloys, a specialty parts manufacturer. Her main project is creating a system to facilitate the usage of AutoCAD drawings and manuals for engineering and maintenance. I hope none of my colleagues ask me to explain what I just said, but it sounds like pretty important work. What is her dream? She wants a master's degree in engineering. She is particularly interested in nuclear-powered mechatronics--the technology that combines electronics and mechanical engineering. Maria wrote me a letter, and here is what it said: DACA is a whole world of opportunities for me. If DACA were to be taken away from me, all my hard work would not count. I want to see the results of my hard work and I wouldn't be able to do so without DACA. Would America be a better place if Maria was asked to leave? Would we be a stronger nation if we took this young girl's amazing energy, her academic accomplishment, and her dream and drive and sent them back to Mexico? After all these years, after education and hard work--two jobs at a time when she was in high school--is there any doubt that this young woman is going to be a spectacular success in life? That is what this comes down to--real human beings, DACA recipients, protected by that Executive order of President Obama's, who are now under the threat of deportation because of President Trump's decision. It is a test of who we are as a nation, whether we believe in fairness and opportunity or whether we are going to walk away from our legacy. This is a nation of immigrants. I stand before you proudly, the son of an immigrant to this country. My mother was brought here from Lithuania when she was 2 years old, and here her son stands as a Senator from the State of Illinois. That is my story, that is my family's story, and that is America's story. It is time for us to remember Maria and the hundreds of thousands just like her who are asking for a chance to be part of our future. Mr. President, is it possible that with all the things on your mind, you have forgotten DACA and the Dreamers? We need President Trump to step up and lead. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Sanders, Senator Murphy, and Senator Lee, for this bipartisan effort. Why are we here today? Why are we discussing wars so far away? We are here because of this book. This is the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution very expressly tells us what we are supposed to be doing here. In article I, section 8, it lays out the things that we, the men and women who serve in Congress, are responsible for. Among the things that Congress shall have the power to do is to ``declare war.'' Why did the Founding Fathers make certain that it was clear that Congress would be involved in that decision on the declaration of war? When they created Congress, the idea was that the people of this country, far and wide, would at least have a voice in the decision, through the people they elected, and we would be held accountable for our decisions to declare war or to not declare it because we are up for election. So Congress has this responsibility, and over the years, many times, Congress has not exercised its responsibility in a responsible way. I have a question. I bet that if I brought in every U.S. Senator and asked them the following question, very few would be able to answer it: How many countries is the United States military currently involved in fighting? How many countries are we in today, fighting? Would you guess two? Iraq, Afghanistan--all right, for sure, there. Five? Ten? Twenty? Brown University's Costs of War Project recently published data saying that the United States fought terror through direct fighting, training, or military support to other forces or through drone strikes in 76 countries between October 2015 and 2017. Is that the right number today? I am not sure. None of us know. We are often surprised to learn we are sending our military and fighting in another country. When something awful occurs--Americans are killed, for example--sometimes Members of Congress hear it for the first time: Oh, we are in what country fighting? I take this pretty seriously, and I have over the years when it comes to the authorization of using force, because it isn't just a matter of projecting American power; it is life and death. These are decisions that will be made by Congress or by the President--sometimes both--and the net result of it, even under the best of circumstances, is that Americans will perish. Funerals will be held in Illinois and in Utah and in Vermont and in Connecticut and in Wisconsin. That is the reality of the decisions we reach. I can remember the debate right after 9/11 on the floor. It was one of the most important of my career. It was a question about whether we would authorize the President of the United States--President Bush at the time--to use military force to respond to 9/11. If my colleagues remember the debate, there were two real options on the floor. One was to use military force against those responsible for the attack on the United States and to send that force into Afghanistan. The other was to go after the so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They were two parallel debates, but two debates that I saw very differently. I was skeptical from the start about this Iraqi invasion. Nobody ever connected the dots between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. We were talking about the threat that he was to the rest of the world. Yet we voted here on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2002 to authorize the use of military force to go into Iraq. Sadly, we are still there today. Sadly, Iraq is in shambles, politically and physically, and the war continues. I voted no. I remember that night. It was in October of 2002. I remember that night because the vote was taken very late, and there were two or three of us who stayed on the floor here, including Kent Conrad, as well as Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. Paul Wellstone was up for reelection. We wondered if that vote would affect him in any way, and I remember going up to him and saying: Paul, I hope your vote against the war in Iraq doesn't cost you the election. Wellstone said to me: It is all right if it does. People know where I stand. They expect nothing less. He didn't live to see the election. If my colleagues will remember, he died in a plane crash with his wife and staffers just a few days after that vote. But that is the gravity of this decision. That is the importance of this decision. And that is why I want to thank my colleagues for bringing us together--just a few of us but enough of us, maybe--in the Senate to remind people of our constitutional responsibility. The vote on Afghanistan was one I voted for--the invasion of Afghanistan. The message was clear: If you attack the United States, we will come right back after you, al-Qaida, and we did. I recently asked the Secretary of Defense--when I voted that way in 2002, I did not imagine that 15 or 16 years later, that war would continue. So I asked him: How does this war ever end in Afghanistan? He didn't know the answer. He didn't come up with one. All he could say to me was that if we left, it would be worse. Well, you can say that about a lot of other countries in the world. But what we are talking about today is what we are going to do in terms of this horrid situation in Yemen. I was in my office looking down on this debate via C-SPAN, and I saw the photos that have been displayed here--the utter human and physical devastation that is taking place. Senator Sanders is asking a simple but deeply important question here today, and Senator Lee and Senator Murphy join him. Here is the question: Who authorized the U.S. military action to help Saudi Arabia