Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President I thank my colleague from Delaware, Senator Tom Carper. He and I came to the House of Representatives together many years ago. He went off on another assignment as Governor of his State, and then came back and ran for the U.S. Senate. We are lucky to have him. He is a great Senator, a great friend, and a great colleague. He takes on important issues every day on behalf of his State and the Nation, and I thank him for his support for this conversation about DACA and Dreamers. I would like to take a little different approach to this than I usually do on the floor, and I have come to the floor many times to talk about it. I would like for everyone here who is listening to this debate to pause and think for a minute: What is the worst job you have ever had-- the worst job? Maybe it was the worst job because it was boring, and boring jobs are terrible. But there are some pretty bad jobs out there. I could tell you my worst job. I was working my way through college in what we euphemistically call a packinghouse. In the old days, they called them slaughterhouses. What happened was that hogs came off the truck in one door, and two days later pork chops and bacon went out the back door. In between, there were some pretty awful jobs--hot, dirty, smelly, and dangerous jobs. I took it as a college student because it paid $3.65 an hour in the 1960s--pretty darned good, in fact, better than anything else I could find. I raised enough money working there four different summers to go to college. There was never any doubt at the end of the summer that I was going to stay with my job and not go to college. I couldn't wait to go to college in the hopes that I would never have to work in a packinghouse or slaughterhouse again in my life. Take a look today at the packinghouses, slaughterhouses, and poultry processing places across the United States of America, and I will tell you, almost without exception, what you will find. Take a look at the workers who come out of those places at the end of the workday. They are tired, they are sweaty, and they are dirty, and they are, by and large, immigrants--people who come to this country from other places. In Beardstown, IL, there is a processing place, near the central part of my State, and the workers there are largely Hispanic and African. They are immigrants who have come to this country and, like generations of immigrants before them, were prepared to take the worst, dirtiest, hardest jobs available just to make it in America. Go to the restaurants in Chicago, if you want a contrast from what I just described. We are lucky. I am lucky to represent that city, but we are lucky to have some of the greatest restaurants, I think, in our country. I would put them up against any city. I sat down with a person who owned some of those restaurants and talked to him about the immigration issue. He said: Senator, if you took the undocumented people and the immigrant people out of the restaurants and hotels of Chicago, we would close our doors. We couldn't operate without them. Oh, you don't see them in the front of the house--not your waiter and not the maitre d' or the person who takes your reservation. But just look at who carried the dishes off the table, and take a look through that door when it swings open at who is working back there in that hot kitchen. Over and over, you are going to find immigrants and undocumented people. So they are part of America, and they are part of our economy and, even more, they are part of our history. We have had debates about immigration from the beginning. I say jokingly that when the Mayflower landed and they got off the boats, a lot of them looked over their shoulders and said: I hope no more of these folks are coming. But they kept coming. They came in the thousands, even in the millions, from all over the world, anxious to be a part of the future of the United States of America. A ship landed in Baltimore in July of 1911, and a woman came down the gangplank with three kids. She was coming from Lithuania. She landed in Baltimore with those three kids--one of them a 2-year-old girl she was holding in her arms--and tried to find her way around Baltimore, MD, because she didn't speak English. Somehow or another she found that train station, got on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, and somehow or another she made it to East St. Louis, IL--her idea of a land of opportunity in 1911. There she was reunited with her husband, and there she made a life--a hard, challenging life but one that led to good things. The 2-year-old girl she was carrying was my mother, and my mother was an immigrant to this country. In my office upstairs behind my desk is my mother's naturalization certificate. I keep it there to remind myself and everyone visiting who I am, my family's story, and America's story. If you think that we have come to accept immigration as part of America, then you don't understand the history. We have had our ups and downs when it comes to immigration laws. There have been times when in this Chamber--in this Senate Chamber--there were debates that led to the decision to exclude people from certain parts of the world who were no longer welcome in America. The most notorious in modern times was in 1924. The object of our immigration exclusionary law was to keep out undesirable people from the United States of America. Who fell into that category in 1924? Jewish people, Italians, people from Eastern Europe--people from where my family came from. We made it clear in the law there would be quotas, and we were not going to accept people who were not desirable for the future of America. That was in 1924. Let me read you this incredible statement that was made. When President Calvin Coolidge signed the 1924 law justifying the quotas excluding Jews, Italians, Eastern Europeans, and others, here is what the President of the United States said in 1924: There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside. Biological laws tell us that certain people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. President Calvin Coolidge, 1924, signed that immigration law. That was the law in the land of America for 41 years. Our attitude toward parts of the world and whether people from those parts were welcome was determined in 1924 and defined by this Presidential statement. Then, in 1965, we passed the Immigration and Nationality Act that established our current system. Do you know what we said was the bedrock of that system? Reuniting families, bringing people to this country and allowing them to not only make it in America but to make a family in America. How many times have those of us in politics stood up and talked about faith and family and flag? I believe those words. I think my colleagues do too. When it came to immigration, that was the bedrock of what we were going to do--to make sure that families could be reunited in America. That 1965 law replaced the strict national origin quotas of the 1924 immigration law that favored Northern Europeans and excluded Asians. That was one of the other groups excluded under the 1924 law. When President Lyndon Johnson signed that 1965 law, he said: ``It corrects a cruel and enduring wrong. . . . For over four decades the immigration policy of the United States has been twisted and distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system.'' The Cato Institute is a research group. I don't usually quote them because they are on the other side of the political spectrum. I am on the left side, and they are on the right side. But I am going to quote them tonight because what they had to say about the proposal coming from the White House about immigration is worth hearing. The White House is part of changing immigration laws in America. It wants to dramatically reduce legal immigration by prohibiting American citizens from sponsoring their parents, siblings, and adult or married children as immigrants. We are talking literally about millions of relatives of American citizens who have done the right thing by following our immigration laws, and some have waited in line 20 years to be reunited with their families in America--20 years waiting for the day when their families could be together again. Listen to what the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, says about the proposal from the White House, which has been introduced in the Senate by two of my colleagues. This is what Cato says: [I]n the most likely scenario, the new plan would cut the number of legal immigrants by up to 44 percent or half a million immigrants annually--the largest policy-driven legal immigration cut since the 1920s. Compared to current law, it would exclude nearly 22 million people from the opportunity to immigrate legally to the United States over the next five decades. You have to go back to 1924 to find that kind of reduction in legal immigration in America. What is it about? Is it about security? No. Every single person we are talking about has to go through a serious criminal national security background check before they will ever be allowed into the United States. It isn't automatic. You have to be thoroughly investigated. Some of them wait 20 years with all these investigations for the chance. Is it about jobs? Think back to those jobs these immigrants take in the United States. How many of us would say: My son--I am so proud-- didn't know what to do with his life. I told him: Well, why don't you consider washing dishes at a restaurant in Chicago? Why don't you consider working in a packing house in Beardstown, IL? Why don't you consider landscaping? Those are not the jobs we want to see for our children, and they are jobs that go vacant unless immigrants and people like them are willing to pick our fruit and our vegetables, milk the cows, and do the hard work that is required in so many different parts of America. We have, at this point, an important decision to make, not just as a Senate but as a nation. On September 5, President Donald Trump announced the end of the DACA Program. March 5 is the deadline. As of March 5, 1,000 young people every single day will lose the protection of DACA and be subject to deportation and unable to work legally in America. Who are they? Twenty thousand of them are teachers--teachers in grade schools and high schools around America who will lose their jobs on March 5 as their DACA protection expires. Nine hundred of them, undocumented, will lose their opportunity to serve in the United States military. That is right--undocumented. They took the oath that they would risk and give their lives for America to serve in our military. On March 5, as their DACA protection expires, they will be asked to leave the military of the United States of America. I can't tell you how many thousands of students will find it impossible to continue school because they can no longer legally work in America. I can tell you about 30 med students, premed students at Loyola University in Chicago. They told me the reality. At the end of medical school, you finish your education with a clinical experience, a residency--not 40 hours a week, sometimes 80 hours a week, but it is a job. You better take it, and you better learn the clinical side of medicine if you are going to be a good doctor. When they lose their DACA protection, they lose their legal right to work in America, and they cannot apply for a residency. It is an end of their medical education because President Trump had a deadline that said: On March 5, it's over. Here we are. What have we done in the 5 months since the President challenged us to fix the problem he created? We have done absolutely nothing. Nothing. Not one bill has passed in the House or Senate, despite the President's challenge and despite the disastrous impact this is going to have on hundreds of thousands of people across the United States of America. I shouldn't say that we have done nothing. Some people in this debate have sent out a lot of tweets. Boy, that sure helps. There have been a lot of press releases and press conferences, but not a single bill has come to the floor. That is going to change. That is going to change very quickly. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader--and I take him at his word because he said it publicly, he said it privately, and I have told him personally ``You said it, and I believe you''--is going to call this measure for a vote in the Senate next week. For those of you who tune in to C-SPAN or visit in the Chamber here, please show up next week because something is going to happen on the Senate floor that hasn't happened in a year and a half--maybe longer. We are actually going to have a debate. This empty Chamber will have people in it. We will be considering a bill. People will be offering amendments. We will be debating it on the floor. For some of my Senate colleagues, it is the first time they will ever see this happen. We don't do that anymore, but we are going to do it on this important issue, and we should. The reason we should is not just because the President issued the challenge and not just because so many lives are hanging in the balance. It is because when we get down to this issue, it becomes extremely personal. Today for the 108th time, I am going to tell the story of a Dreamer. I use the word ``Dreamer'' because I am proud of it. The President said at the Republican retreat: Don't ever use that word ``Dreamer.'' I use it because I introduced the DREAM Act in 2001. Before I introduced that bill, if you said ``Dreamer,'' people thought you were talking about a British rock group with a guy named Freddie. We created the DREAM Act, and I want to tell you the story of this Dreamer. This is Saba Nafees. She is the 108th Dreamer I have told the story of on the floor. When she was 11 years old, they brought her to the United States from Pakistan. She grew up in Fort Worth, TX. In high school, she played piano, sang in the choir, and played tennis. She then studied mathematics at Texas Tech. She was ineligible for any government assistance to go to school. She had to work, borrow money. That is how she went to school--a mathematics degree at Texas Tech. There she was, a research scholar, co-vice president of the Student Service Organization, president of the Texas chapter of the National Mathematics Honor Society. She participated in premed and math mentoring programs for younger students. She was awarded the Texas Tech department of mathematics prize for excellence in mathematics by an undergraduate woman. In 2014, Saba graduated from Texas Tech Honors College with a bachelor of science in mathematics, with the highest honors. Today, Saba is a Ph.D. candidate studying mathematical biology. Please do not ask me on the final what mathematical biology is, but she is majoring in it at Texas Tech. She is focusing on a better understanding of biological data and disease. She teaches undergraduate students as a graduate teaching assistant. What is her dream in America? To use mathematics to advance research to cure diseases like cancer. Let me read you what she wrote to me. She said: I am an aspiring scientist and hope to continue my research in mathematical biology. Currently, there's an ever increasing need for computational and mathematical analysis of biological phenomena, specifically in the areas of bioinformatics and medicine. I hope to contribute to this field and give back to my country just as this country has contributed to my education. . . . Without DACA, I would have been forced to continue living a life in the shadows, a life with constant upper bounds, and a life that is imprisoned in the very country I call home. Saba is what this debate is all about. There are those who say: We are too busy to do this; we will get back to it later. There are those who say: Well, I am sure she is a very talented person, but she is illegal, you know. There are those who say we are fools to let a talent like this leave America. We are crazy to give up on such amazing young people. We are wrong to call them lazy, for goodness' sakes. There isn't a lazy bone in this young woman's body. I don't think so. What she has achieved is nothing short of a miracle as an undocumented student in America. Some others have argued: Well, she can stay, but you have to punish her parents. We have to make them leave the United States of America. There has to be a better way. Yes. Was it wrong? Did it, maybe, even violate a law for them to bring her here? What parent wouldn't do it if it meant survival or if it meant a future for a child? We can make them pay a price. In the comprehensive immigration bill, there is a fine and a long waiting period. All of the things could be included in here. For goodness' sakes, this young lady and her family can be an important part of America's future if and when we decide in the U.S. Senate that she is worth our effort. We will have that chance soon. We will start the debate soon. Young people like her will listen to this debate because they know what is at stake and whether there is any future for them in the United States of America. For goodness' sakes, in the name of justice, in the name of the values that made this country what it is today, we ought to stand up on a bipartisan basis and solve this problem in a humane and sensible way. