Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate has spent a great deal of time over the last 6 or 7 months on healthcare in America. For years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Republican Party--the House and Senate--has called for repeal of the bill. Yet, when the time came, with the majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate and, of course, a Republican President, and the task was immediately before them, they faltered because they didn't have a replacement. They didn't have something to propose that was better. As a consequence, their efforts stopped short--one vote short--on the floor of the Senate several weeks ago. We still face some significant challenges. Some of those are very immediate. Before the end of September, we will face the prospect of needing to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP. This program provides health insurance coverage for more than 9 million children and pregnant women across the country--350,000 in my State. This vital program, the CHIP program, has had two decades of broad bipartisan support, and it is going to expire in 12 days. The good news is that the Finance Committee chairman, Orrin Hatch of Utah, and his ranking member, Ron Wyden of Oregon, have reached a bipartisan agreement on a 5-year reauthorization of the CHIP program. The bad news is that instead of preserving healthcare for low-income children and pregnant women, the Senate Republican leadership seems more interested in the next 12 days in calling a different issue--a different bill--altogether, the Graham-Cassidy bill, relating to health insurance across America. That bill would take health insurance coverage away from millions of Americans, including 1 million in the State of Illinois. From where I am sitting, reauthorizing the CHIP program is a priority to not only serve the 9 million children and pregnant women across our country but 350,000 in my State. There is another bill we need to reauthorize before the end of September: the funding of our Nation's community health centers. Like CHIP, funding for community health centers expires at the end of this month--in just a few days. Also like CHIP, community health centers have enjoyed decades of broad bipartisan support. We have 10,000 community health centers across our country. They serve 26 million Americans. Community health centers serve 1 out of every 10 children, 1 in 6 Americans living in rural areas, and more than 330,000 of our Nation's veterans. Illinois' 52 health center organizations receive $150 million in Federal funding in order to provide care to the 1.3 million people in 360 locations in the State of Illinois. I have been to many of these locations, and I have said in real candor and honesty that if I had a medical issue or if there were one in my family, I would enter the community health centers in my State with confidence that I and my family would receive the very best of care. They are outstanding organizations. If Congress doesn't act within 12 days, community health centers in my State and across the Nation will see their funding cut by 70 percent. That dramatic funding cut would result in 2,800 community health centers closing across America, 50,000 jobs lost, and 9 million people losing access to healthcare. Well, there is good news here as well. Because of Senators Blunt and Stabenow taking the lead, they are pushing for swift reauthorization of community health center funding. But the problem is that there is another bill--the Graham-Cassidy bill--which has captured the attention and apparently the calendar time for the Senate--at least that is the possibility we hear. So why shouldn't Congress be spending the next 12 crucial days reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program across America and making certain our community health centers don't lose the critical Federal funding they need to serve so many people? Right now, we know we face some challenges when it comes to the health insurance market in America. Approximately 6 percent of Americans--3 percent of people in my State--purchase their health insurance in the individual marketplace, with more than 50 percent of these people receiving some subsidies to help pay for costs. However, many of these people are seeing dramatic increases in premiums. We know that, and we know it is a challenge and one we need to address. Here is the good news--and it is time for some good news when it comes to healthcare. Almost from the minute that the critical vote was cast ending the repeal of ObamaCare, meetings started taking place. I can recall, as the Senate was adjourning, I looked back by the cloakroom, and there was Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patty Murray talking in the middle of the night--about 3 o'clock in the morning. I later learned that they had reached an agreement between them--a Republican, a Democrat--on the HELP Committee to start a series of hearings about what we could do as a Senate to actually strengthen the healthcare system in America. That was before our August recess. When we got back from recess, they had kept their word. I attended three or four of the Member hearings, which they held before the official public hearings a little later in the morning. These were good meetings. At the first one, I recall Senator Alexander saying 53 Senators--Democrats and Republicans--showed up for coffee and doughnuts to meet with insurance commissioners from five different States. Just a few days after that, there was another coffee-and-doughnut session, another good bipartisan turnout of Senators as we sat down with five Governors, Democrats and Republicans, who talked about health insurance. A few days later, another meeting took place where experts came in and talked about the subject. I felt there was more accomplished in those 3 hours with those outstanding witnesses from across the country than all of the time we had spent giving speeches to one another on the