fight the Houthis in Yemen? I didn't. I don't remember that there was ever a vote. So how are we doing this? By what authority is our government doing this? This is not about the merits of the fight or in any way a vindication of the Houthis' troubling role in the horrific Yemeni civil war; it is about whether Congress follows its constitutional responsibilities. It is about whether the American people have a voice in this decision--the same people who will send their sons and daughters to bravely serve in our military. I am happy to be a cosponsor of this resolution that halts any such U.S. support without any congressional authorization. I call on this Congress to deal with revisiting the 2001 and 2002 authorizations of force that I believe have been stretched by multiple administrations beyond any credible limit. There are real threats to the safety and security of America out there--al-Qaida and its successors and others. But we in Congress have the responsibility to authorize those conflicts and regularly update them as necessary. Congress and the Senate have been absent without leave when it comes to article I, section 8, and our authority and responsibility to declare war. We have other looming threats, including North Korea and Iran, but any U.S. war against those countries or others, short of protecting against an imminent attack as allowed for in the War Powers Resolution, requires the vote of Congress, regardless of who the President may be. When it comes to the declaration of war, we simply cannot see this as an annoyance. We must do our part. We must follow the Constitution, even when it is difficult. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the past 6 years, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has delivered weekly addresses to the Senate Chamber on climate change, telling us that it is time to wake up. That is the sign he posts on the floor each time he comes to discuss the disastrous effects of global warming. Today will mark his 200th speech on the Senate floor on this topic. The urgency of the topic is real. Climate change threatens our national security and our local communities. Climate change drives global conflict and has far-reaching national security implications. A report by Oxfam states that there is growing evidence that climate change is making droughts more frequent and more severe. Drought has contributed to the crisis in Syria, migration from West Africa, and rapid urbanization in Somalia. Just last week, ``PBS NewsHour'' reported that in the last year alone, more than 1 million Somalis have been forced from their homes because of drought. Herders and farmers used to live among one another, but increasingly severe drought has led to a scarcity of land and water. Some animal herders now carry weapons and fight over fertile land. Farmers who have fled to the city claim herders burned down their homes and turned their farmland into grassland. The fighting and scarcity of land has pushed both farmers and herders to the cities, and most of them end up in ramshackle camps, burdened by poverty--a tinderbox. Last March, 110 people died from starvation and drought-related illness in 48 hours, prompting President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo to declare the drought a national disaster. Still, 1.2 million children under the age of 5 are projected to be malnourished in 2018. Somalia is not the only country where the effects of climate change have created and exacerbated regional conflicts. In a few days, Syria will mark the seventh year of civil war. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences reports that climate change has contributed to the crisis in Syria. Extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was most likely due to climate change, and that drought was a factor in the uprisings in 2011, when more than 1 million displaced farmers joined pro-democracy protests. Just last year, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote about massive migration out of parts of West Africa, through the Sahara Desert, to Libya, where people were hoping to eventually cross the Mediterranean Sea into Europe. The migration is driven in part by drought made more extreme by climate change, which has created widespread humanitarian crises. As climate instability drives more extreme and frequent droughts and the scarcity of fertile land, water, and food, it will trigger major conflicts over resources, as we have seen in Yemen and Syria. As one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, the United States has a moral responsibility to act on this growing crisis. Here in our country, my constituents in Illinois are already experiencing the adverse effects of climate change. Climate models suggest that if current global warming trends continue, Illinois will have a climate similar to that of the Texas gulf coast by the year 2100. You can't grow a lot of corn in that climate. For Illinois farmers, these changes to the environment have a direct effect on their livelihood--and for all of us, a direct effect on our food supply. Wetter springs and more frequent flooding will leave farmers struggling to plant their corn and soybeans. Increasingly hot summers and more frequent droughts will stunt the growth and hurt crop yields. This means prices will increase, making it harder for families to put food on the table. In recent years, Illinois has seen historic storms, floods, and droughts that have caused millions of dollars in damage. Last week, scientists at the Illinois State Water Survey reported that this February was the wettest on record, beating the previous record precipitation by over half an inch. An average of 5 inches of rain fell statewide. Streator, IL, had over 11 inches of rain, and Aurora had the largest snowfall, with a recorded 26 inches of snow. In the last week of February, rainstorms and melted snow caused flooding across Illinois, with more than 20 counties throughout the State placed under a flood warning. As the water level of rivers continued to rise, several communities had to evacuate for their safety. Multiple communities were evacuated, and in some areas, residents had to be rescued by boat. Flooded roadways claimed the life of an Illinois resident after her car rolled into a rain-filled ditch. Climate change is likely to increase the frequency and severity of flooding in Illinois, as well, and my constituents are concerned about their ability to recover from repeated flood events. How much is flood damage costing us in Illinois? Last July, 3,200 residences were impacted by flooding, including 244 with major damage. This damage costs millions but often doesn't rise to the level where anyone qualifies for Federal aid. From 2007 to 2014, flooding in urban areas has caused $2.3 billion in damages. Moving forward, repeated flood events will have a high price tag. In the last decade, extreme weather events and fire have cost the Federal Government over $350 billion, according to OMB. These costs will rise as the climate changes. The evidence is clear. We need to get serious about addressing the cause and effect of climate change. Ignoring them threatens our national security and our safety. I believe our generation has a moral obligation to leave the world in better shape than we found it. Let's not run away from our responsibility to our children and grandchildren. Let's work toward solving the challenges of climate change. This is a hard issue to explain from a political point of view. The only major political party in the world today that denies climate change is the Republican Party of the United States of America. It is hard to imagine that a great party that once was actively engaged in a positive way in this debate is now absent without leave. It