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak of an issue which really defines America. With the exception of Native Americans who preceded us, with the exception of many African Americans who were brought here in bondage, virtually all of the rest of us are the sons and daughters of immigrants to America, immigrants from literally all over the world who have come to this Nation and made us different--different in a positive way. They have given life to this democracy. They have given hope when it comes to our future. They have inspired us. I will be the first to admit that I do not come to this debate without strong personal feelings. Like millions of Americans, I am the son of an immigrant. In 1911--107 years ago--my grandmother came to this country with three little kids. One of those kids was my mother. She was 2 years old when their ship landed in Baltimore. My grandmother didn't speak a word of English, but somehow she managed to take those three kids and make her way to join my grandfather in East St. Louis, IL. On the credenza behind my desk in the Capitol is my mother's naturalization certificate. I keep that as a reminder of my heritage. That is my story. That is my family's story. That is America's story. Because of my family history, I really believe in immigration. I believe it has been a positive force in America. I remember going to Jurbarkas, Lithuania, which was a tiny village in 1911, and being taken on a tour of my mom's birthplace. She never made it back there, but I was able to see the church where she was baptized. They pointed out the well in the town square which people used. I thought to myself what it must have been like that evening when my grandparents called their friends and relatives together to tell them the news: They were leaving their home in Lithuania. They were leaving the church that had served their family for generations. They were leaving all of their friends and relatives. They were leaving behind every stick of furniture, the dogs, the cats, the chickens-- everything--to go to a place where they didn't speak the language. They were going to this place called America. They had heard great stories about the land of opportunity, and they had heard about some Lithuanians who had gone to the city of East St. Louis, IL, and that is where they were headed. I am sure those friends and relatives, walking away from that meeting, turned to one another and said: What ever got into their minds? They are giving up everything to go to a place where they don't even speak the language. They will be back. Well, they never returned. Like millions and millions of Americans, they had the courage to come to America and to weather crisis after crisis in our family and to build a future. I stand here because of that decision. How can you tell when a country is in decline? When immigrants stop wanting to come to that country, when they can't wait to leave that country. Many other developed countries have had this experience and watched their economies decline as a result. That has never been our experience in the history of America. Look at our history. In every generation, immigrants have come to our shores from around the world and made us a better and stronger nation. Immigrants are not a drain on America; immigrants are the future of America. They are hard-working men and women who leave behind everything they know to build a new and better life for themselves and their children. They breathe new life into our country and help revitalize the American dream. You have heard the stories. They go to Silicon Valley and take a look at some of the best and brightest when it comes to high-tech, and they marvel at how many of them were immigrants to this country who were finally able to take that great idea and turn it into a great business with a lot of well-paid employees, helping this country move forward. It was 17 years ago that I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act. It was bipartisan legislation that gave a path to citizenship to immigrants who came to the United States as children. These young people have come to be known as Dreamers. I know the President went to a Republican retreat last week and mocked the term ``Dreamers.'' He did the same in the State of the Union address. I will tell you, I am proud of the term ``Dreamers.'' Before this bill was introduced, if you asked about Dreamers and who they were, most people would answer: Isn't that a British rock group? Today, Dreamers symbolize something in America--young people brought here who have grown up pledging allegiance to that flag, singing the only national anthem they ever have known, who want to be part of our future. Those are Dreamers. Eight years ago, I sent a letter to President Obama. Dick Lugar, Republican Senator from Indiana, joined me in signing that letter. On a bipartisan basis, we asked for President Obama to find a way to protect the Dreamers. The President responded to our request. He established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, better known as DACA. DACA provides temporary legal status to Dreamers if they step up, identify themselves, register with the government, pay a $500 filing fee, and submit themselves to a criminal background check and then a national security background check. If they passed all of those things, under DACA, they were given temporary, renewable 2-year protection to stay in the United States, not be deported, and have the legal right to work. DACA has been an extraordinary success. Almost 800,000 Dreamers have come forward and received DACA protection. It has allowed them to contribute more to this country that they love, as teachers and nurses and engineers and first responders and members of our military. Yes, these DACA individuals have stepped up, even though they do not have the legal rights of citizenship, raised their hands, and sworn to put their lives on the line for America. How many of us have done that? We should admire them for their commitment to this country. Instead, on September 5, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration was putting an end to this DACA Program. That same day, the President called on Congress to ``legalize DACA.'' Now the deportation clock is literally ticking on these young people. As we gather here today, more than 18,000 of these young people have lost their protection under DACA. Beginning in less than a month, on March 5 of this year, every day for the next 2 years, 1,000 Dreamers will lose their work permits and be subject to deportation because of President Trump's decision. The administration itself has warned us that if we do come up with legalization of DACA, they need time--maybe as long as 6 months--to make it work. What has Congress done in response to this challenge, in response to the fact that thousands of young people are losing this protection? The answer is one word: nothing. Nothing. Not a single bill has passed the Senate or the House in response to the President's challenge, despite the fact that every single day 122 of these Dreamers, because of President Trump's decision, lose the protection of DACA. Teachers--almost 20,000 of them nationwide who are DACA recipients--are going to be in a situation where they have to leave behind their classrooms and their students. Nurses will be forced to leave behind their patients because of President Trump's decision. First responders, who have written an enviable record of courage in serving their communities, will be forced to leave those posts. Soldiers willing to die for America will be forced to leave the Army-- forced to leave the Army they have volunteered to serve. This isn't just a looming humanitarian crisis; it is an economic crisis as well. More than 91 percent of DACA Dreamers are gainfully employed and paying taxes to our government. The nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy reports that DACA-eligible individuals contribute an estimated $2 billion a year in State and local taxes. The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates that ending DACA and deporting DACA recipients will cost $60 billion and result in a $280 billion reduction in economic growth over the next decade. Are the DACA protectees a drain on society? Not according to the conservative Cato Institute. They are a plus for America, a plus for our economy. Poll after poll shows overwhelming bipartisan support for the Dreamers. Even FOX News--no liberal media outlet--found that 79 percent of Americans support a path to citizenship for Dreamers. That includes 63 percent of those who identify as Trump voters. When the Trump administration shut down the DACA Program, the President called on Congress to legalize the program. We have done nothing. The day after repealing DACA, President Trump reached a tentative agreement on DACA and border security with Senator Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader. President Trump said: ``Chuck and Nancy would like to see something happen, and so do I.'' But very quickly, President Trump walked away from those words. In October, the White House released 7 pages of what they called ``Immigration Principles''--their wish list when it came to immigration. It was a list of hard-line, anti-immigrant proposals, many of which have been opposed by both political parties in Congress. Then, 4 weeks ago, I was invited to a meeting on January 9 at the White House, to sit next to President Trump and about two dozen Members of Congress. The President said at that meeting, broadcast on live television, that he wanted to protect DACA recipients and he would sign any bipartisan bill that Congress sent to him. The President said: Send me a bill and I will sign it, and I will take the political heat. I heard it. So did America. He also said that Congress should first pass DACA legislation and that other immigration issues should wait for ``phase two, which would be comprehensive.'' That was good news for me and good news for Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. We had been working for 4 months on a bipartisan plan. We came back to the Hill after that meeting on January 9. That evening and the next day, we hammered out an agreement--six Senators, three Democrats and three Republicans. We called the President on January 11. I personally called him to tell him we had a bill, a bipartisan bill. I wanted him to hear about it, to know the details, and I hoped that it would solve the problem and challenge that we faced. It was a real compromise. The day after we finalized that agreement, after the House meeting, we addressed all of the priorities that the President had laid before us, including protection for the Dreamers and a significant, multibillion-dollar downpayment on our border security. The President said he looked forward to Senator Graham's briefing him on that plan and would be back in touch with me. Then I received word, within minutes, that the President wanted me to join Senator Graham in going to the White House. Two hours later, Senator Lindsey Graham and I were at the White House, hoping that the President might embrace our bipartisan plan, but we were surprised and disappointed when we entered the Oval Office. In a matter of an hour and a half, five of the congressional hard-liners on immigration had been invited in to shoot down our plan. The President's views, in a matter of less than 2 hours, had changed radically. During our meeting, the President demanded $20 billion to build a wall on our southern border. He kept saying over and over: Give me $20 billion. I will build this wall in 1 year. The President reacted negatively to the agreement that we had reached in terms of protecting immigrants from Haiti from deportation and ensuring that immigrants from Africa would be permitted to come to our country. What I heard at that meeting had nothing to do with security and American jobs. It was a sad commentary by the President on his vision of immigration. Then, 2 weeks ago, Senator Schumer, our Democratic leader, made another good-faith attempt to work with the White House. He made a generous offer to President Trump to fund the border wall, but after a promising meeting, within 2 hours, the President called and withdrew any offer. That was the third time Senate Democrats had offered to fund President Trump's wall in exchange for the Dream Act. In other words, we have been willing to support a broadly unpopular and partisan proposal--the wall--in exchange for a broadly popular and bipartisan proposal--the Dream Act. The President will not take ``yes'' for an answer. It is no wonder that Senator Schumer has said that trying to reach an immigration agreement with the President is ``like trying to negotiate with Jell-O.'' Two weeks ago, the White House released a 1-page ``Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security.'' The White House claims this is a compromise because it includes a path to citizenship for some Dreamers. I might add that it is an issue that is supported by the overwhelming majority of American people. The plan would put the administration's entire hard-line immigration agenda on the backs of these young people. For example, the White House wants to dramatically reduce legal immigration by prohibiting American citizens from sponsoring their parents, siblings, and adult or married children as immigrants. We are talking about, literally, millions of relatives of American citizens who have done the right thing, followed our immigration laws, and have been waiting patiently in line for as long as 20 years to come to the United States. Listen to what the Cato Institute says about the White House proposal: [I]n the most likely scenario, the new plan would cut the number of legal immigrants by up to 44 percent or half a million immigrants annually--the largest policy-driven legal immigration cut since the 1920s. Compared to current law, it would exclude--[the President's proposal]--nearly 22 million people from the opportunity to immigrate legally to the United States over the next [50 years]. This proposal would gut the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which established our current immigration system, with its focus on reuniting families. When you think about the bedrock principles of America--faith, family, love of country--why would we assault this effort to unify and strengthen our families in America with those who are following this process in a legal manner? The 1965 law, which this would change dramatically, replaced the strict national origin quotas of the 1924 immigration law. The 1924 immigration law was written to specifically exclude people whom the Congress and President, in those days, thought should not be part of America's future. They were focusing on people from my part of the world. My family came from the Baltics. They focused on the Baltics and Eastern European countries--to restrict their immigration to this country. Luckily for me, my family got over before the 1924 law. They also wanted to exclude Italians in their belief that we had had enough from that country, and they wanted to exclude Jews. That is what that 1924 National Security Act was about. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1965 law, he said: ``It corrects a cruel and enduring wrong. . . . For over four decades the immigration policy of the United States has been twisted and distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system.'' Listen to what Presidential Calvin Coolidge said when he signed the 1924 law, the last major reduction in legal immigration in America: There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside. Biological laws tell us that certain people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. I cannot understand why Attorney General Sessions, at one point, praised that 1924 law and said it was ``good for America.'' The President's immigration framework would also fast-track the deportations of women and children who come to our border in their fleeing gang and sexual violence. Since our tragic failure during World War II to aid Jewish refugees who fled the Holocaust, the United States has led the world, since then, in providing a safe haven to people who flee war, terrorism, and persecution. Now we are in the midst of the worst refugee crisis on record, with 65 million people worldwide being forcibly displaced, including child refugees from Central America, the Northern Triangle, who are fleeing horrific violence. Consider the opinion of General John Kelly back in 2015, the current White House Chief of Staff, when he headed the U.S. Southern Command. General Kelly said then that the children from Central America who are arriving on the U.S.-Mexico border are ``the direct result of our drug consumption'' in the United States. General Kelly said, ``In many ways [parents] are trying to save their children'' from the violence in their own countries. General Kelly was right in 2015. In the past, Democrats have supported some of the President's proposals, like changes in our family immigration system and eliminating the diversity visa lottery. I might remind my colleagues that that was all part of a significantly comprehensive immigration reform bill. I was part of the Gang of 8 that drafted the original bill--four Republicans, four Democrats. We brought that bill to this floor in 2013 and won a vote--68 to 32. The bill was a product of months of negotiations and compromise. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives refused to even consider it. Now we are being asked to accept this administration's proposals with no conditions and no give-and-take. If the administration wants to reform our legal immigration system, we have some priorities that we care for as well. If we are talking about protecting national security, why aren't we closing the loopholes in the Visa Waiver Program? There are 20 million people from 38 nations who travel to America every year on the Visa Waiver Program--one-third of all of the visitors to the United States. They arrive in American airports without undergoing biometric checks or consular interviews. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker of 9/11, tried to enter the U.S. through the Visa Waiver Program. So did Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber. We should strengthen the Visa Waiver Program by requiring biometric checks of travelers before they land in America so that we know who they are before they board the airplanes. If you are really sincere about the security of our Nation, this is an obvious need. Congress should also close the loophole that lets people enter the United States through the Visa Waiver Program. Remember, there are 20 million a year. We allow them to buy guns, even assault weapons, even if they are on the FBI's terrorist watch list. When it comes to security, that is an obvious loophole that needs to be closed. With the President's failing to lead, the responsibility to fix the DACA crisis falls on our shoulders here in Congress. I see my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn. He and I have talked extensively about this. I still hold out hope that we may be able to find some way to resolve this in a bipartisan fashion. We have to do it because, to date, Congress--the Senate and the House--have done nothing. Three weeks ago, a bipartisan group of Senate Republicans and Democrats finally persuaded Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, to commit to addressing DACA. I salute him for doing that. He made a statement on the floor twice, unequivocally, that we would bring this measure up if we had not reached an agreement by this Friday and that we would consider starting with what he called a level playing field-- amendments on both sides--on the issue of immigration and DACA. We haven't seen that kind of debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate in over 1 year. If it comes to that, I look forward to it. I would like to see the Senate work its will, and I hope that we will come up with a positive and constructive compromise. We have only 3 days from today for that process to start, and I hope that we can make some progress. Bipartisan legislation to protect the Dreamers has been pending in Congress, and it has overwhelming support from the people we represent, including President Trump's own voters. It would pass on a strong bipartisan vote in both the House and the Senate if Republican leaders would bring it to a vote. I look forward to that debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I don't know if you want to announce the business of the day or if you have already done that.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the confirmation vote on the nomination of R.D. James to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army. On vote No. 24, had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation of the James nomination. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have 14 days, by our own established deadline, to do something about the Dreamers issue--about DACA. Why do we find ourselves at this place? Because on September 5 of last year, President Trump, as well as Attorney General Sessions, announced the end of the DACA protection program as of March 5 this year. The 780,000 young people who were undocumented in the United States and who came here as children were given a chance by President Obama to stay legally, be able to work legally, and not fear deportation. For the most part, they are students and workers who are a vital part of the community, and they have done good things in their lives and promised to do even more. This issue was created by the decision made by President Trump to put an end to this program. He made that decision. He also challenged Congress. He said: If we are going to end this Executive order, do something. Pass a law. Well, here we are, just about at the fifth month out of the 6-month period he gave us to get down to work, and nothing has happened. Some of us have been working on this issue, trying to address it on a bipartisan basis in the hope that this Republican-controlled Congress would join with enough Democrats to solve the problem that the President presented. I have worked with five of my colleagues--three Democrats and three Republicans--to craft a bill that we believe addresses the issue in a fair way. Compromise was included in that bill--some that I didn't like at all, but that is the nature of a compromise and bipartisanship. We presented this bill to our colleagues, and we also attended a meeting on January 9 with President Trump in which he addressed this issue. Here it was, 4 months after he issued the challenge to Congress, and he basically told us: It is time to get this done. He said to us-- and this was televised, so you can check my remarks if there is any question about what I am saying. He said to us, basically: Send me a bill, and I will sign it. I will take the political heat on this issue. Then the Republican leader on the House side, Kevin McCarthy said that it ought to include the following four elements: first, DACA and the Dreamers; second, border security; third, family reunification issues; and finally, the visa lottery system, the diversity system that we had established years ago. That is when I sat down and said to my fellow Senators--Democrats and Republicans, our little gang: We have to get this done. The President has challenged us, and he said that he is prepared to move forward if we can come up with a response. So we did. We came to an agreement among ourselves--the six Senators who had been meeting. We presented it to the President through Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican, on January 11. He rejected it. So as of today, we really don't have a bill before us, and we are starting anew with a conversation about what to do to meet the President's challenge but equally, if not more importantly, to say to the 780,000 young people and those who were eligible to apply: This is what your future will be. We have had our ups and downs, and it was a rocky weekend just a few days ago relative to funding the government and whether we were going to take up this issue. I thought it ended on a positive note when Senator McConnell came to the floor and made an express promise to this Chamber--to Members on both sides of the aisle. I am going to try to characterize it, and I think this is accurate. Check the Record, if you don't think I say it quite right. But he said: If we have not reached an agreement on this issue by February 8, at that point, we will open a process on the floor of the Senate with what he characterized as a level playing field and an open amendment process. That, to me, is an opportunity, but I hope we can avoid that opportunity and reach an agreement, as he asked us to, by February 8. We have 14 days left. I would like to involve the House in this conversation so that we might reach a common agreement, but unfortunately, they are on recess this week. Those of us who were sitting and talking about it don't have a chance to get together with them. However, I am heartened by the fact that a number of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle are going to join a number on the Democratic side of the aisle this afternoon and start what we hope will be a productive process to reach a bipartisan agreement and do it in a timely way, as suggested and challenged by Senator McConnell. To achieve this goal, I think we understand we are going to have to be mindful of one another and mindful of the realities we face. There are a lot of issues relative to immigration. The list is pretty lengthy. There are important issues that should be considered. It is unrealistic to think we are going to propose or even agree on a bipartisan and comprehensive immigration bill in 14 days. What we can do is address the President's challenge dealing with DACA and those DACA-eligible, so-called Dreamers. What we can do is address border security in a realistic and honest way. I took a look this morning at some of the publications of the Department of Homeland Security to try to get an understanding of what our challenge is when it comes to the undocumented of the United States. Where do they come from? How do they come to this country and how do they stay in this country if they don't have legal authority to do so? For example, the Department of Homeland Security tells us that each year 50 million--50 million--visitors come to the United States from visa waiver countries. Those who are visiting from those countries have not gone through an application process to visit the United States. They carry a passport from a country we have an understanding or agreement with that they can travel back and forth. Think about the European countries, for example, where we can travel extensively back and forth between there and the United States. Out of those 50 million, about 1.5 percent end up staying longer than they are supposed to. We end up with hundreds and thousands of undocumented people here by visa overstays. Forty percent of all those who are in this country undocumented came here by visa overstays. There is no wall you can build on the border of Mexico and Canada that is going to solve that problem. This is a problem that really relies on technology, which we should be investing in and which we can invest in on a bipartisan basis. So if your true goal is the reduction of the undocumented in America and trying to make sure there is legal status for as many as possible and you are looking at the incremental growth each year, you wouldn't look to the border first. You would look to the visa overstays first. Those are the ones who are slipping through the system, who should be policed and monitored with new technology. We have talked about it for decades. It is time to do something about it but also to concede, as I said, that no wall is going to stop that problem--no wall is going to solve that problem. When I take a look at the asylum issue, which I wouldn't say I am amused, but I would say I am interested--it is one that is always raised by the Department of Homeland Security; those who present themselves in the United States at the border or otherwise and suggest they have a credible fear in returning to their home country. It is interesting to look at the statistics because we find out that even though there may be this notion that they are primarily from Mexico, they are not. They are primarily from countries in the Northern Triangle of Central America. There is also a large contingent each year from China. So if we are talking about the asylum issue and not addressing all of the countries who are the major suppliers of those seeking asylum in the United States, then we are not talking about it in honest terms or in its entirety as we should. I might mention that China, along with 22 other countries, does not even have an agreement with the United States in terms of deportation, according to the report from the Department of Homeland Security. There is a lot we can do there to make sure China and those countries comply with the United States when we say we are deporting someone from your country that we find to be a danger to us, and rather than incarcerate them here, you get to have them back. They are yours. They shouldn't be here in the first place. When we talk about dealing with the issues of the undocumented, the issues of security in this country, many of these are not going to be solved with a wall. They are going to be solved if we deal with technology and look in honest terms and count real numbers about those coming from different parts of the world. I also want to address this issue about unaccompanied children coming to our border. I understand