floor of the Senate in the previous 7 months. It was interesting. We brought in these people from different States, different political parties, and they virtually had the same thing to tell us. There were a handful of things which we could do that could make an immediate, positive impact to make the cost of health insurance a lot more predictable--not to say we are going to bring it down--I don't want to be overpromising--but to slow the rate of growth in health insurance costs as well as provide stability in the insurance market. Here are the things that came out loud and clear from these bipartisan Senate meetings. First, they told us to stop playing games with cost-sharing reduction subsidies. These are subsidies to insurance companies that take on individuals with expensive health histories. These insurance companies are given support by subsidies so that they can keep the premium costs for these individuals under control. These cost-sharing reduction subsidies help 7 million Americans afford their copayments and deductibles on their health insurance policies. The current Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to stop the payments. As a result, individual market premiums keep going up because of the uncertainty of whether the government is going to keep its promise to make these cost-reduction subsidies. I remember the commissioner from the State of South Carolina told us, I say to the Senator from Oregon, who is our ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee--he said: I am going to announce a 30-percent increase in health insurance premiums. If I knew that these cost- sharing reduction subsidies were coming, it would be 10 percent. I can eliminate 20 percent of the anticipated increase in premium costs if these subsidies come through. It is pretty clear to me, this is sound policy, on a bipartisan basis, which would have a dramatic impact in reducing the cost of premiums to many individuals. That came through loud and clear in every meeting we had with Senators Murray and Alexander. The second thing they talked about was State reinsurance. I don't understand that as well as some, but it has worked in States where the State picks up a share of the liability for health insurance between certain dollar amounts so the private insurance companies don't end up with that burden. Because of this reinsurance, they are able to keep premium costs down. The third thing is to provide States with more flexibility without undermining some really fundamental issues--without undermining, for example, the preexisting condition protection we currently have. I left those meetings feeling encouraged. After 7 months of bitter political rhetoric, which led to nothing on the floor of the Senate, we were finally sitting down, on a bipartisan basis, with Democrats and Republicans all across our country with specific suggestions which could help our healthcare system. That, to me, is the way to move forward. That, to me, is the lesson learned from much wasted time so far this year. Unfortunately, this whole effort may be derailed. Senators Cassidy and Graham have come up with a legislative alternative they want to move forward. Unfortunately, the measure they have proposed has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office nor carefully measured to find out what impact it would have on the American healthcare system, which accounts for one-sixth of the American national economy. Here is what we know about the Cassidy and Graham proposal. What they are suggesting is basically eliminating the subsidies which help individuals pay for private health insurance and bringing to a halt the Medicaid expansion which has covered millions of Americans and given them health insurance. What they say instead is something which has been said many times on the floor: We will just give all the money to the Governors, and they will figure it out. They will figure out how to save money in their States. It turns out, Governors of both political parties warn us: If you are going to give us a set amount of money as the cost of healthcare continues to go up, don't expect us to cover as many people or provide as good a coverage if we do it on a State-by-State basis. So who supports this new Cassidy-Graham approach and who opposes it? Every single medical advocacy group--the hospitals, the doctors, the nurses--all across America oppose this Cassidy-Graham approach, as well as the medical advocacy groups, because they understand their approach would allow discrimination against individuals insured based on a history of preexisting conditions--going back to the bad old days before we passed the Affordable Care Act. The Cassidy-Graham approach, which they brought to us, doesn't add up. If you take $300 billion or $400 billion out of this healthcare system, dump it into the laps of Governors across this country and say, ``Good luck. Do it on a local basis. I am sure it will all work out,'' they will quickly tell you, as they have had in the bipartisan meetings we have had, it will not work. It does not compute. It may be able to check the box from some things to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they certainly didn't replace it with anything of equal or better value. The opposite is true. That is why I think we ought to think twice. There is a mad dash now in the last 12 days to do many things. From a political viewpoint, there is a limited opportunity for this repeal effort. That 12-day period is a limited window under the Senate rules of reconciliation. It is a mistake, as far as I am concerned, for us to move toward Cassidy-Graham--concepts which have been roundly opposed in my State and across the Nation, concepts which have failed on the floor of the Senate. Let us roll up our sleeves and do three things that do make sense: Let's reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. Let's make sure those kids and their pregnant moms are going to have the basic coverage they have