is hard to explain that the party of Richard Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency, now is in complete denial when it comes to climate change and global warming. It is hard to understand that they are missing the obvious indicators of evidence from every corner of the world about the impact of global warming. It is almost impossible to understand how they can ignore the impact this will have on the lives of our children and grandchildren. Is it too much to ask our generation to make a little sacrifice to spare them the devastation that will come from climate change? Is it too much to ask us to be a little more sensitive in our use of energy so that our kids and grandkids can enjoy a good life in their years on Earth? That usually is a responsibility most generations accept, but we are being told that it is just too much to ask--to ask current Americans to come forward and do something that is thoughtful, meaningful, to reduce energy consumption and reduce emission and pollution. I think that is a horrible situation. I think it is one we shouldn't be proud of at all. I thank my friend Sheldon Whitehouse for coming to the floor regularly and reminding us of what is happening in this world today and how we each have a responsibility to future generations to alleviate the suffering, the pain, and the damage that has been caused by this global warming. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas. I listened carefully to his words about gun safety, and I agree with so much of what he said. He talked about bringing his bill to the floor. I think his bill is a good bill. His bill tries to provide more information into the NICS system. We definitely need to do that. He also said he was open to amendments on the floor. I am as well. I think there are other aspects of gun safety that we may even find common ground on as well. But I might remind him that the decision about the business on the floor of the Senate is in the hands of his side of the aisle. It is your decision to decide, through your majority leader, what we consider on the floor of the Senate. An effort to do this by unanimous consent is certainly understandable in light of the events of the last few weeks, but if Senator McConnell were to announce that as soon as we finish this banking bill, we are going to move to the Fix NICS bill and have it open to amendment, I think he would find support from both sides of the aisle to do that. I hope he will, because things are changing in America, as they should. Gun violence and the terrible tragedies that occurred in Texas and in Florida and in so many States have really raised consciousness of this issue. I am a grandfather and proud to be. I have two 6-year-old twins who are first graders in Brooklyn, NY. They are the cutest kids in the world, and I am very objective about that. About 2 weeks ago, my little granddaughter came home from the first grade and said to her mom: Mom, they told us at school that if there is a shooter outside the school, stay away from the windows, and if a shooter comes in the classroom, get on the floor. First grade. Is there any sane person in America who thinks that should be a normal talk in the first grade classroom? Is there any person, constitutional scholar or not, who believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was designed to allow this to happen? I can't imagine. Ninety-seven percent of the American people believe in universal, comprehensive background checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them, including convicted felons and mentally unstable people--97 percent. The overwhelming majority of gun owners feel exactly the same way. So why in God's Name have we not taken that up since the tragedy in Florida and the tragedy in Texas? There is no explanation for it other than fear--fear of the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby. That is the only explanation. I salute the legislators in the State of Florida who this last week defied the NRA and defied the gun lobby and passed their own measure for gun safety. I don't agree with parts of it. Giving cafeteria workers in schools the right to carry arms around the school--I don't think that is a wise thing at all. I understand that there is opposition to that from teachers' organizations and even Republican leaders in Florida. But they did stand up when it came to questions about how old you have to be to buy a firearm, a long gun, and other questions that I think are just common sense. So I would say to my friend from Texas, the majority whip, what you said is something I can support. Bring your bill to the floor, open to amendment. Let us have our day in the Senate where we actually act as legislators, where people will come to the Galleries and not see an empty Chamber but instead will find Members of the Senate, 100 strong, Democrats and Republicans, at their desks, debating measures that make a difference in the life of America. That is why we are sent here. I had a friend of mine years ago when I served in the House--he was a Congressman from Muskogee, OK. His name was Mike Synar. He was a dear, close friend of mine. Mike lost his primary in Oklahoma because he was fearless. He used to come to the floor when we had votes, and he would see Members of his own caucus kind of wincing, afraid to vote for something they knew was right for fear of the political consequences. He used to get right in their faces. Mike would say: If you don't want to fight fires, don't be a firefighter. If you don't want to stand here and debate controversial issues and vote on them, don't run for Congress. Mike was right. He was right then, and he is right now. Let's bring gun safety to the floor of the Senate. Let's open it to amendments. Let's have a fulsome, bipartisan debate. We understand that nothing is going to pass without bipartisan support. We should do everything in our power to exercise the power and the right we are given as U.S. Senators to fix the problems facing American families. This is a problem. It is a problem when a first grader in Brooklyn, NY, has to be warned that if somebody walks into the classroom with a gun, she is supposed to get down on the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, I met in my office with four students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, as well as one recent graduate. They are among the many students and graduates from Parkland, FL, who have been speaking out across the country, asking for commonsense gun safety reforms. They are having a real impact. They are changing the debate over guns in America. Last week several of the Nation's largest gun retailers, including Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart announced that they had listened to the Parkland students, and heard them. Dick's Sporting Goods announced it will no longer sell assault rifles or high capacity magazines at any of its stores. Their CEO also announced that the company would stop selling firearms to anyone under age 21. Walmart which had already stopped selling assault rifles, made the same decision to stop selling guns to people under 21, as did Kroger and L.L. Bean. Making 21 the minimum age for buying any firearm is an idea that makes sense. It is already the law that a person must be 21 to buy a handgun. Why should the law be different for an assault rifle? In fact, President Trump initially came out in support of the idea of making 21 the age limit for all gun purchases, but then the NRA's lobbyists went to work on the President with a private lunch and an Oval Office visit. We will see who the President and Republicans ultimately end up listening to on commonsense proposals like these: the Parkland students or the gun sales lobby. It is incredible to see