Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the whole world knows that on June 12, a gunman shot and killed 49 people and wounded 53 more in the worst mass shooting in modern American history, but what they may not know is, there has been at least 10 other mass shooting incidents in America since Orlando. By mass shootings, I mean incidents where at least four people were injured or killed by gunfire. Two of those mass shootings were in Chicago, in my home State of Illinois. On June 13, five men were shot in the East Garfield Park neighborhood, and on June 18, four people were shot in the middle of the afternoon in the South Shore neighborhood. Fortunately, none of the victims in these two Chicago mass shootings were fatally wounded, but since the Orlando shooting, there have been many other gunshot victims in Chicago who have lost their lives. Last Friday, Yvonne Nelson, a city worker, was shot and killed walking out of a coffee shop on the South Side in the middle of the afternoon. The shooter was aiming for someone else in an apparent gang dispute, but Ms. Nelson was shot in the chest and killed. She was 49 years old, a member of the New Life Covenant Church, and beloved by friends and family. She was described as a beautiful person, hard- working, loving, kind. She was taken from us last Friday. Last Thursday, Denzel Thornton, who worked for the Chicago Public School System, was shot and killed outside the entrance of McNair Elementary School in the South Austin neighborhood shortly after noon. He was 25 years old, a graduate of DePaul University, and aspired to be a chef. He was a promising young man with a bright future ahead of him. He was taken from us in the middle of the day as the elementary school children looked on. This past weekend, 13 people were shot and killed in Chicago, and at least 41 others were injured by gunfire. The youngest shooting victim was only 3 years old. So far this year, over 1,700 men, women, and children have been wounded or killed by gunfire in the city of Chicago. I will keep the victims and their families and loved ones in my thoughts and prayers, but thoughts and prayers are not enough. As lawmakers, it is our responsibility to do everything in our power to protect the people we represent and to stop the killing in the neighborhoods of America. Last Friday, I visited the city of Chicago and went to several different spots to get a perspective on this gun violence and killing. I met for an hour with the superintendent of police, Eddie Johnson. He has 28 years on the Chicago police force. This is man who started as a patrolman. He understands the violence on the streets. We talked about so many different things. They have identified 1,300 who they suspect are most likely to be shooters or victims. By and large, these are men with a history of gun violence. Over the Memorial Day weekend, approximately 66 people were shot in the city of Chicago, and 80 percent of them came from the list. So we have a finite list of suspects whose names pop up more often than not when it comes to this gun violence. We talked about ways to address it, and there are many people thinking about how to deal with it in the right way, in a constitutional way but with a specific strategy to end this gun violence. The superintendent told me a story. He said: You know, after you have been a cop in Chicago for a while, you get pretty tough. There aren't many things that make you emotional, but I do remember when there was a shooting in a home and a grandmother was killed and a toddler next to her was killed. We arrested the 15-year-old. The superintendent said: I looked in his eyes, and I said: What were you thinking to spray that gun into that home and killing that grandmother and that toddler, and he said that young man looked him in the eye and said: They shouldn't have been there. They should have known better. The superintendent said: I was crushed with that comment. I talked to him about a visit I made to the juvenile facility about 6 weeks ago in Chicago to meet some of the young people who were waiting to stand trial. They had been charged with adult crimes. They are in the juvenile facility being held until the date of the trial. Some of them wait 1 year to 2 years. They take on a life in this juvenile center. There is a high school, a gym, activities, and there is also counseling. For many of these young people, this is the first time ever that someone with professional credentials sat down with them and tried to figure out what was going on in their minds and why they would commit these crimes of violence. Afterward, I asked one of the counselors: What kind of mental condition do you find in these young people who are engaged in this random violence? He said they find everything--a spectrum of mental illness, from bipolar to schizophrenia, to acute depression, and on and on and on--but he said there is one recurring finding: 92 percent of these juveniles have a recurring issue. I asked: What is it? He said that 92 percent of them have either been the victims of or witnessed violent trauma. When we think about PTSD--men and women who take on the uniform of the United States and go off to war and who either hurt themselves or witness violence that occurs on the battlefield--and they come home troubled and needing counseling and help. By and large, these folks are over the age of 18, but now we are talking about teenagers and adolescents having gone through the same or similar experience with violence. What impact does that have on the human mind of an adolescent? Are we dealing with some form of post-traumatic stress disorder that makes them so hardened and callused that they don't even appreciate the violence of their own lives and their own acts? I think that is a very real concern. Let me quickly interject that struggling with mental