enjoyed for almost 20 years. Let's also reauthorize the community health centers. We know they work. We know when people have a medical home, they are less likely to let medical conditions get worse and more expensive. That, to me, is a good investment to make sure they continue. Finally, let's turn toward a real bipartisan effort, a measure which can emerge soon--I hope within days--from Senators Murray and Alexander on a bipartisan basis. I know they are still working on it. They haven't reached a final agreement on what they are doing, but I hope all of us, in both political parties, will encourage them to do the right thing. Remember when John McCain came to the floor after he had been diagnosed with the cancer he is battling now. He came here and cast a crucial vote to proceed to debate this whole issue of healthcare. Then he asked to speak for 15 minutes, and I stayed in my chair. I wanted to hear it. He reminded us of the importance of doing things on a bipartisan basis and doing them thoughtfully when it comes to something as important as healthcare. Let us keep that speech by John McCain and that lesson in mind. Let us resist this Cassidy-Graham approach, which has no support when it comes to the medical community, and instead work on the bipartisan approach from Alexander and Murray, together with the Finance Committee--which I know Senator Wyden is going to address next--so we can have a bipartisan solution. The American people sent us here to solve problems, not to create them. Cassidy-Graham creates problems. Let's find solutions which solve problems. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, each year the Department of Defense funds billions of dollars in military-relevant medical research--research that offers our servicemembers concrete treatments for the particular diseases and afflictions that impact them the most, research that offers families hope, research that improves lives, and research that saves lives. Last summer, during consideration of the fiscal year 2017 Defense Authorization Act, there was a question as to whether Congress would permit this lifesaving research to continue or whether instead we would wrap it up in so much redtape that it would basically go away. I was proud that this Senate Chamber, on a bipartisan basis, voted resoundingly to continue medical research in the Department of Defense by a vote 66 to 32. It was an important, bipartisan vote, especially in a Senate where we have a difficult time finding common ground. When it came to medical research in the Department of Defense for members of the military and their families, we said unequivocally that we are committed to it on a bipartisan basis. I was proud to lead that fight, along with Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a Republican, to protect defense medical research. Altogether, 40 of my Republican and Democratic colleagues co sponsored our effort. That vote was not just a vote for medical research, it was a vote for the men and women in the military and their families. The vote recognized that right now, we are closer than ever to finding cures for dreaded diseases like cancer; closer than ever to understanding how to delay the onset of neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's; closer than ever to developing a universal flu vaccine. That vote recognized that now is the time to be ramping up our investment in medical research, not scaling it back. The Senate spoke, but unfortunately it didn't end the debate. This year, the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act now pending on the floor of the Senate repeats last year's research- killing provisions and, for inexplicable reasons, adds two more. Just like last year, these provisions in the bill pending on the floor of the Senate would effectively end the Department of Defense medical research program. Like last year, these provisions wrapped this research in more redtape than you could possibly explain. And we face the prospect for the second year in a row of the end of this critical, lifesaving medical research. These provisions are dangerous, and by cutting medical research, they will cost lives--the lives of our military and their families. So I filed a bipartisan amendment, along with 53 additional cosponsors and my lead cosponsor, Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, to remove these provisions from this Defense authorization bill so that lifesaving research can continue. The underlying Defense authorization bill has four provisions that, if enacted, will end the DOD's research. The first provision, section 733, would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that each medical research grant awarded is ``designed to directly protect, enhance or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed Forces''--not veterans, not retirees, not the spouses of military members, not the children of military members. To make matters worse, after the Secretary makes this certification in writing to the Armed Services Committee, the Defense Department is then required to wait 90 days before awarding the grant. It is not only redtape, it is built-in delay. In my view, veterans, retirees, and spouses and children of servicemembers are all vital members of the Department of Defense's military community. They use the Department of Defense healthcare system. They deserve to be counted. When a member of the military deploys, the family deploys, and we ought to stand by all of them. The second provision, section 891, requires that medical research grant applicants meet the same accounting and pricing standards that DOD requires of procurement contracts. That sounds simple enough, doesn't it? But these are regulations that private companies have to meet to sell the Department of Defense goods and services, like weapon systems and equipment. The third provision, section 892, changes the ground rules for how to handle the technical data generated by this research--information