students and businesses across the country taking a leadership role, in addressing gun violence. They have decided it is time to act, and they are acting. We have seen the Stoneman Douglas students convince companies to make meaningful changes when it comes to gun sales practices, and they have convinced many more companies to end their relationships with the NRA. That is a major development. Unfortunately, the gun sales lobby has not been a constructive voice in this debate over the epidemic of gun violence. Their rhetoric has been increasingly paranoid and hysterical. It is clear that their priority is to preserve their ability to make gun sales. That is the gun lobby's agenda, but it doesn't need to be our agenda. I want to commend the students and businesses that are showing such leadership in working to make our communities safer. Now the question is, Will the Republicans who control Congress show any leadership as well? If we let the gun sales lobby control this debate, we will never take the steps we need to keep our schools and neighborhoods safe from gun violence. Remember, the NRA doesn't like any proposal that might hurt gun sales. They don't want to close loopholes in our laws, instead, they would rather roll back gun laws already on the books. That is not the agenda America needs. I stand with the 97 percent of Americans who support universal background checks for gun sales. I want to close the loopholes in our laws that make it easy for dangerous people to get their hands on guns. I also stand with the significant majorities of Americans who want to take military-style assault Weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks off of our streets. These are weapons of war, and they have no place in our neighborhoods. We cannot become numb to the shootings that happen in our communities, our churches, our movie theaters, our concerts, and our schools. All of us, especially lawmakers, have to step up and take actions that will reduce the epidemic of gun violence and save lives. I hope my Republican colleagues will finally step up and help get this done.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the ongoing horrific violence in the nation of Syria, which seems to have hit yet new lows in terms of barbarity and Russian enabling. The senseless violence--in service of nothing more than enabling Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad to maintain ironfisted rule over a country he has personally driven to ruin--demands the world's attention. Quite simply, President Trump, who lambasted President Obama's approach to Syria, has sat by as the regime continues to use chemical weapons, relentlessly bomb civilians, ignore the unanimous U.N. Security Council ceasefire, and allows Iran to build its radical foothold in Syria. One missile strike is not a long term policy. President Trump's silence as Russian President Putin not only continues to meddle in our democracy but also empowers and enables the Syrian butcher is simply inexplicable and diminishes American leadership. Let me start with the horror that has unfolded in Eastern Ghouta in the last few weeks. This area has actually been under siege by Syrian Government forces since 2013, but last week, Assad's henchmen stepped up their attacks. For over 2 weeks, Syrian forces supported by Russian warplanes have relentlessly bombarded Eastern Ghouta in a campaign that has killed over 1,000 people, wounded almost 5,000, and left 400,000 civilians trapped without food or medicine. The siege had already led to chronic food and medicine shortages, devastating the population of Eastern Ghouta and leaving scores severely malnourished. The bombings have forced people to take shelter in their basements rather than risk death. Too frightened to venture outside to face the onslaught of mortar shells, barrel bombs, cluster bombs, and bunker-busting munitions, the civilian residents of Eastern Ghouta are being compelled to spend days without food or fresh air, suffocating in the heavily polluted air. Despite the U.N. ceasefire, the number of dead climbs every day--from bombings, from ground assaults, and from hunger. Only yesterday, Assad's forces killed over 90 civilians and wounded over 300. The number of casualties has overwhelmed rescuers and hospitals. Catastrophically, the Assad regime has chosen to re-employ one of its most heinous tactics and has bombed at least 28 hospitals and clinics. Doctors Without Borders said 15 of the 20 hospitals it supports have been destroyed or damaged, reducing access to emergency services just when they were most needed. Doctors have run out of resources to treat patients. Doctors are being forced to make the most difficult choices and sometimes, tragically, leave critically wounded patients to die. A doctor in Eastern Ghouta said, ``We have a horrible situation here. We're being targeted with all kinds of weapons nonstop. We lack everything, water, food, medical supplies, shelter. This is a disaster. Everyone is waiting to die.'' I spoke to a deeply respected friend from Chicago the other day who knows this crisis all too well, Dr. Mohammed Sahloul, who leads the heroic Syrian American Medical Association. He and his brave colleagues regularly travel to Syria to help provide medical treatment to victims of the war. He told me horrific accounts of the latest bombing and disappointment at the world's seeming inaction amid such heinous cruelty. U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres called Eastern Ghouta a ``hell on Earth.'' United Nation's human rights chief Zeid Ra'ad al- Hussein called the onslaught in Eastern Ghouta a ``monstrous campaign of annihilation.'' He added, ``When you are prepared to kill your own people so easily, lying is easy too. Claims by the government of Syria that it is taking every measure to protect its civilian population are frankly ridiculous.'' Most troublingly, Assad's ruthless regime continues using chemical weapons to attack its own civilians despite Syria agreeing to eliminate its chemical weapons in 2013. We are in 2018 now and have seen the repeated use of chemicals to attack innocent people on the streets of Syria. Among his various and numerous atrocities, Bashar al-Assad has made routine the use of internationally banned chemical weapons. He has deployed them against his own people nearly 200 times over 7 years. He has used them against very young children and the elderly, people who are clearly not fighters on the battlefield. He has targeted civilians repeatedly with sarin gas, a weapon notably developed by another abominable regime: the Nazis. In 2013, Russia worked with a global coalition, including the United States, to ostensibly destroy Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons, but the world watched in horror as Assad barbarically unleashed sarin gas on civilians in the town of Khan Shaykhun again in April 2017. Maybe you, too, saw the very disturbing reporting a week ago on ``60 Minutes.'' While the United States responded to that incident, Russia has allowed Assad to conduct many other chemical attacks. In fact, in Eastern Ghouta, Assad has continued to attack civilians--among them at least 21 children--with chemical weapons. Just yesterday, doctors there said that at least 29 patients were showing effects consistent with exposure to chlorine munitions. Instead of trying to stop this savage behavior, Russia stands by its client-state. Russia continues to obfuscate and deny these horrific attacks, despite much evidence substantiating the use of chemical weapons. In fact, Russia has seemingly condoned Assad's cruel use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians. The United Nations was investigating Assad's chemical attacks until late last year when Russia repeatedly