illness does not mean you are going to be a violent criminal at all. It is more likely that you are going to be the victim of a crime with your mental illness or mental condition, but we have to take an honest look at this aspect of what we are dealing with when it comes to violence. Friday night, I went to visit a friend--a controversial friend, to some a radical Catholic priest in Chicago but from where I am standing, the man who has given his life to a neighborhood who desperately needs it. His name is Mike Pfleger, and he is a Catholic priest at St. Sabina in Chicago. He had a peace march on Friday night. Father Mike brought out 400 people--300 African American and 100 White and Hispanic. We had a rally and at that rally mothers stood up and read the names of those under the age of 20 who have been killed this year in the city of Chicago. They read 150 names ranging from 20 years of age to zero, babies who were shot and killed. There were a lot of tears that night over the losses, and a reminder that the statistics we read every single day in a newspaper are real human lives causing real human pain and suffering to the families who survive. Then, Father Mike rallied everybody and took them out on a march through the neighborhood there, trying to reclaim one of the toughest, most challenging areas in the city of Chicago. So what are we going to do about it--the U.S. Senate right here in Washington, DC? Last night, it was a disappointment. Many of us took to the floor to join Senator Murphy last week in his filibuster. He was the leader, and I give him the credit for his steely determination to stand here--literally, stand here for, I believe, 15 hours in a filibuster--to force the votes we had last night. Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, agreed to have those votes, and after they were finished, all four amendments were defeated. I am sure many people across the country said: What a waste of time that the Senate would acknowledge the problem, yet not find a solution to move forward. Well, I would add quickly that we haven't given up and we shouldn't. Senator Susan Collins of Maine is working on an amendment right now relative to the question of whether a suspected terrorist should be able to buy firearms in America. I think that is a pretty clear question and answer. Most Americans, 90 percent, say for goodness' sake, stop suspected terrorists from getting their hands on weapons. Yet the Senate defeated Senator Feinstein's effort last night to do just that. I voted for it, but it didn't get the 60 votes needed. Senator Collins has picked up the banner, and she is trying to put together a bipartisan measure. We haven't seen it in its entirety, but I encourage her, and I have tried by working with her to plug in some of the gaps and answer some of the questions about her approach. I hope she is successful, and I hope a bipartisan measure emerges from the Senate and puts pressure on the House of Representatives. There is absolutely no excuse for us not doing everything in our power to keep semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of suspected terrorists, convicted felons, and those who suffer from serious mental instability. How deadly are these weapons? There is something called Snapchat, which I am not an expert on by any means, but it is a video that lasts about 10 seconds. One of the victims at Pulse nightclub in Orlando turned on her Snapchat video as the firing started, and in the span of 9 seconds, you can count 17 rounds that were fired into the crowd, one of which killed the woman who was taking the video. That is the kind of weapon this crazed man was able to buy and take into a nightclub and kill 49 innocent people and injure more than 50. Why would we make that easy for someone who is a suspected terrorist? Does that really reflect what we feel in America? I don't think so. Ninety percent of Americans think we should do just the opposite and stop these suspected terrorists from having easy access. There was an amendment offered yesterday by Senator Cornyn of Texas, supported by the National Rifle Association. It did not pass. I voted against it. It was not a valid approach to dealing with this issue because Senator Cornyn required, if a suspected terrorist was going to buy a firearm, that the burden was on the U.S. Government to go to court if they challenged their being on the terrorist list. The burden was on the government, within 72 hours, to come up with a lawsuit, a criminal action, to stop the person from buying a firearm. If the same person wanted to get on an airplane in the State of Texas and was on a no-fly list, they wouldn't get on the airplane. It wouldn't be a question of the government going to court to prove it. For the safety of the other passengers, we would keep the suspected terrorist off the airplane. Why not when it comes to semi-automatic weapons? Shouldn't the burden at least be in favor of security and safety for the people of the United States? That is still an issue for us to resolve. Is Congress doing all it can to stop the daily toll of gun violence and the involvement of guns with suspected terrorists? Not even close. So many shootings are preventable. They never would have happened if our laws did a better job keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. But too many Members of Congress are too afraid to stand up to the gun lobby. They are afraid to vote for commonsense reforms, supported by 90 percent of the American people, for fear that the NRA will come after them in the next election. Remember, the gun lobby fights laws that make it harder for them to sell guns. First and foremost, they are not constitutional scholars. They are sellers of firearms, and they want to sell increasingly large volumes of their product so they make more profits. The National Rifle