related to clinical trials and manufacturing processes. How does this bill change it? This should sound familiar: by wiping away the existing regulations and imposing overly burdensome and unappealing regulations that would scare off research partners. I am sympathetic to what this section may be attempting to do. In the face of ever-increasing prescription drug costs, it does make sense for the Federal Government to have more rights when it comes to products and treatments developed with Federal taxpayer dollars. However, we must be more strategic about how to approach this. I look forward to working across the aisle on ways to beef up the government's role in helping to keep drug costs down, especially for products that would not have been possible without Federal investments. The fourth provision, section 893, requires the Defense Contract Audit Agency to conduct audits on each grant recipient. For those who aren't familiar with this audit agency, it is currently backlogged with tens of billions of dollars' worth of procurement contracts that it has to audit. This provision in the bill would add to this pile, requiring it to conduct an additional 800 audits per month on medical research grants--more redtape; no real reason. Taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, and the existing system does that. The grant application must show that the research is relevant to the military. No grant makes it through the first round without showing clear military relevance. If an applicant fails this test, that is the end of the story. If they clear the hurdle, then they are subjected to a long list of critical defense researchers and issue experts in the disease in question to ensure that their research proposal is worth the investment. But that is not it. Representatives from the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs also have input at that point to make sure it doesn't duplicate any existing research. These rules are in place to protect taxpayer dollars, and they work. This year's Defense authorization attempts to add redtape to the program in the name of protecting it but in reality ends it. Simply put, these provisions would strangle the Department of Defense medical research program in suffocating redtape. Don't take my word for it. The Coalition for National Security Research, representing a broad-based coalition of research universities and institutes, said: [These sections] could jeopardize funding for research activities that have broader relevance to U.S. military, including the health and wellbeing of military families and veterans, and the efficiency of the military healthcare system. We asked the Department of Defense how the new system proposed in this bill would work. Here is their analysis: This language would, in essence, eliminate military family and military retiree relevant medical research, inhibit military medical training programs, and impact future health care cost avoidance. Impacts will take place across all areas. . . . [Researchers] would most likely not want to do business with the DOD. . . . [The provisions] may create a chilling effect on potential awardees of DOD assistance agreements. A ``chilling effect'' on medical research--is that what we want to go on the record to vote for with this bill? Is that what the Senate wants? Is that what we want to say to members of the military, their families, and retirees? I don't think so. These provisions are simply put in the bill to erect roadblocks to critical, important medical research. Let's talk for a minute about the medical research funded by DOD, the real-world impact. Since fiscal year 1992, the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs has invested almost $12 billion in innovative medical research. This medical research command determines the appropriate research strategy, filling research gaps, and creates a public-private partnership between the Federal Government, private universities, and those who desperately need this research. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine, an independent organization, looked at the medical research program that I have discussed, and what did they find? ``The CDMRP has shown that it has been an efficiently managed and scientifically productive effort.'' That is a pretty solid endorsement of $12 billion worth of medical research. They found that this program ``concentrates its resources on research mechanisms that complement rather than duplicate the research approaches of major funders of medical research in the United States, such as the National Institutes of Health.'' They also found that ``the program appears to be well-run, supports high-quality research, and contributes to research progress.'' The Institute of Medicine also reviewed the program in 2016. This was their conclusion just last summer about the same program: CDMRP is a well-established medical research funding organization, covering many health conditions of concern to members of the military and veterans, their families, and the general public. . . . In general-- And this is highlighted-- the committee found CDMRP processes for reviewing and selecting applications for funding to be effective in allocating funds for each research program. This program has been closely vetted, as it should be. It is a matter of medical research critical to members of the military and their families. It is a matter of life and death. It is a matter of the integrity of spending taxpayers' dollars. It is a good program, a solid program. It has not been wrought with scandal. There is no reason for us to turn it upside down or to turn the lights out in the offices of these researchers. The Institute of Medicine had this right. We have real results to back up the way we feel about this. What areas have they embarked on with critical successful research? One of the greatest success stories of this program is advances we have made in breast cancer treatment. In 1993, the Department