that challenge. The numbers have risen dramatically in prior years, and we have to take it seriously. I followed some of those children from the border to a protective gathering they have in Chicago in a place called Heartland Alliance, and I went in to meet them. I was shocked when I went into the cafeteria to see that some of these children were as young as 6 years of age, 6 years old presenting themselves at a border of the United States. What circumstances could have led to that? It is possible it was a smuggler who either threatened or exploited the family and ended up with a child, pushed them across the border into the arms of one of our Border Patrol agents. That is possible. That is something we should do everything we can to stop. That is an exploitation of that child. That child is likely to be abused in the process of this immigration, and it is something we ought to do everything we can to discourage, but to simply turn away children at the border is a dangerous thing. What are we going to do with that 6-year-old from Honduras or El Salvador or Guatemala at the border when they establish, through a written note or whatever, that there is a credible fear for them returning to their country? Do we ignore it? Do we turn them back to their country regardless? We better be careful. Awful things can happen. What do we do with the 12-year-old or 13-year-old girl who is a victim of rape and sexual assault in one of those countries, who was sent to the United States and our border because her parents believed she was about to be raped again or killed? Do we turn her back or send her back and ignore the reality? I commend to my colleagues and others who follow this debate an article that was written in the New Yorker last week by Sarah Stillman. It was entitled ``When Deportation Is A Death Sentence.'' She followed the terrible story of a young woman who was undocumented, who was stopped, and who said over and over again: If you send me back to Mexico, that husband of mine is going to kill me. There have been protective orders issued. He is a dangerous man. She was sent back anyway, and she was killed. These are complex situations not easily answered with the common definition that anyone who presents themselves to the border with such credible fears is going to be turned away without any consideration about the merits of that claim. We have to be careful. Human lives hang in the balance. Our reputation as a caring and principled Nation hangs in the balance as well. We need to do the right thing. Stop the exploitation when it occurs but also be mindful and sensitive to the fact that many people who do present themselves seeking asylum are truly leaving desperate circumstances and trying to find a safe place for themselves and their families. So the conversation continues this afternoon, on a bipartisan basis, among the Senators in the U.S. Senate to meet the President's challenge, to accept that challenge, and to come up with a bipartisan measure. I don't know the position of the President of the United States now. I couldn't express it after the experience we had a couple of weeks ago. I don't know where he stands. He has never issued anything by way of a suggestive piece of legislation. We haven't heard from him. So we have to do our part. We have to meet our responsibility in the Senate, hope the House does the same, and at some point the White House would join us in solving this problem, which the President actually created on September 5 of last year. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, thank you very much, and I thank the majority leader for this opportunity. Let me thank my friend, my colleague, and our leader on the Democratic side for his passionate personal commitment to this issue involving the Dreamers and DACA. He has been by my side, and I have been inspired by his leadership from the start. Let me thank my colleagues. So many of you cast a vote that was very hard and very difficult because you believed, as I did, that the issue of immigration and the issue of the Dreamers is the civil rights issue of our time. You stuck your necks out and said: I am willing to go on record, even though it is hard to explain back home, and I will never forget that. The question now is how we move forward. What I have seen on the floor of the Senate in the last few days is something we have not seen for years--constructive, bipartisan conversations and dialogue on the floor, not just about this issue, which is obviously front and center, but about the future of this institution and what the Senate will be from this point forward. That, to me, has been encouraging because it says to me we do have an opportunity to work together. My special thanks to Senator Susan Collins, my friend, and Senator Lisa Murkowski for joining with Jeff Flake and joining with Lindsey Graham and joining with Cory Gardner and others who have been working on this issue for so long to try to make a positive impact on this debate so we can move forward. I cannot tell my colleagues how many have come up to me from the other side of the aisle who said: We are with you on this issue. We want to help get this done. Each of them has a little different take on what that means, but I do believe them, and I do believe we have this opportunity to move this together. Now comes the real test as to whether we can get this done--whether we can be the Senate again, whether we can return to regular order on the floor and constructively have a debate. For some of you, it will be the first time you have ever seen it, but believe me, it is worth the price of admission, all it took for you to come to the U.S. Senate. So now we have to stand together. My last word is this: We have gathered the largest bipartisan group of Senators to ever commit on moving forward on the Dream Act and immigration. We have a process. I thank Senator McConnell for explicitly saying today it will be a level playing field. It will be open to both sides. We will move to the issue, as you characterized it this morning, of DACA and immigration. Thank you for doing that. I believe that then sets the stage for us to work together. For the first time in 5 years, we will have debate on the floor of the Senate on the Dream Act and immigration. To all the Dreamers who are watching today, don't give up. I know that your lives are hanging in the balance on what we do here on Capitol Hill and with the White House. Three weeks from now, I hope to be joining you and celebrating the passage, with you and your families and your communities, of a measure which will strengthen America and give you an opportunity to be part of our future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank my colleague from Texas. I particularly liked your speech about DACA and the Dreamers. I have given a speech very similar to that a few times on the floor. Thank you. I do believe you. I believe you really care, and I am hoping we will both have a chance to demonstrate that very soon. So thank you for those kind words. We think back about our memories as kids growing up. Today is Sunday, and I remember so many Sundays when I was a little boy. Sunday was our family day. Dad liked to get up early, and Mom liked to sleep in. So Dad would get up for 7:30 mass in East St. Louis, IL, and I would jump out of bed, too, because I knew that after mass, Dad and I would go out to some greasy spoon restaurant and get eggs and bacon. It was something I looked forward to. Then we would stop at a bakery and pick up a doughnut for Mom. We would get home in time to see her wake up, give her her doughnut and coffee, and then she would be off to 11 o'clock mass at St. Elizabeth's. Then we would anxiously await her return because the big event was in the afternoon. The big event was Ann Durbin's fried chicken Sunday dinner. Without exception, that was the delicacy and banquet of my childhood, that Sunday afternoon fried chicken. She had her own special recipe, and she didn't like to share it. I know it included Lawry's seasoned salt and some garlic powder. But the secret to her recipe was bacon grease. She fried that chicken in bacon grease. I apologize to all the nutritionists in the world, but it was delicious, and I am still standing. I looked forward to it because we all gathered as a family. We set the table, and we would eat the fried chicken. We stuck around in the afternoon, and we were together. That is what we need this Sunday in the U.S. Senate. We need to get our family together--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. That is what is missing at this point, because when I listened to the speech by Senator Cornyn--and I do respect him--there are so many things we agree on. There are so many things we understand to be priorities. I want to set the record straight. There were some words said about Senator Schumer's opening remarks. The reason Senator Schumer continues to refer to the ``Trump shutdown'' is because last Friday, Senator Schumer was invited by the President to come for lunch. This was before the critical vote on the continuing resolution and the funding of our government. This really was the first opportunity for Senator Schumer and the President, face-to-face, to try to reach an agreement. The good news reported back to me by Senator Schumer afterward was that there was an understanding of what we were going to do on a myriad of issues, including the controversial issue of immigration and Dreamers and DACA, and what we would do about the wall. We knew what the President--some of us don't think the wall is such a great idea at all, but we know what the President thinks, and when you get down to a compromise to save the government and to move the Nation forward, you have to give, and Senator Schumer put the wall literally on that luncheon table. He was prepared to go further than any Democrat in leadership has ever gone. He told the President, and then he came back to report to us: I think we have an agreement. I think we are there. Within 2 hours after that lunch, he got a call from the President, who said: It is over. No agreement. We are not going forward. He was surprised and disappointed, and I was, too, because I thought we were going to avoid the mess we find ourselves in today. But it wasn't a big surprise because I had a similar experience with the President just the week before. It was January 9 when I was invited, with 24 other Members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, to an amazing meeting. It was in the Cabinet Room of the White House, called by the President. We came together, and the President did something I have never seen before. He told the television cameras to stick around, and they sure did, for 55 minutes, as we debated the whole question of the Dream Act and DACA. I think the reason for this debate is very obvious. We are facing a deadline created by President Trump when it comes to protecting at least 800,000 young people in the United States. These are young people who took advantage of President Obama's Executive order called DACA. They submitted themselves to a criminal background check, they filed the fee of about $500, they waited patiently, and about 800,000 ended up winning protection under DACA. President Trump announced on September 5 of last year: I am ending this program. I am ending this protection officially on March 5. In the meantime, we have seen thousands of these young people losing their protected status. They are literally beside themselves. On September 5, the President made the announcement that March 5 was the termination date, and for 4\1/2\ months, Congress has done nothing, despite the President's plea to us--challenge to us--write a law. Show me that you can come together and write a law to solve this problem. We have done nothing. There has been not a single hearing in the committee that we serve on, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction. I shouldn't say no hearings--I believe there was one hearing, but no bill, no markup, no vote, nothing on the calendar from our committee. So a number of us came together--three Democratic Senators and three Republican Senators--and said: We have to do something about this. This has a deadline, and at the end of this deadline, lives will be in danger, the lives of these young people. So we wrote a bill. It wasn't easy. The President had challenged us to come up with a bill at his meeting on January 9. He literally said: If you pass a bill, I will sign it. I will take the political heat, not the Republicans, not the Democrats. I will take the heat. We came back here after that meeting, the six of us gathered again, and said: We have to do it, and we have to do it now--and we did. We reached an agreement on a bill. Senator Lindsey Graham, myself, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Senator Bennet of Colorado, we all came together, and we agreed on it. It wasn't easy. There are parts of it I hate. I gave on some areas that hurt me personally, and so did they, but that is why we are sent here--to compromise and come up with solutions. So we anxiously called the President. Two days after our meeting on January 11, I called him because he had invited me to, and darned if he didn't call me back in 10 minutes. I couldn't believe it. I said: Mr. President, we have a bipartisan agreement that hits all of the four elements you wanted us to hit, and Senator Graham is going to come down to the White House to explain it to you. He said: Good. I don't want to slow-walk this. He said: Let's get this done. Great. Then I got a call: The President would like you to accompany Senator Graham. I am not going to go into details of what happened next when we got there. They have been widely reported. I am just not going to return to that whole experience, but it is fair to say the President rejected our bipartisan approach in its entirety. At this point, I was disappointed and a little bit--I was stunned because he had asked us to do just what we had done. Here we have two examples, both with Senator Schumer and the President and the White House and my experience with the President and the White House on this contentious issue of DACA, where the President literally said: There is no agreement. We are walking away. So when Senator Schumer comes to the floor and says the President bears at least some responsibility, if not the major responsibility, had we reached agreement those 2 days, had we stuck with it, had we come back and met, had we reached the final consensus, a bipartisan agreement, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. That is why Senator Schumer makes that reference. I would like to go back to a couple other issues before I conclude; that is, let's make it clear. When it comes to respect and love for our military, it is not a partisan matter. Both parties do. Each of us has seen good Democratic soldiers and good Republican soldiers give their lives for this country. They weren't fighting for a political party; they were fighting for our flag. I believe both parties love this country and both parties respect our military, and we don't want to hurt them in any way. Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri the other night offered a unanimous consent request to make sure there was no interruption in pay for the members of our military during this debate and this government shutdown. Unfortunately, Senator McConnell objected. I understand the political strategy, but let's use that as a clear illustration that both sides--both sides--should stand behind our military, regardless. At the heart of this debate is a 4-week continuing resolution. If we were asking for a grade on our budget efforts this year, it certainly would not be a passing grade. We are one-third of the way into this fiscal year--over 100 days into this fiscal year--and we have yet to produce a budget. It is not easy. It wasn't easy when we Democrats were in control, and we failed, too, but the Republicans in control of the House and the Senate failed to produce a budget. I am on the Appropriations Committee. We have spent more hours-- particularly our staff has spent more hours--putting together a good bill for the defense of this country, getting ready to bring it to the floor, getting ready to vote for it, and sitting there and waiting now for 6 months or more. There is no excuse for these continuing resolutions. The Department of Defense came out the other night and said: Stop doing this to us. You are hurting our national defense by not having a budget and just doing temporary spending measures after temporary measures. The Secretary of Navy said he believes that continuing resolutions from Congress have cost the U.S. Navy $4 billion. Four billion taxpayer dollars have been wasted because we can't even agree on the defense of our country, for goodness' sake. So I wouldn't take any great pride in a 4-week continuing resolution. I noticed my colleague from Texas Senator Cornyn referred to them as lousy and miserable. Put me down for the same remarks. I couldn't agree more. Why are we facing this moment of truth in the Senate today? Because there is a lot at stake. We need to roll up our sleeves and do what we were elected to do. We need to pass a budget for this country. We need to take care of this looming DACA deadline that President Trump created--the March 5 deadline was his creation--6 weeks away. This notion that, well, we will not do it this week; maybe we will get around to it next week--if you have watched this empty Chamber as much as I have, you realize it takes a lot to get us to roll up our sleeves and get down to business, and that is what we need to do. One of the Senators said this is about the Democrats saving face. It isn't. It is about much more. It is about saving the CHIP program, the health insurance program which was allowed to lapse for 4 months that provides health insurance for 9 million kids. It is also about saving the community healthcare clinics, which provide the lion's share of the benefits to the kids covered by CHIP programs. That is not included in the CR. It has to be. We have to reauthorize it. I can't believe we are even debating it. It literally is the source of healthcare for millions of Americans. It is about dealing with the pension issue we have in the Midwest and beyond, one that we believe needs to be addressed forthrightly. It is about DACA, which I have talked about earlier. It is about healthcare insurance. We are slow to come to realize that, unless we do something significantly, more Americans will lose health insurance and the premiums will go up. I want to give kudos to Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee; Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from the State of Washington; Senator Collins, a Republican from Maine; and Senator Nelson, a Democrat from Florida. They have come up with a plan they want to include in this measure which can help to keep health insurance premiums affordable. On either side of the aisle, who doesn't want that? Disaster relief. I can't wait to vote for disaster relief for Texas, Florida, California, Puerto Rico, and for the Virgin Islands. My State has received that kind of relief in the past, and I want to stand up and help other States. That is something that should be included in the CR, and it is not. Finally, let's get this right for the Department of Defense. Let's give General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense, the resources he needs to spend money wisely in defense of this country, to make sure we never come in second in war. It is a long litany of things that are being postponed and postponed and postponed again. For goodness' sake, let's not postpone any further. I will just close. I think it is time for an eastern coast chicken family dinner in the U.S. Senate. It is time for this family to come together after perhaps some fried chicken--which I will be happy to provide--and sit down and work this out. We can do it. We can do it together, and I hope we will soon. This moment of truth is a moment of challenge--not just to the Democrats but to the Republicans, to the President, to all of us--to do what we were elected to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Tennessee. He is my friend. We have worked together on a lot of things, and I respect him very much. We have done some good things in areas like medical research and other very important issues. Let me say at the outset that he and I are of the same mind when it comes to the future of the U.S. Senate. We have seen better days in this Chamber. In the past year, I don't believe we have had one honest, open debate with amendments on the floor--not one. We maybe got close on a couple, but not like we remember it, when it was an open process and Members brought their best ideas to the floor and the Senate decided things, debated and decided things. We have lost that. I tell new Democratic colleagues: God, you would have loved the old Senate. It was a great place. What you see today is a shell of what it used to be. The second thing I would like to say is that I maybe have an old- fashioned view of these things, but it is one I feel very strongly about. I do not have the right to pass anything on the floor of the Senate. I have the right to offer a measure on the floor of the Senate, to make my best argument, to convince my colleagues that it is the right way to go, and to ask for a fair vote on the outcome. That is what I have a right to do as a Senator. I have seen colleagues--and I would bet the Senator from Tennessee has too--in the past who say: I want to offer my amendment, and I want it to pass. Well, good. Good luck to you. Bring it to the floor, and do your best. As intensely as I feel about this issue when it comes to Dreamers and DACA, I am not entitled to anything. All I am entitled to do is to offer to the Senate what I consider to be the best, most reasonable approach to solve the problem, and that is what I am looking for. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for the litany he produced of things that we are close to solving. That is a significant list when we consider the paucity of our performance over the last--I won't go into specifics--over a period of time. If we could do those five things that my friend mentioned, it would be significant in restoring the confidence of the American people in what this institution can be. I think there is one element here that is critical. If the Republican leader would come to the floor within the next hour and say: All right, I am going to allow those who have an opinion or a view or an amendment on the issue of Dreamers and immigration an opportunity to offer that on the floor starting tomorrow--we will start the debate on Monday or Tuesday, whenever it might be--and we will put that work product that comes from that--which would require 60 votes--put that work product into the package of five that you mentioned--caps, health insurance, clinics, the great work the Senator from Tennessee has done with Senator Murray on healthcare--then we would know we have done our job as a Senate. We send that measure to the House, understanding that we have to get these things done, and here is the Senate offering. What troubles me is that we seem to be waiting for a permission slip from others--in the Senate. When did this start? When I was over in the House, spending most of my time loathing the Senate and what it did to the great House ideas, they didn't wait on us, they led. They did what they thought was right. Now we are in a situation where we are facing this shutdown-- something that I didn't come to Congress to deal with and never hoped I would be part of. We ought to cure this and solve it as quickly as possible, and we can. There are several problems we have. Let's face it. This President, at this point, is impossible to negotiate with. It is impossible. On January 9, I sat next to this President, at his suggestion, in the Cabinet Room of the White House. He referred to me by my first name, and I was flattered, I guess, because it was only the fourth time we had ever spoken to one another. We talked about this issue involving immigration. It was a good meeting. It was a surprising meeting because it was televised. The American people got to see it. For 55 minutes, we were there, with the President leading us in a discussion. He was very clear in what he said. I recall what he said. You send me a bill, and I will sign it, he said. I will take the heat. You send me a bill, and I will sign it. He went on to say: Why is this taking so much time? We ought to do this quickly. You want a room here in the White House, he said to leaders, to sit down and write this thing? Let's get it done. So he was looking for bipartisanship, he was looking for a sense of urgency, and he was willing to accept the verdict of Congress on this. Within 48 hours, Senator Lindsey Graham and I produced exactly what he asked for--at least we thought we did--and he totally rejected it. So on January 11, Thursday, President Trump was a heck of a lot different from the January 9, Tuesday, President Trump. I just threw up my hands. After 4 months of working on a bipartisan measure, he rejects it out of hand. We can't wait for an approval stamp from the White House to do our work here. We shouldn't anymore. I heard the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, say: We need to know what President Trump wants to do on this. Please. We can't wait long enough for that to happen, and we shouldn't continue this situation--waiting on something that is not likely to ever occur. I would just appeal to my friend from Tennessee: Let's keep this conversation alive. Let's not get back to it on Monday or Tuesday; let's do something today. Let's push this forward, as we tried to last night. That, to me, is the only way to move forward. The Senator from Tennessee is in a strong position. The Republicans are in control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We are in a position that is much weaker politically. But I think if we go at this in good faith, and if we use commonsense, and if we look for common ground, we can get something done. I really believe it. I am not entitled to pass an amendment; I am entitled to offer an amendment. That is the way I see it. I am prepared to do that and ask my Republican friends--and you have been kind enough to express your support for some parts of what we have offered--to come forward. If you have a better idea, bring it to the floor. Let's do this. But let's not languish in this situation with a government shutdown and no conversation and no dialogue taking place. At this point, the President could solve this problem. He could have solved it yesterday with Senator Schumer when he invited him to the White House. Senator Schumer came back and briefed me on the conversation, and I will tell you, I was amazed. I thought, this is it. We finally found the solution with the President. Within 2 hours, President Trump walked away completely from what he had said to Senator Schumer over lunch. In 2 hours, he completely reversed his position. That is why this shutdown really has his fingerprints on it. As the sign says, this President said, and I can't imagine why, but what he said was that our country needs a good shutdown. It doesn't. There are no good shutdowns. There are those that are necessary, I guess, for a moment, but for goodness' sake, we ought to be solving problems and making this government work and moving forward. I am prepared to do that. There are so many elements that the Senator from Tennessee just described that I think are so important. I can't tell you what the CHIP program means to all of us. I hope it means the same to the other side. I will just add that most of the services in my State that are provided by CHIP are provided in community healthcare clinics, so we have to make sure we authorize those and fund them properly if we truly want to serve the children of this country. And, please, you and I are both on the Appropriations Committee; wouldn't it be great if that were the committee we remember? Wouldn't it be great? I know the Senator from Vermont behind me here is our ranking Democrat on that committee. I was always proud to be on the Appropriations Committee, but now it is just a faint glimmer in the eye of someone of what it might have been. We don't produce appropriations bills. We don't have the kinds of votes on the floor that we used to have, exciting moments with open appropriations bills where we honestly debated the goodness or the shortcomings of different programs of our government and whether to fund them. We don't do that anymore. We do it in the quiet with staff in our committee rooms instead. There is a lot that needs to be done in the Senate. Can we use this moment, this challenging moment of this shutdown, to not only put this behind us but to really move forward in restoring this institution to something we can be proud of and the American people can be proud of as well? I think we can, and I know the Senator from Tennessee could be a constructive part of it because he always has been. I stand ready to work with the Senator from Tennessee on a bipartisan basis to address this issue, and the sooner the better. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let's look at the reality of what we face at this moment in this country in this Chamber. The Republicans are in majority control of the Senate. The Republicans are in majority control of the House of Representatives. The Republicans are in control of the White House. The Republicans, through their appointees, have a pretty decisive edge when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court. In other words, when you look across the spectrum of the three branches of government, the Republicans are in control. What are they offering us? The fourth CR. Now, CR is Washington talk. It is a continuing resolution. What does it mean? It means that the Republican majority has failed in 119 days to produce a budget for the United States of America. The Republican majority in the House and Senate--with their President--has failed to come up with a blueprint for spending for this great Nation that we serve and are proud to be part of. Their fourth failure to produce a budget in this fiscal year, which began October 1, is before us now. Was it negotiated between the Republicans and Democrats? No. It was produced in the House of Representatives and with the Senate. It was passed there by the Republicans and a handful of Democrats who supported it, and it was sent over here on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Well, you say, at least we are going to keep the lights on. And that is all a continuing resolution does--keeps the lights on. It doesn't allow agencies to make important decisions that invest taxpayers' dollars wisely and save taxpayers' dollars. Last night, the Department of Defense reported to us. They are sick and tired of the continuing resolutions that they have faced for 3 years--note that I said 3 years--because we have failed, even on the Democratic side, to come up with appropriations and budgets in the past. So I am being very honest about it. If we are going to change this mentality of never producing a budget, never producing appropriations bills--kind of stumbling into the fiscal year for month after weary month--if that is the new norm around here, shame on us. And shame on the majority party, the Republicans, for saying that is the best they can do. We can do better. We need to get beyond this world of continuing resolutions, and we need to get into a world where we actually make a decision that is good for the taxpayers, as well as the security of the United States of America. The best the Republican leader in the Senate can offer us is another bandaid, another 4 weeks of temporary funding--a wasteful gesture, a wasteful exercise, and he knows it. There is more to this issue. Senator McConnell brings it up regularly. Last night he did and again today. He glories in saying that this is all about illegal immigrants. Let's be honest about what we are talking about here. We are talking about those who were protected and allowed to live in the United States legally under an Executive order of President Obama's until September 5 of last year when President Donald Trump announced he was eliminating this program. As that protection is eliminated, as their 2-year protection expires, yes, they move into illegal categories. So are they illegal technically after they have lost DACA? Yes. What caused it? President Donald Trump caused it by his announcement on September 5 that this program is finished by March 5. That is the reality. Do you know what he also told us? I am going to end this program. Now I challenge you in Congress to pass a law to replace it. So what has the Republican majority in the House and Senate done in the 4\1/2\ months since we received that challenge from President Trump? Nothing. Then I hear Senator McConnell say: We haven't even seen a written proposal from the Democrats on this. The Senator knows better. A group of us--six of us, three Democrats and three Republicans--accepted President Trump's challenge and produced a bipartisan solution. We have described it to everyone, Democrat and Republican alike. It was a good-faith effort, real compromise and pain on both sides. It is ready. It is ready to be brought to the floor of the Senate. It is ready to be passed into law. For Senator McConnell to say he doesn't know anything about it--I am sorry, but we have been very open about what is included in there. He knows it is a product of long and hard bipartisan work. I would like to address another aspect of what he has said about these so-called illegal immigrants. Late last night, after using that term, I noticed the Gallery was filled over here with young people who appeared to be, at first glance, here to watch the debate on the Dream Act, the debate on DACA. After the meeting of the Senate, I invited them into my office. There were about 40 of them. They are from all across the United States but primarily from the State of Oregon. They came all the way out here to try to see if this Senate was going to meet President Trump's challenge and produce an alternative. It turns out that most of them were protected by DACA, the Executive order that is being abolished by President Trump. One of them said to me: I am skipping my first week of classes at the University of Texas. I said: What is your major? She said: Neuroscience. I said: Don't skip too many classes. That has to be a tough thing to do, but she came here because what is at stake in this Chamber, what is at stake in this debate, will decide whether she can continue to live in the United States of America. For Senator McConnell to dismiss this issue and say that we will get around to it later is to ignore the obvious. For many of these young people, this debate, this moment, may decide their future. It may decide the future of their families. Are they worried? To say the least--half of them were crying as they came into my office. At a point when I was talking to them, I said: We are going to do everything we can to help your parents. They all broke down crying. That is what this is about. This is about a heart-wrenching issue that is before us because President Trump made a decision on September 5 to end a program that allowed these young people to go to school and to work in the United States of America. It was President Trump who challenged us to do something about it, and we have done nothing--nothing. And that is the challenge we face. To say we are in no hurry--well, we may not be as Senators and Congressmen, but these young people are in a hurry to find out whether they have a life. That is what it comes down to. There was an announcement just a few minutes ago from the House side. The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives--despite the fact that we do not have an agreement moving forward--is going to leave. They are going to leave Washington. I don't know for how long, and I don't know what they are going to do when they leave, but I would beg them: Don't turn your backs on your responsibility right here in Washington to work with us, to find a way to move forward. We have come up with a proposal. It is a short-term, last-step continuing resolution of just a few days. I have been around here for a while. If you give the Senate and House a couple of weeks, it turns into a couple of months. If we do this in a matter of 3 or 4 days to reach an agreement on these key issues--everything included in the CR that we have before us and everything that should be--I think we will roll up our sleeves, get down to work, and do it. We don't want to shut down this government. We want to solve the problems facing this government and this Nation. That means working together--something Senator McConnell is not engaged in when it comes to this CR. It is time for us as Democrats and Republicans to sit down in a room together and think about this great Nation and the frustration they have with our political system and those of us in political life. Nine out of ten--maybe even more--would say to us: For goodness' sake, will you stop your fighting? Will you stop your bickering? Will you stop your debating? Will you go into a room and act like grownups and do something together for the good of this Nation? That is what we are proposing--to sit down together for the good of this Nation and to move forward. When he was asked just a few days ago, Senator McConnell said his biggest problem was that he didn't know what President Trump wants. I can understand that. I have been in meetings with the President where he said one thing on a Tuesday and a different thing on a Thursday, and then he tweeted something entirely different the next morning. He is a moving target when it comes to the policies and direction and leadership of this administration. We need to do our job, and I hope he will be part of it. I hope the President will join us. If he will, we can solve this problem. If he stands on the sidelines, we cannot. I think we can find common ground. That is what the American people expect. We should give them nothing less. And of course we should solve the problems involving the Children's Health Insurance Program, community clinics, helping our veterans, the opioid crisis, defense spending, and a sane approach, a reasonable approach when it comes to these young people who have become illegal because of the decision by President Trump on September 5 of last year. Together, we can get this done but not if the House Republicans leave town. We need to continue to be here in Washington doing our job and making sure that we spend every waking moment serving the people who elected us. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge my friend, Mayor Bob Butler of Marion, IL. Since April 16, 1963, the people of Marion have known Bob Butler as mayor. Think about this. During Bob Butler's span as mayor, there have been 11 U.S. Presidents and 10 Illinois Governors. Mayor Butler is the second longest serving active mayor in the country and is believed to be the longest serving mayor of Illinois. That is quite an accomplishment. Prior to becoming mayor, Bob Butler served in the U.S. Army Counter Intelligence Corps after the wars in Japan and Korea. Service was in his blood, so it came as no surprise when Bob decided to run for mayor. Known for his straight-shooting, old-school style, Bob outlined his simple approach to governance during his first campaign: ``It's up to the mayor to study each problem as it arises, determine in his own mind what is best to do for all the people. I think the mayor of any town has got to stand on his own two feet and make up his mind without being dictated to by any individual or group. I think also when a man is elected mayor, the people are entitled to know where he stands. He ought to be able to tell the people. If a matter requires a `yes' or `no' answer, he should say `yes' or `no.''' Southern Illinois' newspaper of record, the Southern Illinoisan, endorsed Butler's candidacy, saying: ``Marion voters will choose Tuesday between orderly, progressive city government or a continuation of the present slap-dash regime . . . Butler, in short, offers an excellent alternative . . . He has our wholehearted support.'' Bob Butler won by 687 votes and never looked back. He won the next 13 mayoral elections in Marion. During Mayor Butler's first council meeting, an entire block on the city square caught fire. The new council took office and shortly thereafter adjourned to help fight the fire. The fire shined a light on many of Marion's problems, inadequate firefighting resources and water supply, but that was just the tip of the iceberg. Mayor Butler inherited a city in financial crisis. Marion needed more people. Why? Because more people meant more money from the State. Mayor Butler got to work and, due to his leadership, turned Marion around. Mayor Butler transformed Marion and southern Illinois through good old-fashioned hard work. Over the years, Mayor Butler's agenda helped turn Marion into a regional powerhouse along Interstate 57. During his tenure, Marion's population has grown nearly 92 percent. According to Mayor Butler, the secret to Marion's success was simply ``A strong business community and a strong city working together [that] produced great results.'' He is absolutely right. Anyone who knows Mayor Butler knows that he is an avid reader. He is on record saying that his favorite political book is a three-part novel by Rafael Sabatini, ``Scaramouche.'' It opens with this line: ``He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.'' With his 91st birthday approaching next week, I want to thank Mayor Butler for his extraordinary commitment to the people of Marion and his work to help his community and the world be just a little less mad. I wish him and his family all the best in their next chapter.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say at the outset that what we are trying to achieve is fund the military and critical agencies of our government immediately and to do it with a budget, to do it with appropriations bills. I have to use that term and remind you, yes, we used to have appropriations bills in the U.S. Senate--not anymore. We deal with continuing resolutions, we lurch from week to week, day to day, month to month, and as the Secretary of Defense has told us, we are not doing the men and women of the military any favors with this kind of approach. Make no mistake about it, the Democrats are soundly behind national security, and we want to fund them properly rather than the way they have been funded to this date. Let me address another issue that has been raised--and my name has been mentioned by my friend from Texas. It has been said on the floor tonight that there is no urgency. Where's the urgency when it comes to DACA? Where is the urgency when it comes to Dreamers? If you want to know the urgency, look into the Gallery behind me. Look at the people who have gathered here late this night, who are following every word that we are debating. Why are they here if there is no urgency? There is an urgency. There is an urgency in their lives because of the uncertainty of tomorrow--whether tomorrow will mean deportation for themselves and their families, whether they will be able to work, complete school, have a life in America. Yes, there is a real urgency, and let me tell you what we have done about that urgency. A group of us--three Democrats and three Republican Senators--sat down 4 months ago to answer President Trump's challenge to replace DACA. Was there a meeting of a committee in this Senate on the same subject? There was one public hearing, but no bill, no markup, nothing. The activity really came from and evolved from the six of us working together--three Democrats and three Republicans. We reached an agreement. It wasn't easy. Ask the Senators involved on your side of the aisle or on our side of the aisle. We have presented it to the Senate, we have defended it over the last several weeks, and I want to thank the additional four Republican Senators who have joined us in this effort to finally enact a bipartisan solution to this. So to say that we have done nothing and we have so much time--let me tell you, there is a sense of urgency here. Just this week, when the Secretary of DHS testified before the Judiciary Committee, she conceded the fact that the President does not have authority to extend this deadline of March 5, that we are going back and forth in court as to whether there will be any protection for these young people whatsoever, and she acknowledged that her Department has said that it will take them 6 months to write the regulations once we pass the law that will affect their lives and the lives of hundreds of thousands. You know how I feel about this issue. Some of you have presided over the Senate, have seen the presentations we have made over the years. I have brought 107 photographs to the floor so that people could see the urgency and need for this issue now. It is sad; it is unfortunate that those who stand on the floor tonight continue to characterize these as illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants. Children, toddlers, infants brought to the United States, who have lived their whole lives here and are simply asking for a chance to be part of our future, are being swept away as illegal immigrants. They are more than that. They are the sons and daughters of America who want to be part of our future. They are people who inspire me every day. They are folks who guarantee us that the American Dream will be alive for another generation because they are willing to work for it, to study for it, and to fight for it. This is worth our attention. We have produced this bipartisan measure. A lot of hard work went into it. We would simply ask that the Senate take up the measure that we produced or produce a better one, and the leadership has refused. That is part of the reason we find ourselves at this moment, but I want to assure you, it is an urgent matter. Their lives matter too.