Association and gun lobby groups are constantly working to weaken laws on the books and prevent any new laws that might prevent gun sales. As a result, we have a ludicrous set of loopholes in our laws that allows criminals, the mentally ill, and even suspected terrorists to buy guns. We can't let this continue. As lawmakers, we have a responsibility to protect Americans from gun violence. After last night's votes, it is clear we haven't done our job. Last week, the American Medical Association declared in an official statement that gun violence in America is ``a public health crisis requiring a comprehensive public health response and solution.'' This was the first such declaration that has been made by our Nation's largest medical association, and I commend the AMA for their leadership. The numbers behind their decision are staggering. Every year, almost 32,000 Americans are killed with guns. On an average day in America, 297 Americans are shot, and 91 of those shootings are fatal. Communities across the Nation are affected by this violence. In cities like Chicago, the daily toll of these shootings is devastating. Last week, when I joined Senator Murphy and almost 40 other Democratic colleagues, we spoke out or tried to speak out to get the Senate to debate this issue--not just a quick driveby vote of four amendments, take it or leave it, but a meaningful debate with real alternatives brought to the floor. The filibuster lasted 15 hours and caught the attention of the Nation. Having been in this business for a while, I can tell whether our activities here are even noticed. They were. That filibuster was noticed. People came up to me and said: Thank goodness you are finally going to say something, do something, and vote on this issue of ending gun violence. Well, words are not enough, and the votes last night are not enough. We need to start with commonsense reform supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Keeping firearms out of the hands of suspected terrorists shouldn't even be debated; it is so obvious. We should prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns and make sure an FBI criminal background check is conducted every time a gun is sold. There is no excuse for what is going on now in Northern Indiana. Gun shows take place there regularly. Guns are sold in volume out of those gun shows with no background checks on the buyers. So the gangbangers of Chicago and the others head over to Northern Indiana--it is just across the border--fill up their trunks with guns and bring them into the city of Chicago. The police department in the city of Chicago has confiscated one crime gun per hour for every day this year, and we still have a huge backlog of guns that are floating through the community in the hands of those who have no business owning or using a gun. The Chicago Police Department is trying to keep up with this wave of firearms flooding our city. They have confiscated more guns than the cities of New York and Los Angeles combined, and they still can't keep up with it. There is no excuse for the gun show loophole. We should have serious, meaningful background checks of everyone purchasing firearms. The conscientious, self-respecting gun owners of America agree with this. They went through a background check to buy their guns. They think people should do that as well to avoid selling guns to the wrong people. We must never forget our obligation to do everything we can to keep America safe. Our first obligation is to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and insure domestic tranquility in the United States. If that is our obligation, there is much more that needs to be done--keeping America safe from gun violence. Thousands of Americans are shot and killed each year in shootings that could have been prevented. There are steps we can take that are consistent with our Constitution. With our tradition of supporting hunting, sports shooting, guns for self-defense, we can still take meaningful steps to avoid tragic death, and we shouldn't be afraid to do that. I am not going to quit on this issue, and many of my colleagues will not either. I ask the American people, don't quit and don't get discouraged. Keep speaking out for commonsense reforms as the American Medical Association did last week. When people ask me what they can do, I say: In our democratic form of government, it is very basic. It is called an election. If this issue of gun safety means something to you, ask that Member of Congress or the congressional candidate, that Senator or the Senatorial candidate, where they stand. If it is important enough, make your vote follow the answer. Join us and stand together. We can beat back the gun lobby and start saving lives and protecting the innocent across America. We can do this, and we must. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have taken the floor many times to call to the attention of the Senate abuses by for-profit colleges, an industry that enrolls 10 percent of all college students, receives 20 percent of all Federal aid to education, and accounts for 40 percent of all student loan defaults. That is 10 percent of the students and 40 percent of the student loan defaults. I have spoken about specific companies involved in this industry--for-profit colleges and universities--including Corinthian, the University of Phoenix, DeVry, ITT Tech, Westwood, and Ashford. It is a long list. I have spoken about Congress's responsibility and the responsibility of the Department of Education to reform higher education laws and be aggressive in overseeing these companies. Fortunately, things are starting to change at the Department of Education. Today, I wish to speak about the accreditors and one in particular-- the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, or ACICS. Accreditors are, according to the