of Defense awarded Dr. Dennis Slamon two grants totaling $1.7 million for a tumor tissue bank to study breast cancer. He began his work several years earlier with funding from the National Cancer Institute. The DOD kicked in to help. Dr. Slamon's DOD-funded work helped to develop Herceptin, which is now FDA approved, one of the most widely used drugs to fight breast cancer. This research has not only saved the lives of countless women in the military, but it has had application far beyond the military. The same thing is true when it comes to prostate cancer and Parkinson's disease. What we found over and over is that money invested in this program for medical research is money well spent. Why, then, would we bury this program in redtape? I am happy that some 54 or 55 Senators from both sides of the aisle are going to stand with me, and I see I have other colleagues preparing to speak. I will return to speak more specifically about the programs of this agency. Is there a person in this country who believes that America is spending too much money on medical research? Well, perhaps there is, but I haven't met them. What I have found over and over is that Members of both political parties are committed to medical research. The Department of Defense does a great job with the resources given to them. Let's continue this program as a salute to our men and women in the military, their families, and our veterans. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week, we mourn the loss of Pete Domenici, a former Senate colleague, a respected and leading voice in bipartisanship, and, most of all, a friend. Pete had the distinction of being the longest serving Senator in New Mexico's history. He spent almost half a century as a public servant. Most knew Pete for his outspokenness on energy and budget issues, but I remember him best for his commitment and dedication on behalf of Americans struggling with mental illness. In 2008, two Senators--Paul Wellstone, a liberal Democrat from Minnesota, and Pete Domenici, a conservative Republican from New Mexico--came together to pass legislation that prohibited health insurance companies from treating mental health differently from physical health benefits. The Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act finally set mental health and substance abuse benefits on equal footing with other health benefits, ensuring fairness in deductibles, copayments, provider networks, and lifetime limits. Those two Senators couldn't have been more different, but they each had family members who were touched by mental illness. Pete Domenici and Paul Wellstone asked, Why should we treat illnesses of the brain any different than a cancer, diabetes, or heart disease? That shared bond brought them together. It is why they spent years fighting with insurance companies about the importance of mental health coverage and ultimately got a law passed. The Wellstone-Domenici Parity Act laid the groundwork for so much of what we fought for in the Affordable Care Act: the idea that people should have access to coverage, regardless of what their medical needs are. You see, the ACA built off this law by requiring that all individual market insurance plans cover mental health and substance abuse services as an ``essential health benefit.'' Thanks to Pete's hard work, millions of Americans no longer have to fight for mental health benefits or addiction treatment benefits, so important in the face of today's opioid crisis. Pete taught us that mental illness is exactly that--an illness--and that those who suffer from any illness deserve equal rights and access to care. Senator Domenici was also a strong advocate for immigration reform. Back in 2002, he signed on as a cosponsor of the original DREAM Act, legislation that I introduced to give a path to citizenship to talented young immigrants who grew up in the country. As the son of an Italian immigrant mother and an Italian-born father who earned citizenship after his service in WWI, Pete understood firsthand the immigrant experience. He once said, ``I understand this whole idea of a household with a father who is American and a mother who is not, but they are living, working, and getting ahead. I understand that they are just like every other family in America. There is nothing different. They have the same love, same hope, same will and same aspirations as those of us who were born here have.'' Pete didn't just talk; he put his money where his mouth was. In 2006, he voted for the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill that included the DREAM Act. It passed the Republican-controlled Senate on a strong bipartisan vote, but unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives never brought it to a vote. Senator Domenici's work in the Senate is a great example of the good that can come from bipartisanship--of what can happen when we start working together to get something done for the American public. It is my hope that we can carry on Pete's legacy of equal rights for all through bipartisan means. My condolences to the Domenici family and thank you for sharing such an earnest man with us.