blocked continuing the investigation. The U.N. investigation seemed to be getting too close to the truth for Russia's comfort, so it used its vote to prevent the facts from being laid bare. Unfortunately, Russia's negative influence doesn't end there. For 3 days, Russia blocked a ceasefire from taking hold in Eastern Ghouta. For 3 days, Russia delayed much-needed food, medicine, and emergency aid to reach the distressed civilian population. For 3 days, the entirety of the U.N. Security Council, save Russia, agreed an immediate ceasefire was necessary. Even though the Security Council finally agreed to a 30-day ceasefire in Syria, Assad flouted international order as his warplanes continued to carry out airstrikes targeting civilians in Eastern Ghouta. He also launched a massive ground assault against Eastern Ghouta. Hundreds of people have been killed since the ceasefire was supposed to have begun. The Assad regime has prevented humanitarian relief from reaching those who are hurt or sick, and no civilians have been able to leave because of the constant bombardment. The man who runs the regional command in charge of U.S. troops in Syria, General Joseph Votel, has said that Russia plays ``the role of both arsonist and fireman--fueling tensions and then trying to resolve them in their favor.'' Instead of reasoning with its vassal- state and enforcing the ceasefire, Russia egregiously has prevented the ceasefire from taking hold. Once again, Russia is abetting Assad's defiance and destruction for its own perverse purposes. At the very least, it is abdicating its role as a permanent member of the Security Council. What can be done about this devastating situation? Regrettably, there are no easy answers. But a President who previously argued that ``heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the last administration's weakness and irresolution'' has to demonstrate some resolve. I call on President Trump to put genuine pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to rein in Assad and end Russian obfuscation in the U.N. Security Council as the carnage and number of likely war crimes mount. Any discussion with Putin must also address deeply troubling--and seemingly ignored--reports that Russian mercenaries controlled by Yevgeny Prigozhin attacked U.S. Special Operations Forces in Syria, with approval of the highest levels of the Kremlin. Prigozhin is the same Russian oligarch who was recently indicted on charges of running a troll farm targeting American voters. Donald Trump has also called on ``all civilized nations'' to help end the ``slaughter and bloodshed in Syria.'' I have to imagine that the United States is included in his exhortation. Unhappily, he has also recommended a 30-percent cut in our already minuscule foreign assistance and diplomacy budget. The United States must do more to meet the humanitarian needs of Syrians suffering the ravages of a dreadful war. Incredibly, at a time when a long-term diplomatic and political solution will be needed in Syria, this administration has marginalized our top diplomatic expertise at the Department of State. This is wildly self-defeating. We have taken a back seat to Russia and Iran in Syria long enough. We can see every day the devastating results: more violence and the further fracturing of a country and a region that have suffered at the hands of tyrants too long. Despite the important achievement made by our military in destroying ISIS in Syria, Syria will remain a monumental security, humanitarian, and governance challenge for the United States and its allies, including Israel, for years to come. Russia and Iran are vying for the spoils of the civil war, with civilians paying the highest price. We don't want to leave U.S. forces in Syria indefinitely, but doing nothing to bring a lasting peace to Syria is the worst option. As such, President Trump, I call on your administration to come up with a real Syria strategy to bring an end to a war--and the senseless suffering--that has gone on for too long.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on September 5 of last year, President Trump's Attorney General made an announcement. It was an announcement that affected the lives of about 800,000 people living in America. The announcement was that the President was going to abolish the DACA Program. DACA was a program created by President Obama by Executive order. Under that Executive order, if you were brought to the United States as an infant, a toddler, a child, if you grew up in this country, were educated in this country, and had no criminal record of any consequence, President Obama said that you have a chance to apply to stay in this country on a temporary, renewable basis--2 years at a time--and that you won't be deported and you can take a job. Eight hundred thousand young people came forward under President Obama's Executive order, under this DACA order. What have they done with their lives? Many of them went to school and had to work at the same time because, being undocumented, they didn't qualify for any Federal student assistance. A lot of them took jobs all across the country--about 20,000 of them as teachers in schools, and 900 of them volunteered for the U.S. military, taking the same oath as everyone else, saying that they are willing to risk their lives for America. The success stories of these DACA recipients are boundless. I have told a number on the floor in the course of discussing this issue over the years. Today, I will tell another one. I am so proud of what they have done. They are amazing young people. Can you imagine growing up in America with all the challenges of youth and all the demands from your parents and peers and superiors but also knowing something that you can't say publicly: that at any moment, you could be deported from this country because you don't have the necessary legal status? That is the story of these DACA young people, the Dreamers. President Trump, if you will remember, talked about immigration a lot in his last campaign. Some of the things he said were very harsh. He talked about building this big, beautiful wall, from sea to shining sea, across the Mexican border, and, of course, told us the Mexicans would pay for it. Then he referred to those in Mexico who came to the United States as Mexican rapists and criminals. It was pretty harsh language. But interestingly, toward the end of the campaign and after he was elected, he started saying conciliatory, good things about these DACA Dreamers. He told me personally, when I first met him on the day he was inaugurated: We will take care of those kids, Senator. Well, on September 5 of last year, he announced that the program protecting those young people would expire as of Monday of this week, 2 days ago. As of that date, he said, if Congress hasn't replaced the DACA Program with something new, something legal, something statutory, there would be no protection for these DACA recipients as their protected status expired. For 800,000 in limbo, uncertainty is their future. Well, the President challenged Congress, and a number of us took him up on the challenge. Six of us--three Democrats and three Republicans-- Senators sat down for months. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was part of that group, a Republican; Jeff Flake of Arizona was part of that group, a Republican; and Cory Gardner of Colorado, a Republican. On our side, Michael Bennet of Colorado, a Democrat; Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat. We worked out a bipartisan agreement among us that not one of us would have written. It was a compromise in trying to meet the President's challenge of replacing DACA with something that could be the law of the land and work. I reflect on that effort and believe it was a good one. It was certainly in good faith, and it was bipartisan. When we presented it to President Trump on January 11 at 12 noon--I remember the time very specifically--he rejected it. He not only rejected that bipartisan solution to the crisis he had created, he rejected five other bipartisan proposals to try to resolve the crisis he had created in eliminating the DACA Program. So here we are, just 2 days after his March 5 deadline, and where do we stand? Well, the situation has been complicated by three Federal courts that have been asked to review President Trump's decision abolishing DACA. Two of those courts have issued injunctions and said to the Trump administration: Stop what you are doing. You have to prove to us that you have the legal authority to end this program the way you ended it. There is an injunction stopping the Trump administration from doing what the President said he would do. The President's administration didn't think much of those courts and decided to file an extraordinary appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is across the street, to knock down this injunction and to go forward with closing down DACA. Last week, the Supreme Court rejected the Solicitor General's petition. So here we stand. The President has abolished the DACA Program. The protection for 800,000 young people from being deported, the protection that allowed them to work, is officially--President Trump's point of view--abolished. It has not been replaced, the deadline has been reached, and it is being argued in court. So how much protection does that buy for the 800,000? We don't know. We know it is a court-based protection, an injunction that could last for weeks or months or even longer, but that uncertainty is what is hanging over this whole debate. So this morning I called the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, and I asked her: Explain to me what your Department is doing because of these court injunctions and President Trump's decision to abolish this program. She gave me a partial explanation. In fairness to her, she promised to get back to me and even promised to come up here to Capitol Hill next week and try to explain in more detail how the Department of Homeland Security is handling this. For example, if you were protected by DACA--a young person--and if the President's abolition of DACA did not allow you to renew your DACA application when it expired, what is your status? Can you be deported? Secretary Nielsen told me point blank: No, we will not deport those who have pending DACA applications. I then asked the next question: Do you have the authority to allow these same people to continue legally working, as they did under DACA? She didn't know the answer, and in fairness to her, she said she would look into it and get back to me. I look forward to that happening. It is a sad situation that this Congress can't pass a law to deal with this kind of emergency. Ask the American people what they think about Dreamers, what they think about young people who were brought to the United States as children, infants, and babies, and who are asking for a chance to be legal in America, to become citizens. Ask Americans what they think. Overwhelmingly, they say: Of course. Why would you punish these children who grew up in this country? They didn't break a law or commit a crime. They didn't make a decision; it was a decision made by others. They should have a chance. Overwhelmingly, the American people say that, 85 percent or more, including more than 60 percent of people who say they voted for President Trump. Can you find an issue with that kind of public support? For those who follow the news, there is another one called universal background checks for guns, which has an even higher level of support. But going back to the DACA issue, 85 percent of the American people believe Congress should pass a law to give these young people a chance--not punish them, not deport them. Give them a chance. Give them a chance to earn their way to legal status. Despite that, this Senate has failed to pass a measure to do that. Two weeks ago, we made it to the floor. We had four different versions of the bill. I won't go into detail other than to tell you that the most popular version of the bill got 54 votes. You would think that in a Chamber of 100 Senators, that would be enough, but not under our rules--you need 60 votes. The President had a plan, incidentally. President Trump brought his immigration plan to the floor of the Senate the same week we debated this. Now, understand, there are 51 Republican Senators and 49 Democrats in this Chamber. On the day of the vote, one Senator, Senator McCain, was missing, so 50 to 49. How many votes did President Trump get for his immigration policy presented on the floor of the Republican-controlled Senate? Thirty-nine. Sixty Senators voted against it, including a substantial number of Republicans. So the President's approach to this has been rejected by even his own party. What has the House of Representatives, the other Chamber, done about this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Sadly, that is a commentary on many major issues facing our country. The Congress has not even taken up a serious debate, let alone found a solution, and here we sit. It is easy for us to sit here in the Senate Chamber, confident of our own citizenship status, but for 800,000, the uncertainty makes a wreck of their lives. I have met many of them. I have talked to them. They are outstanding people. They have succeeded when others failed. They have been determined and resilient when others gave up. They are running out of time. President Trump created this crisis for DACA on September 5. He has been unable to agree to any of six different bipartisan measures to solve it--not one--and today the fate and future of these young people rest in the hands of the courts. It is easy to speak of these young people in gross numbers--800,000, 1.8 million--but over the years, I have decided it is better to get to know them personally. As they have had the courage to come forward and identify themselves, I have come to the floor to tell their stories. This is the 110th time I am bringing a story to the floor. This man is Alejandro Fuentes. Alejandro was brought to the United States at the age of 4 from Chile and grew up in San Diego. He was an extraordinary high school student--honor roll, AP scholar with distinction, and a member of the National Honor Society. He was involved in a lot of activities--high school cross-country and lacrosse, a member of the choir--and volunteered as a worship leader at his church. He was accepted at Whitman College in the State of Washington, and when he was there, he was a member of the campus Christian fellowship group. He volunteered with the local Humane Society and was the philanthropy chair of his fraternity. He was a student government representative and a mentor to other students. After graduation, he was accepted into Teach For America. We know that program, don't we? That is where some of our best and brightest college graduates say: I will give you 2 years of my life and work in a school that needs me as a teacher. Send me to a tough area to work. Thousands have done it. Alejandro--not a citizen of the United States-- said: I will do it. I will do it for my country. Today, he is a sixth grade math teacher at a middle school in Denver, CO. He volunteers as a mentor after school for students who need help with math. What is going to happen to this man? What is going to happen to him if Congress fails to replace DACA? What is going to happen if he is deported? And it could happen. There are 20,000 just like him, teachers across America who are DACA-protected and have no protection now, no