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I share the news that Deacon James William Meeks passed away last Christmas Eve at his home in South Holland, IL. A longtime resident of the Chicagoland area, he was 90 years old. James William Meeks was born and raised in the Mississippi Delta town of Carrolton. Before moving to Chicago, James worked as a short-order cook at a hotel in Mississippi. One day, he met a young lady by the name of Esther Mae Smith, who also worked in the hotel. They fell in love and, in 1947, married at the courthouse on their lunch break. When James and Esther migrated north to Chicago, he found work at Kentile Floors as a forklift operator--a job he would hold for the next four decades--but his true passion was an unwavering devotion to his faith. In 1957, James became a deacon at the Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church and later helped his son, Pastor James T. Meeks, get his start as a preacher at Salem Baptist Church. Deacon Meeks was a father figure to the entire community, and his powerful handshake, from years of farm and manual labor, served as a reminder to the youth at Salem Baptist that, if they were planning on hanging around street corners, getting into trouble, he would be watching. Whether it was at Salem Baptist Church or the streets of Chicago, Deacon Meeks inspired so many young people to preach and simply do good deeds. It has been said that, when you heard Deacon Meeks' sermons, ``you knew that the life that was behind the prayer, matched the words that were in the prayer.'' As a child, his son James recalled riding in the car with his family one Sunday morning. They were on their way to church, when his father noticed a woman stranded on the side of the road. Without hesitation, Deacon Meeks, in his Sunday suit, pulled over to lend a helping hand and fixed the woman's car. Grateful for his kindness, the woman offered Deacon Meeks some money. He politely declined. James and his siblings began yelling out the window, urging their father to take the money. When Deacon Meeks got back into the car, he shared a simple, but powerful message with his children: ``You don't do everything for money.'' Deacon Meeks was a man of rock-solid values. I want to offer my prayers and condolences to Deacon Meeks' wife of more than 70 years, Esther; their four children; Annie, James, Delores, William; their 10 grandchildren; 15 great grandchildren; and 1 great- great-grandchild. That is a legacy in which to be proud. I will close with this: It was said at Deacon Meeks' memorial service, ``It's lucky to have somebody who makes it hard to say goodbye.'' Well, it is hard to say goodbye to Deacon Meeks today, but I count myself lucky to have known him as a friend. Deacon James William Meeks will be missed.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Flake from Arizona and Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota, for bringing this timely issue to the floor. We are facing an attack on an American institution--an attack on our freedom of the press. Sadly, the President is making an award of some kind to what he considers to be corrupt media, but I am afraid, once again, his actions will cast a shadow over our constitutional commitment to the basic freedoms we enjoy in America. We all know why freedom of the press was included in the Bill of Rights: because the Founding Fathers--those who crafted those critical words that have led us for more than two centuries--believed there should be an accountability, accountability when it came to the government, its actions, and to public officials. That accountability sometimes is painful, as Senator Flake has acknowledged. Many of us, as Members of the Senate, House, and other political roles, really hate to receive certain phone calls and questions from members of the press, but it is part of our responsibility, as public servants, as public officials, to be accountable to the public. That is what freedom of the press is about. I think that is the part that troubles and worries and pains the President the most; that he will be held accountable for the things he has said and the things he has done. This notion of ``fake news,'' unfortunately, is a phrase which is being used, as Senator Flake noted, by despots and authoritarians around the world to try to silence critics and to silence the press in their countries. We cannot allow this regimen of ``fake news'' and ``alternative facts'' and words like those to diminish our commitment to the basic constitutional protection of freedom of the press. It is essential to the future of our democracy. Immigration On January 11, last Thursday, I was invited to a meeting at the White House to discuss the issue of immigration. Sadly, at that meeting, there were things said by the President and those who were with him on the issue which I believe constituted an attack on another basic element of American history: the history of immigration. We are a nation of immigrants. That diversity that has come to these shores from all across the world is a diversity which makes us strong. We consider our land of origin, whatever it may be, but we love the land we live in. That was what immigration has meant to us and to previous generations for so many years. Words spoken by the President at that meeting were stunning and, in some respects, disgusting to think that the President would make the comments he did. For the sake of our Congressional Record, for the Senate, and for those who are watching, I will not repeat the President's words. They have been reported in the press, but I want to go to the heart of his criticism. He was raising a basic question as to whether the United States should continue to be open to immigration from all around the world. I believe we should. Americans believe we should. We know that men and women, even of humble circumstances, who come to the United States determined to make a life, to make a future, and to help their families have made a profound difference in our country, in terms of its past and its future, and they have come from every corner of the world. Senator Lindsey Graham was at that same meeting on January 11. He spoke up when the President uttered those infamous words which have been reported, and he noted that when it came to his family, they came from one of the countries the President described, and they came with little or nothing to offer, but they wanted to be part of America. They came here and made a business, made a life, made a future, and brought to the Senate an extraordinary Member representing the State of South Carolina. Many of us can tell the same story. My mother was an immigrant to this country. She was brought here in 1911 at the age of 2 from Lithuania. Lithuania was not exactly a prosperous nation in those times. It was under the thumb of a Russian czar, and it is one of the reasons my family left. One thing my grandmother carried with her on that trip, and I still have today, was a Roman Catholic prayer book, written in the Lithuanian language, which had been banned by the Russian Government. She secreted this away in her luggage and brought it to the United States because she knew, and we know, that there is freedom of religion in this country, and no government was going to stop her from saying her prayers in her own language. That is my story. That is my family's story. That is America's story. What the President said in the White House last week did not recognize that fundamental truth; that people just like my mother and my grandmother and just like Lindsey Graham's parents came to this country not because they were engineers, Ph.D.s, or wealthy people, they came here with the desire to build a life and to build a nation, and they have done it. When we hear all this talk about merit immigration, let's have merit selection of the people who are coming to these shores--of course, there are certain experts we bring in with certain visas to fill needs in business and research, but, by and large, we bring to this country people who are desperate to be part of our future, and we also bring people who want to be part of their family. We hear this phrase, ``linked migration''; that somehow or another, if we bring one immigrant in, they are going to bring in 100, and some of them may not be desirable. What we find overwhelmingly is just the opposite is true. It is family unification. It is building the strength of a family. Isn't that fundamental to who we are as Americans? I know, in my family and many others, relatives who came in from other places really strengthened our family unit and gave us a chance to help one another have a chance to succeed. Now we face a critical moment--a critical moment on the issue of immigration. I listened to the Republican leader come to the floor today, Senator McConnell, and when he speaks of DACA and the Dreamers, he uses the words ``illegal immigration.'' Technically, I suppose it is illegal. Those we are talking about are undocumented, but we have drawn a distinction over the years as to what happened to these young people and why they should be seen differently. They were brought to the United States as infants and toddlers and children--at best, teenagers--who had no voice in whether they were coming to this country. Did they break the law by overstaying a visa or crossing the border? Well, technically, of course they did, but should they be held culpable today? Should we deport these young people or give them a chance to be part of our future? This is not some idle philosophical discussion. This is a discussion made real by this administration, the Trump administration. It was September 5, of last year, when this President announced he was going to repeal DACA--the program started by President Obama to protect these young people living in the United States. Seven hundred eighty thousand of them have enrolled, and President Trump said, as of March 5, 2018, that program will be ended. Then he turned and challenged the U.S. Congress: Pass a law. If you don't like what I have done with this Executive order, pass a law. So here we are, over 4 months later, and the question has to be asked of the Republican leaders in the House and the Senate: What have you done to answer the President's challenge? The answer, quite honestly, is precious little, if anything. The Republican leader comes to the floor today and says: There is no hurry. We can get to this later. It will not expire until March 5. What he ignores is the obvious: 15,000 protected young people lost that protection during this period since September 5--122 a day are losing that protection. Fortunately, last week, a California court stepped in and said: Stop taking away the protection of DACA from these young people. So we have a temporary stay, being challenged by the Trump administration, which protects these young people for now, but that protection could end in a court decision tomorrow. That is the reality of life for young people. Yesterday, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we asked the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security: Do you believe the President can extend his March 5 deadline for the end of DACA? She said: No; the President said he doesn't have that authority. Well, I will trust her statement and her judgment on that, but it further should put to rest this argument made by Senator McConnell that we have all the time in the world to deal with this issue. Let me tell you, on March 5--the deadline imposed by the President. As of March 5, horrible things will happen to innocent people. One thousand young people a day, protected by DACA, will lose their protection. I had one of them at the hearing yesterday. She is a young woman who has used her extraordinary skills to apply to medical school, and Loyola University Stritch College of Medicine accepted DACA- protected young people for the first time. There are 28 of them in their ranks. She wants to be a doctor. She has helped people in underserved areas throughout her young career, but we know--everyone knows--that becoming a doctor means serving a residency, working those long hours to learn what it means to face clients or patients in a clinical setting. To become a resident, you need to be employed to take that job. If this young woman, who has devoted so many years of her life to her dream of being a doctor, loses the protection of DACA, she cannot apply for residency. She is finished. There will be no further progress in her medical education. That will happen, starting on March 5, to 1,000 young people a day. So I would say to Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, there is a sense of urgency. We can't put this off. The good news is, six U.S. Senators--three of us on the Democratic side and three on the Republican side--have been doing what no other committee has done, no other Senators have done. We put together a bipartisan compromise that moves us forward on this DACA issue. It is something that took 4 months, and they weren't an easy 4 months. They were difficult. We had to debate some of the hardest issues and come to an agreement. I ended up giving ground on some things which I wish I didn't have to, and I am sure those on the Republican side feel the same way, but that is why we were sent here--weren't we?--Democrats and Republicans, to find a solution to the problems that face us, and this is a very real problem. So now the Republican leader comes to the floor and says: We don't have time to discuss this. We have to get out of here at the end of the week. Well, I disagree with him. We have enough time to do it. Take a look at this empty Senate floor and tell me we don't have enough time to take care of the DACA issue. Tell me we don't have an opportunity to come to this floor and bring the Senators here and do what we were elected to do--to debate this issue, to vote on this issue, to solve a problem in America. This empty Chamber is testimony to the fact that the Senate has done precious little for the last year and plans to do just about the same during the course of this year. I am proud to be a Member of the Senate, but I will tell you, I was prouder in the days when we actually debated measures on the floor, we ended up passing legislation to deal with America's challenges and problems, instead of what we face today--an exchange of speeches in an empty Chamber. So we have work to do. This morning, I went over to the Department of Defense and met with Secretary Mattis. I respect him. He is our Secretary of Defense and was a four-star general in the Marine Corps. The man has served his country with distinction. He talked about what is going to happen to the budget of the Department of Defense if Congress doesn't act. We told him we want to get this job done, but we also said to Secretary Mattis: There are other elements of this government, there are other issues before us that need to also be brought forward. You heard Senator Schumer from New York, the Democratic Senate leader, come to the floor and turn to Senator McConnell and say: Why is it always a take-it-or-leave-it when it comes to these measures? Why aren't we sitting down, on a bipartisan basis, to come up with a good way to move forward? It has been 119 days into this fiscal year, and we still don't have a budget for the United States of America. That is not just embarrassing, it is scandalous. To think that we have over $1 trillion that needs to be debated and spent, and we haven't been able to do it, and we are one-third through this fiscal year. The net result of that, of course, is to waste precious taxpayer dollars and the energy of our elected officials who want to be applying that energy to solving problems rather than the problems Congress creates. We can do this, and we can do it on a bipartisan basis. Senator Lindsey Graham and I, along with four of our colleagues, have a measure we are going to present to the U.S. Senate. The purpose of that measure is to make it clear we are ready to debate, we are ready to move forward, and we are ready to solve this problem that faces hundreds of thousands of young people across the United States of America. Some can call it illegal immigration, as Senator McConnell has, others have called it amnesty. Whatever they wish to call it, 80 percent of Americans believe we can solve this problem. As you walk around the Capitol and the Capitol buildings, you will see young people who may step forward to introduce themselves. Many of them have never been to Washington before. I met one yesterday who had driven for 35 hours to come here. Why was she standing in the corridors of the Dirksen Building on Capitol Hill? She is a Dreamer. She is protected by DACA. Her whole life is hanging in the balance as to whether this Congress will actually do something to solve the problem. She and others have come forward to challenge us. We should accept that challenge, and we should meet it this week. We should say to President Trump: We have met the challenge that you put forth just 8 days ago, when on Tuesday of last week you said to us: Send me a bill, and I will sign it. I will take the political heat. And don't take a lot of time to do it. We met that challenge with this bipartisan measure that we proposed, and now we challenge others on the same issue. Come forward with your proposal. Come forward with your idea. If you don't, at least give us a chance to present this bipartisan measure, which we have worked on long and hard, to solve this critical issue. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I want to say a few words about a Chicago icon--and one of the most admired journalists on television-- Joel Weisman. This Friday will be the 40th anniversary of WTTW-Channel 11's longest running show, ``Chicago Tonight: The Week in Review,'' and it will be Joel's farewell broadcast. Since 1978, Joel has beamed into Chicago's living rooms to help us all digest the news of the week. Throughout the series' four decades, Joel was there every step of the way: Joel has been with WTTW since 1973, starting as its political editor and commentator on ``The Public News Center.'' A lifelong Chicagoan and graduate of the University of Illinois and Chicago-Kent College of Law, Joel has dedicated his career to informing the people of Chicago. Every Friday night, Joel has welcomed fellow journalists to a roundtable discussion on the critical topics of the week. Oftentimes with humor, Joel has been Chicago's self-described ``reporter, editor, traffic cop, and referee.'' He just has one simple rule: The panelists have to be nonpartisan and diverse. Today, unfortunately, this is hard to find on television, but as he said in his retirement announcement, ``No one in journalism has been given the trust and editorial control of a show for that length of time.'' There is a reason he has been in that chair for 40 years. Joel Weisman has class and is a man of integrity. He insists the show represents just that. Well, I am here today to say, it absolutely does. Joel Weisman is a true newsman. Joel Weisman has had an amazing career. Prior to joining WTTW, Joel worked for the Gary Post-Tribune, the former Chicago American, Chicago Sun-Times, and was a Midwest correspondent for the Washington Post. His work earned him Emmy, Peter Lisagor, Jacob Scher, and Associated Press awards. He has been inducted into the Silver Circle of the Chicago/ Midwest chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. That is not all. Joel Weisman also has been nominated twice for the Pulitzer Prize for his investigative reporting. If you think there is nothing more Joel can fit into his incredibly busy schedule, you are wrong. In addition to being a fulltime journalist, he also runs a fulltime law practice that specializes in media talent representation. I want to congratulate Joel Weisman on his distinguished career and thank him on behalf of the city he loves for his outstanding work and service to the Chicagoland area. He loves Chicago, and Chicagoans love him. Although he is retiring, Joel is not staying out of the political conversation. He will continue his service to his community and work as an attorney, focusing on media law. I am heartened that Joel will remain a powerful voice in the community, and I wish him and his family all the best.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from South Carolina. We have worked together for years, mainly on this issue. I want to tell you that he has demonstrated extraordinary insight and extraordinary courage time and again. I know we wouldn't even be standing here in this conversation without him. Lindsey, thank you. I know some of the challenges that I have put before you made life more difficult, and I hope you understand that I always knew you wanted to come to yes, you always wanted to fix this problem. One of the things that you said that I would like to share is the passion we feel on this side of the aisle for the security of America. This morning, I was invited for a breakfast with Secretary Mattis at the Department of Defense. I was happy to vote for his confirmation. He is another patriot, a man who served as a four-star general in the Marine Corps. I respect him very much, and I want to help him. As the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I know what these dollar figures mean. It isn't just numbers on a page. We are talking about what Secretary Mattis told us this morning. A delay, another CR--the fourth CR this year--costs the Pentagon millions of dollars--millions of dollars to maintain the same spending level they had last year. That is wasteful. How many families across America say: I am going to write exactly the same checks in January 2018 that I wrote in January 2017. That is mindless, and that is where you are with a CR. We just keep repeating the same things over and over at great expense. We owe it to the Department of Defense, we owe it to the men and women of the military, and we owe it to the people we represent to keep this Nation safe. I agree with Senator Graham. We cannot ignore that there are other things that are priorities and have importance. In the nondefense area, to think that we would shortchange the Department of State--an agency of government which you have responsibility for in the Appropriations Committee--is a shortsighted effort that even Secretary Mattis would be quick to say makes no sense at all. We should be giving our Department of State the resources and people they need to make sure we are dealing at the area of diplomacy as opposed to war. That is just one example. Add the FBI. Add the Department of Homeland Security. They all need to be properly funded. We cannot run the Government of the United States of America--the strongest and biggest economy in the world, one of the most powerful nations in the world--lurching from week to week and month to month without a budget. For goodness' sake, I plead with the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate, give us something we can work on together. A good place to start this--look for bipartisanship. There are Democrats willing to sit down and work with you to solve the problems. But when we are given a ``take it or leave it'' budget proposal for 4 weeks at a time, it is a terrible way to run a country. I hope the leaders come to that same conclusion. Let me zero in on the issue that brings most of us to the floor tonight, which was addressed by Senator Graham. I have been at this for a while, a long while. My goal is to make sure that those who were brought to this country as children, who grew up in this country and, as Bob Menendez has said so forcefully and effectively, pledged allegiance to that flag every morning in the classrooms across America--I have been fighting for years to give them a chance to be part of America, the only country many of them have ever known. It has been a struggle. When I couldn't pass the Dream Act or get 60 votes in the Senate, I went to President Obama and begged him to help, and he did. He created DACA. By Presidential Executive order, he created an opportunity for ultimately 780,000 young people to step up and get protection from deportation and the right to legally work in America. It has been an amazing experience. As Senator Graham said, it is hard to pick any large population in this country and not end up with some people who would embarrass you or some bad apples, but I will tell you consistently, over and over again, these young people, these Dreamers, these young people protected by DACA, have shown us over and over again why they have earned our confidence and trust. They worked so hard to be part of this country. Those of us who were lucky enough to be born here never went through what they have gone through--learning that you are undocumented, realizing the doors are closed automatically no matter how good you are and how hard you work--and they kept at it. I want to tell you, we should be proud of them, and we should embrace them as the future of America because they bring so many talents, skills, and good values to our country. With the DACA Program in place and all the people protected, the new President came in and said: I am going to end it. On September 5 of last year, he announced that it would end as of March 5 this year, and as of October 1, they would stop renewing the DACA protection. What has happened is that 16,000 of these DACA-protected young people have fallen out of protected status. Luckily, a California court last week said: Keep protecting them until we resolve some of the issues. So they have a temporary, momentary protective order that they can turn to when it comes to this California decision, but there is no certainty of what happens next. When I hear Senator McConnell and others come to the floor and say there is no hurry, I invite them to meet some of these young people. I met a group in New York. There were about 12 of them in college, DACA- protected. They are working to get through college because they don't qualify for any program assistance because they are undocumented. As they went around the room, they said: Senator, we want to each tell you something. Five hundred days. Four hundred and twenty days. Each one of them was telling me how many days they have left of DACA protection before they were subject to deportation and could no longer legally work in America. To say there is no hurry is to overlook the obvious. These young people are torn apart. Their families are torn apart because of our lack of action. Senator Graham and I decided to do something about it, and we invited some good friends to join us. On the Democratic side, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey--we have been through this war before when we worked on comprehensive immigration reform. On the Republican side, Senator Gardner of Colorado; Senator Flake of Arizona, who is on the floor; and Senator Graham. And we worked at it for a long, long time. We had moments that looked like we were going to fall apart and never reach a conclusion, and we finally came together. Last Tuesday, a week ago, when the President invited 26 of us to the White House and made his plea that we do something, we decided to sit down and do it, and we did. In a matter of 24 to 48 hours, we reached a final agreement on this bipartisan approach to deal with this issue of DACA. That is what we presented to the President when we went to the White House last Thursday. I couldn't agree with Senator Graham more that the President of last Tuesday is the one we need again--that President who said to us that what we are doing is an act of love; that President who said to us: Send me a bill. I will sign it, and I will take the political heat; that President who agreed with us that you couldn't do everything in immigration reform in one bill but you had to divide it. He agreed with that. I agree with him. That is the way we should move forward. I hope the President listens to Senator Graham and others in his own party and steps up and helps us finish this responsibility. Let me say a word or two about another effort underway. At that meeting 8 days ago, Tuesday of last week in the White House, there was a suggestion that the leaders in the Senate and the House, both parties, should sit down and see if they can come up with an alternative. That was headed up by Kevin McCarthy of California. I like him. I don't know him well. I have not worked with him on many things. But I will tell you he is a positive person. He is trying to come to a conclusion on something that might work, and we met today in his office to talk about it. At the meeting was Senator Cornyn of Texas, who is the whip of the Republican Senators; myself; and Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip of the House of Representatives. With us were Gen. John Kelly and Secretary Nielsen of the Department of Homeland Security. We met for about an hour and a half. It was the first attempt at a substantive meeting that we had had since this group started meeting 5 days ago. In the meantime, our staff had met four or five times, but this was the first time that Senators and Congressmen had sat down across the table. Needless to say--and no surprise to all of us because we have been through this so many times--we really couldn't agree on the basics of how we were to get started here. I said to Congressman McCarthy, the Republican leader in the House: This is hard work. This is heavy lifting. This takes time. People have to be convinced and have a chance to state their points of view. We don't have that much time. We are dealing with a deadline of January 19, and that happens to be just around the corner, 2 days away. We are also dealing with a deadline of March 5, which, sadly, could be a deadline, if we fail to meet it, that could see many people's lives changed. I have continued to meet with this group, but I tell them over and over: We already have a bill here in the Senate. We have a bipartisan bill. We addressed all of the issues that the President raised when we had our meeting in the White House on Tuesday of last week. This is a starting point. In fact, I think it is a good end point for us to point at. Let me thank Senator Graham for expanding the number of Republican sponsors. I do the math in the Senate. I have said that, as the whip of the Senate, I learned all of the skills I needed for this job in the first grade--how to count to 60. That is what it takes, many times in the Senate, to move controversial issues forward. We have 49 Democratic Senators. I believe they are all prepared to vote for this compromise that we have before us, this bipartisan compromise. As of today, we have seven Republicans who have joined us in this effort. The math is simple. We have 56 Senators who are ready to move forward on this issue. It will only take four more, and I believe they are there. I have spoken to Republican Senators who have said: Maybe I cannot sponsor it, but I sure want to see it pass. I think, ultimately, if we are given a chance to vote on this measure and move it forward, we can do it on a bipartisan basis. It will be one of the few times--rare times--that it will happen around this Chamber. In doing that, we are going to solve the problem that the President challenged us with--to replace DACA. It is a good approach, the one that we put together. I don't like all of it, but that is what compromise is all about. I hope that my colleagues will join me in a bipartisan effort to make sure that before we go home this week, we move forward on this DACA issue so that we can say to these young people: We hear you; we literally feel your pain; and we want to be there to make sure you have a future in America. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for votes relative to the nominations of Michael Lawrence Brown to be a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Georgia and Walter David Counts III to be a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Texas. On vote No. 7, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on confirmation of the Brown nomination. On vote No. 8, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to invoke cloture on the Counts nomination. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)