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to stand in support of the statement just made by my colleague from the Commonwealth of Maryland. He knows, as I know, that our responsibilities as U.S. Senators include important votes. Some of the votes we cast will blur into history, and we will be hard pressed to remember them. But certainly any vote involving sending America to war is a vote you will never forget--at least not this Senator. Many of those votes cast over the years in the House and the Senate have created sleepless nights before the vote because you understand that even under the best of circumstances, people will die as a result of your vote. Not just the enemy but even our own risk their lives and die in defense of the United States. It was 9/11/2001 when this U.S. Senate was faced with the awesome responsibility of voting to go to war. There were two votes. The first was on the invasion of Iraq. There were 23 of us--22 Democrats and 1 Republican--who voted against the authorization for the use of force and the invasion of Iraq. I continue to believe that when it comes to foreign policy, it is the most important vote that I have ever cast. Twenty three of us voted no. The second vote was on the invasion of Afghanistan and a different vote completely. We had just gone through 9/11, and 3,000 innocent Americans had been killed. The images are still in my mind--and will be until I die--of what I saw as a result of that heinous attack, that atrocious attack by terrorists on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, and, of course, what happened in the fields of Pennsylvania. So the vote came to the floor, and they basically said: When it comes to the invasion of Afghanistan, we are going after the people responsible for 9/11. I joined every other U.S. Senator of both political parties in voting yes. We had to make clear to terrorists around the world that when you strike the United States, you will pay a price. We will hunt you down, we will find you, we will bring you to justice or bring you to your end on Earth. I voted for it, and I knew it was the right thing to do. That is what I was sent here to do. Little did I realize, having cast that vote 15 or 16 years ago, that I wasn't just voting to go after the terrorists responsible for 9/11; I was voting for the longest war in the history of the United States of America, a war that continues to this day in Afghanistan. I don't think there was a single member of the Senate--either party on the floor--who would have believed that was what we were voting for. It has happened. To date we have lost almost 2,400 American lives, tens of thousands have been injured in Afghanistan, billions and billions of dollars have been spent, and there is no end in sight. Who is responsible for that? Ultimately, Congress is responsible for that. The Constitution and the people who wrote it made it clear that we have the responsibility to declare war. It is a responsibility that may have clarity in the Constitution, but it is one that we don't accept willingly in most circumstances. Most Members of the Senate will acknowledge that constitutional opportunity and authority, but they don't want to cast a vote for fear that they are going to vote an incorrect way as history will judge. Now we have a proposal by Senator Paul of Kentucky. It is one that I think should be supported by every Member of the Senate. What it says is this: Within 6 months, the authorization for the use of military force we voted for so long ago is going to be eliminated, and we, in that period of time, have to come up with a new authorization that reflects the new reality of the threat against the United States. That is our constitutional responsibility. The President, as Commander in Chief, always must step up and defend America, but when it comes to the declaration of war, that is the responsibility of Congress. I will be supporting this effort by Senator Paul. I believe it is consistent with our constitutional responsibility, and I believe it is also time for us to renew the debate as to our future in Afghanistan, a war that has claimed so many American lives, created so many casualties, and cost us so dearly. It is time for us, on behalf of the American people, to engage in that debate again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was 1 week ago when President Trump and Attorney General Sessions announced that they were going to rescind the DACA Program. This is a program created by President Obama by Executive order that allowed those who had come to the United States as children to have an opportunity to be given 2 years on a renewable basis where they would not be subject to deportation and could work. These young people are known as the Dreamers, a term that came about when I introduced the bill 16 years ago called the DREAM Act. These are young people who, frankly, are just asking for a chance, an opportunity to be part of the only country they have ever known. The laws of the United States are very tough and very strict, and they say that, if you are undocumented, in their situation, you have to leave America for 10 years and then petition to come back in. That is why I introduced the DREAM Act. So these young people who were brought to this country by their parents would have a chance. President Obama used his authority in an Executive order to allow them to apply for DACA protection. They had to pay a substantial filing fee and submit themselves to a criminal background check before they would be allowed to stay. So 780,000 young people did just that, and they are protected currently, but only for a few more months, under this DACA provision. What is going to happen to them, we don't know. The only thing that makes any sense at this point is for Congress to act, for us to do something to replace the DACA Program, which the President is going to rescind, with a law--a law that establishes clearly the requirements, as well as the rights, that will be given to these individuals under the law. That is why I have introduced the Dream Act with my cosponsor Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina. There are three other Republican cosponsors at this point, and we hope to move this forward. President Trump has said he is interested in working with us, and we are going to take him at his word. Despite rescinding DACA, I hope the President will be on our side to come up with a replacement that is fair. Also, I want to address many of the myths that have come up about DACA, as well as the Dream Act. I am going to quote an unusual source for this Senator. The source is a man named David Bier. David is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Those of us who live in this Washington environment of politics know that the Cato Institute is not a liberal think tank. It is the opposite. It is a conservative, largely Republican think tank, and Mr. Bier has published an article that has been seen in the Washington Post, in the Chicago Tribune, and in other papers entitled the ``Five myths about DACA.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post article entitled ``Five myths about DACA.''