protection in the law. Their only protection is a court order, which could be changed in a moment. If he leaves, of course, the students will pay a price, and certainly America will pay a price. Will we be better off as a nation? Of course not. This young man grew up in America. He was brought here at the age of 4, went to his classrooms in San Diego and pledged allegiance to the flag every day. This is his country. It is the only country he has ever known. Why would we want to throw him out of this country after he has gone through all of these things in life and achieved an amazing record of success? To me, it would be a horrible waste. There is a larger issue at stake here than just DACA. The issue is immigration in America. Are we a nation of immigrants? I think so. But 2 weeks ago, at the immigration Federal agency, they decided to strike those words from their mission statement, that America was a nation of immigrants. They can strike all the words they want, but they can't strike the facts. The facts tell us that with the exception of Native Americans, who preceded us, we are all immigrants--some voluntary, some forced, but we are all immigrants in this country. We come from every corner of the Earth. We are as diverse as any nation could be. That is our history, that is our strength, and that is our legacy. That diversity makes us an extraordinary nation in the world. Those people who came here from far-reaching shores came here for a lot of reasons. My grandmother was one of them. She brought my mom. My mom was an immigrant to this country. I don't know all the reasons that my grandmother came here, but I know there was one reason she came. She had three little kids, and she carried a bag and had with her a Catholic prayer book from the country of Lithuania. It was written in Lithuanian. The Russians were in control of Lithuania at the time, and they had prohibited prayer books written in Lithuanian. My grandmother, whom I never knew, was one tough lady. She was willing to pick up this prayer book--this contraband in Lithuania--and bring it to the United States of America. I don't know if she ever took a constitutional law course, but she knew there was freedom in this country. Nobody was going to stop her from praying from her prayer book when she got to the United States. I am sure economics had more to do with her coming, but that was part of the reason my family made it to this country. It is something I have never forgotten, and I have told the story many times. All these people who have come to this country--every single one of us brings a story, a family story. Now we are being told it is a mistake--it is a mistake to continue legal immigration to America. The President's proposal on immigration would cut legal immigration to this country almost in half. Currently, our Nation of 320, 330 million people brings in approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants a year--1 million legal immigrants; 320 million Americans. It is not an overwhelming number in comparison. On average more than sixty percent of the 1.1 million people are members of families of those already here. Do you just ask to come in, and we let you come to America if you have a family member here? Of course not. You wait and you wait. For example, in the Philippines, you may wait 20 years for a member of the family to be reunited with someone who is already an American citizen-- 20 years waiting in line. The President's proposal--the one that has come to the floor of the Senate that got 39 votes--said we ought to cut the number of legal immigrants almost in half, tell those people to wait longer or stay where they are. In most cultures, in the American culture, the family unit is our strength--flag, family, God. How many times have we heard those speeches from politicians? Yet these families who are trying to be reunited and to be strong are being told: You are not wanted. That is a mistake. The last time we did that was in 1924 on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We decided--the Senate then--there were certain people we didn't need in America. Asians were excluded. People from Africa and Eastern Europe and other regions were severely restricted. That could have included my mother's family. They restricted Italians. We had enough Italians--that is what Congress said. They restricted Jewish people. That shameful chapter in American immigration history prevailed for over 40 years, until we passed a new immigration law. Now this administration wants to take us back to that debate. This administration wants to change the face of immigration in America. The President has been explicit about that in terms of what he would like to see America look like in the future--not as diverse, excluding people from certain places. I think that is a mistake. If there is one thing that has made us strong, it is the fact that this diversity, when it comes together under that flag, can conquer everyone and everything on Earth. Why would we walk away from that legacy? Why would we walk away from Alejandro? Why would we walk away from 800,000 protected by DACA? Why? Is that the legacy we want to leave, that we have excluded these talented, high-achieving, energetic, fearless young people? Alejandro's story is certainly not unique. There are 20,000 teachers like him who are DACA recipients and DACA- protected. Teach For America, the program that pays these young college graduates a limited amount of money to go to challenging schools--190 of them were protected by DACA. They are officially not citizens of the United States, but they are willing to teach kids in the toughest schools in America. They teach in 11 different States. There is a question now about what happens next, and I don't know. Right now, the President created this crisis, and only the President can solve this crisis. There are Republican Members of the House and Senate who will not vote for anything unless it has the Trump stamp of approval on it, and I don't know what that can be. Six different times we have gone to him, and six times he has rejected bipartisan approaches. We need the President to help us work toward a solution. It is up to the Republican leaders in Congress--they control the House and the Senate--to take yes for an answer and accept one of these bipartisan approaches, to save these young people, and to resolve this crisis that faces us. Congress needs to do its job. We should make the Dream Act the law of the land, or we will be responsible for hundreds of thousands of talented young immigrants leaving our workforce and put them at risk of immediate deportation. It would be a chapter in American immigration history even sadder than 1924. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut as well as our colleague from Rhode Island for calling us together on the Senate floor today to discuss a timely and important topic. We know that Vladimir Putin and Russia attacked America's democracy in 2016, and it is clear Vladimir Putin will try again. CIA Director Pompeo recently said he had ``every expectation'' that Russia would try to influence our 2018 election. We have been warned. We can expect Russia to continue to use the tactics they have used before and to come up with new ones. We can expect them to hack and leak sensitive information. We can expect these Russians to use social media and propaganda to spread false information. We see it almost every week. We can expect them to try to hack into State election systems and more. I was home over the weekend in Springfield, IL--of course, the State capital--and ran into a fellow who works for the State Board of Elections. We talked for a few minutes about the experience we had in our State in the last election cycle when the Russians hacked into the computer network of the Illinois State Board of Elections. We were the only State, of those that were hacked, to come forward and identify the culprit. It was Russia. We also came forward and notified hundreds of thousands of our voters that their identity--at least in terms of the State election agency is concerned--had been compromised by the Russians. We were open about it. I asked the individual what was being done for the next election cycle. He said we have patched the problem that gave the Russians entry into the system in 2016, and we spent over $100,000 as a State to put in new security, new cyber protections. We are taking it seriously in Illinois because we know what the Russians tried to do to us. We don't believe they changed a vote or changed a ballot, but we are not sure they will not try in the future. That is the reality of what we face in Illinois, and that is the reality of what America faces. Just last week, NSA and U.S. Cyber Command head ADM Mike Rogers bluntly acknowledged what most of us already know; that President Trump is doing nothing--nothing--to protect Illinois or any other State against Russia's ongoing and future attacks on our election process. In fact, President Trump reportedly refuses to even talk about the issue. Admiral Rogers told the Armed Services Committee that Vladimir Putin has paid ``little price'' for his previous and ongoing attacks and, therefore, hasn't been stopped. Incredibly, the admiral said President Trump has not granted him any new authorities to strike at Russian cyber operations. Can anyone here imagine what President Ronald Reagan would have said at the stunning abdication of responsibility in addressing this Russian threat to America? In the face of this fundamental threat of Russian attack on our democracy, we should have spent the last year coming together, on a bipartisan basis, establishing a sound national defense when it comes to the exercise of our democracy. We should be working--Republicans and Democrats together--to hold anyone accountable who participated in this Russian effort. We should be strengthening our laws against foreign election interference--a responsibility of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has never even taken up that issue--and we should punish and deter Russia and other nations from ever attacking our Democratic process again. Instead, we have seen the Trump administration consistently refuse to hold the Russians accountable for their election interference or impose meaningful sanctions. President Trump has even gone out of his way to invite top Russian officials to the Oval Office and to call Russia's election interference a ``hoax.'' Despite the fact that all of our intelligence agencies say he is wrong, President Trump calls Russia election interference a hoax. So what are Republicans in Congress doing about this? With a few exceptions like Senator John McCain, they have mostly tried to change the subject. In fact, instead of trying to get a full accounting of what Russia did to us, Republicans have focused far more on scrutinizing and criticizing anyone who suggests that the Russians interfered. We need to take a step back and remember what this is all about; specifically, that a foreign adversary of the United States interfered in America's election. They continue to use weaponized cyber campaigns against us and our allies, and most in the majority party of Congress and the President seem not to care at all. How have we let it get to this point? Have we forgotten our obligation to our Constitution and to this country? For those who watched the devastating two-part episode of the PBS documentary ``Frontline'' last year entitled ``Putin's Revenge,'' there was a deeply telling moment. Months before the 2016 election, our Nation's top intelligence officials came and told key congressional leaders about Russia's efforts. These intelligence officials were deeply concerned about what Russia was trying to do to the 2016 election. President Obama had wanted a bipartisan message condemning Putin for his efforts so as to avoid any hint of partisanship as we approached the election and so we could put a common face on this common view of unity on this effort. What was the response of the Republican Party leadership after hearing this bombshell revelation by our intelligence agencies, this threat from Vladimir Putin, which actually goes to the heart of our democracy--the election process? The response of the Republican leader was: No thanks. We don't want to get involved. And they didn't. Is there anybody in the Senate--anybody who took the oath to protect the Nation against enemies, foreign and domestic--who thinks that any of us, regardless of political party, should get help from a foreign adversary to be elected? Yet here we are, with aggressive efforts to discredit investigations into this threat, with a White House that ignores Russian sanctions, with the majority party blocking legislation that offers aid to States that request it to secure our election systems, with the failure of this Congress or this White House to do anything to protect against the next such threat, and all the while, Russia continues to conduct disinformation campaigns right under our noses. On February 14, the tragedy in Parkland, FL, invited comments of those who wanted more gun safety and those who opposed it. When we traced the source of many of the comments, we found out they were Russians--Russians preaching to the United States on both sides of the issue, trying to rile us up at this moment of great human tragedy. That is now commonplace. We need to wake up. Russian cyber campaigns were pushing for the release of the discredited Nunes memo from the House of Representatives. They have tried to undermine the FBI's credibility. They are at work every single day trying to undermine our democracy. Russian cyber campaigns have attacked even Republican Senators who have been critical of President Trump. So I say to my Republican friends that not one of us is immune from these threats, and it is long overdue that we put Nation before party in this extremely important matter. The next time it might be China or North Korea taking different sides or pushing a different agenda when it comes to the American political process, but, of course, it doesn't matter whom a foreign adversary is trying to help. An attack on any American political party or Democratic institution by any Nation is an attack on all of us--at least it should be. This can't be tolerated. We don't want to make America great by letting foreign powers undermine it. So I ask my Republican friends; in fact, I invite them: Join us to get to the bottom of this. Let's pass legislation together that helps request these States secure their election systems. Let's pass legislation together that forces the administrations--this one and future administrations--to protect our national infrastructure against these cyber threats. Let's work together on a bipartisan basis to ensure that Russia and others are genuinely deterred from such actions. Let's use sanctions when necessary, and other measures, and let's work together to denounce the Russian disinformation campaign regardless of who it might help on any given day. We have a lot of work to do, and we are only months away from this November election. In just 6 months or so, there will be early voting in this election. Are the Russians going to get to vote? Maybe not directly, but indirectly? Will they be able to invade America's political machinery, election machinery? Will they make a difference in this next election campaign? Shame on us if we can't answer those questions, and shame on us if we do nothing to stop them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.