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in this article, he spells out in some detail why some of the myths that were perpetrated by Attorney General Sessions and others last week need to be explained. One of them is that DACA somehow incentivized an increase in illegal immigration. Mr. Bier makes it clear that, when it comes down to it, you cannot arrive in the United States today and expect to be protected by DACA tomorrow. In fact, you have to have arrived in the United States at least by June 15 of 2007, more than a decade ago. So to argue that DACA was an incentive for more immigration in this country is just plain wrong. What about those kids who showed up on the borders years ago, thousands of them? Well, it turns out that they weren't eligible for DACA or the Dream Act, and it also turns out that most of them were not from Mexico but from parts of Central America, which has been devastated by crime waves and gang activity. The second myth that Mr. Bier addresses is that these DACA recipients--780,000--are taking jobs away from Americans. What he points out is that, if you start with the premise that we have a static amount of jobs in this country--what he calls a ``lump of labor fallacy''--then, it is dog-eat-dog to fight for those jobs. It turns out that we have an expanding economy, and he proves it by giving us a statistic. Between 1970 and 2017, the U.S. labor force doubled. So rather than ending up with a 50-percent unemployment rate, our U.S. employment doubled. It is an expanding and dynamic economy. The case can be made effectively that the DACA recipients are people who can add to the economy. All of them have to have the equivalent or a high school education. Many of them--large percentages of them--have college degrees and even more. So they can bring a lot to the economy. The other point or the other myth that Mr. Bier addresses is whether repealing DACA would benefit taxpayers. The point he makes is that these DACA recipients are paying taxes in the jobs they are working and, by and large, are ineligible for any Federal programs or any Federal assistance. So they are a net gain in terms of our Treasury and in terms of what they can do. For example, if you are protected by DACA today on a 2- year renewable basis, you do not qualify for a Pell grant to go to college. You don't qualify for a Federal Government loan. You have to find out how you are going to do it some other way. So these young people who are working and paying taxes are not drawing from any of the government programs that other people their age draw from. There is also this argument that DACA somehow is going to make America less safe and that there will be more criminals. Don't forget what I said earlier. To qualify for DACA, you have to submit yourself to a criminal background check. The likelihood of the next crime being committed by a DACA recipient is very narrow. The likelihood that it is committed by someone who is already an American citizen is much more likely. Finally, there is the argument that DACA is just about politics. Well, it can be about politics, unless we do our job in Congress. We are supposed to pass the laws. The President has challenged us to pass a law that will help deal with DACA. We have, I think, an awesome responsibility to do just that. I was at Loyola University's medical school on Friday and met several of the DACA students who are in medical school at Loyola. They are extraordinarily bright individuals who competed and were accepted at Loyola's medical school. Now they have a program. As they complete the 4 years of medical school at Loyola, they want to apply for residencies so they can specialize. If you are going to be a resident, you had better be prepared to work. If you don't have DACA protection, you can't legally work in the United States. Thirty-two aspiring, really bright, young medical students soon to be doctors will be stopped in their tracks if we don't replace DACA because they cannot apply for residency because they cannot legally work in America without DACA protection or something like it. Would we be better off in America if those 32 individuals did not become doctors? Of course not. We want them to become doctors. In Illinois, the State is helping to pay for their education with the promise that they will practice medicine in an underserved area of our State. I am from downstate Illinois, small-town Illinois, and I will tell you that we desperately need more doctors, not just in individual towns but at the hospitals that serve those towns. If these 32 can help us reach those goals, we are going to have better medical care across our State, but that depends on Congress and Congress meeting its responsibility. I have come to the floor of the Senate over 100 times now to tell the stories of individuals who are affected by DACA and the Dream Act, and I want to do that again today. I found that speeches are great and statistics are fine, but when you hear the stories about these individuals--who they are, what they have done, and what they aspire to do--you can understand the context of this important national debate. The person I want to introduce today in the Senate is this young lady, Cristina Velasquez. She was brought to the United States at the age of 6 from Caracas, Venezuela. She went to elementary school in Madison, WI. She wrote me a letter. Cristina wrote the following: I spent my formative childhood years in the Midwest where I learned to assimilate and learned the values this country was founded on. The salt-of-the-Earth quality of people around me and extraordinary kindness between strangers shaped my own values and attitude toward others. Growing up in Madison taught me a great deal about compassion, patience, and hard work. Cristina was an outstanding student. In high school she was a member of the National Honor Society. She was elected vice president of her class, and she managed the track team. She found time to volunteer at a local summer camp for pre-K students. She graduated from the Honors College at Miami Dade College. She is currently a student at Georgetown University, majoring in international law, institutions, and ethics. She has received the President's Volunteer Service Award 2 years in a row and is a Walsh Scholar. As a graduate of Georgetown, I can tell you nobody ever named me a Walsh Scholar. This young lady obviously is very talented. During her time at Georgetown, Cristina has interned in the House of Representatives and has piloted a college mentorship program at a local high school. In addition, she also has found time to have two part-time jobs. She has to. You see, as a person who is protected by DACA and undocumented, she doesn't qualify for government assistance to go to college--certainly not at the Federal level. So these students have to work extra hard to stay in school. She has dedicated two of her undergraduate summers and a full school year volunteering to teach in Miami and in San Francisco. In both of these cities, she worked with high-achieving, low-income students trying to get them into college. You see, Cristina's dream ultimately is to be a teacher. Last week in my office, Cristina joined 15 other students from Georgetown who came in as we were debating DACA and the Dream Act on the floor. I am sure they wanted to hear my speech on the floor but, just to make sure, we bought a dozen pizzas and the crew seemed to be pretty happy with that decision. It was an impressive group of students. Every one of them was a DACA recipient. These young people have so much potential, but they are worried. They don't know what their future will be with the decision made last week by the Trump administration to repeal DACA. Congress hasn't acted to pass the Dream Act, and we should. As for Cristina Velasquez, she will graduate from Georgetown in December. She has been accepted into Teach for America. Most of us know that organization well, but for the record, it is a national nonprofit organization that places the most talented recent college graduates in challenging school districts in urban and rural areas where they have a shortage of teachers. Teach for America has 190 teachers working in these challenging districts who are currently DACA Dreamers. They are teaching kids all across America. What does it say about us? What does it say to their students if these Teach for America Dreamers are invited to leave the country? That is exactly what Mr. Steve Bannon said on 60 Minutes on Sunday when he came out against our efforts to pass the Dream Act. He wants Cristina Velasquez gone. He thinks America is a better place if she is gone. I think he is wrong, and I think most reasonable people would agree. Cristina is going to start the program, Teach for America, next summer and teach next fall, but without DACA or the Dream Act, Cristina and 190 other Teach for America teachers will be forced to drop out and leave their students behind. Instead, many would have them deported back to countries they have never known, saying they are not part of the United States and they don't have anything to offer us. Will America be a stronger country if we deport Cristina or if she stays here to teach children in challenging districts? I think the answer is clear to any reasonable person. When we introduced the Dream Act, Senator Lindsey Graham and I--a Republican of South Carolina and a Democrat of Illinois--cosponsored the measure. We gave a press conference. Senator Graham said: The moment of reckoning is coming. Well, that moment has arrived. Republican leaders in Congress need to help us to pass the Dream Act once and for all and make it the law of the land. We need to bear responsibility for these hundreds of thousands who can make America a better country. They show with their lives that the promise of America is still very much alive. As for this Senator, I have been at this for a long time. I am going to see it to the finish line. I still have that dream of the day when President Trump signs the Dream Act into law in the Oval Office. It will be a great day, particularly for this country to recognize that these young people offer special talents and a special commitment to the future of America, which we desperately need. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when we finish this period of morning business, which is open to speeches and statements on many different topics, we will then go to the Defense authorization bill. Our process in the Senate is to authorize spending and then to appropriate the money for the actual spending. Occasionally, those two things are in sync, but many times they are not. I am afraid that what we face today is uncertainty. Senator McCain, who is the chairman of the defense authorization committee, will bring his proposal to the floor, but it is at a spending level that is not allowed by current law. The Budget Control Act will not allow Senator McCain or the Senate to spend at the level at which he wants to spend. I can make a good argument that the statutory level we are required to hold to is inadequate to our national defense. If we are honest about taking care of the problem, we not only have to pass this authorization bill, but we have to change the Budget Control Act so that we can put more money into our national defense. That debate will get started this week. It is near and dear to Senator McCain's heart. He works hard on it each year with Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island. There will be many amendments considered, I am sure, during the course of this week on Defense authorization.