Department of Education, responsible for ensuring that education provided by institutions meet acceptable levels of quality. In that role, they are, frankly, the gatekeepers of Federal dollars that flow to these colleges and universities. Without accreditation, the schools can't receive the money through the students for Pell grants and Federal loans. But, by law, the Department of Education decides which accrediting agencies are ``reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education and the higher education programs they accredit.'' In order to be a gatekeeper of Federal educational student aid funds like loans and grants, these accrediting agencies must be approved by the Department of Education. The Department performs periodic reviews of federally recognized accrediting agencies to ensure that they are still ``reliable authorities.'' Here is where ACICS comes in. This outfit is currently undergoing one of those regular reviews by the Department and the Department's advisory board. It is a group called NACIQI, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity and they will hold a hearing on ACICS this Thursday. Last week, in the first part of this review process, the Department of Education staff made its initial recommendation to NACIQI to revoke the recognition of ACICS, an accrediting agency responsible for about 25 percent of all for-profit colleges and universities. This is the right decision. I commend the Department. I hope that NACIQI and ultimately the Secretary of Education, Mr. King, will follow the recommendation. Last week, I joined Senators Blumenthal, Murray, Brown, and Warren in writing to NACIQI to express support for their recommendation. For too long, this accrediting agency has acted as a rubberstamp for some of the worst for-profit colleges in America. Let's take one example to start with: Corinthian. Some will remember this company. It lied to the Federal Government and to the students who went to school there about its job placement rates. Listen to this. They used a scheme where they paid employers to hire recent graduates of Corinthian in temporary jobs so that Corinthian could report to the Federal Government that their graduates got employment. They were caught. The fraud was systemic at Corinthian and ultimately resulted in its bankruptcy. They were defrauding the government and, even worse, they were defrauding these students and their parents. I wrote to the Department of Education asking them to look into these allegations of fraud about Corinthian in December of 2013. That same day I wrote to Dr. Albert Gray. He was the CEO of ACICS, which was the agency which accredited Corinthian. That was the agency that said to the Federal Government: This is a real college; you should let Federal funds flow to this college. So I wrote to Dr. Gray and I said: What are you doing as an accrediting agency to hold Corinthian accountable and to ensure that they do not continue their fraudulent practices? I received a response from Dr. Gray. His letter said the allegations were ``a source of great concern'' and that the council that he administered would review information submitted by Corinthian and ``make a determination of what actions to take regarding additional inquiries, compliance hearings or more serious sanctions.'' This so-called review of Corinthian by ACICS continued for more than a year, even as States like California, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin and Federal agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed suit against Corinthian for their corrupt practices. Meanwhile, their accrediting agency was ``really looking into this''--really looking hard. As the evidence of Corinthian's fraud and abuse mounted, ACICS--this accrediting agency--continued its wishy-washy ``monitoring'' that never led to anything. In fact, up until the date that Corinthian Colleges declared bankruptcy in May of 2015, they were still fully accredited by this ACICS accrediting agency. That is disgraceful. But it wasn't disgraceful to ACICS. In response to an effort by Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut in a 2015 Senate HELP Committee hearing to get Dr. Gray to admit that ACICS made a mistake by continuing to accredit Corinthian, Dr. Gray said: I will be the first to admit that accreditors like any other organization make mistakes. Corinthian was not one of those mistakes. Incredible--here is a group that has defrauded students, defrauded the Federal Government, is being sued by at least three States and other Federal agencies, had declared bankruptcy, and the accrediting agency was still standing firmly behind it. Is this an organization that we can truly trust as taxpayers to be a reliable authority as to the quality of education? This is the gatekeeper--this agency, this accrediting agency--the gatekeeper for millions and sometimes billions of dollars to flow out of the Treasury from taxpayers through students and their families to lots of CEOs at for-profit colleges that are doing quite well, thank you. History tells us we can't trust ACICS. Corinthian isn't the only embarrassment on the ACICS resume. According to the Center for American Progress, more than half of the $5.7 billion in Federal student aid awarded to ACICS-accredited schools in the past 3 years went to institutions facing State and Federal investigations or lawsuits. Twenty percent of the students at these for-profit schools accredited by this discredited agency defaulted on their Federal student loans. Does this sound like an organization that is a reliable authority when it comes to quality education schools provide? In my home State of Illinois, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who has been a real leader on this subject, settled a lawsuit last year against the notorious Westwood College. Westwood's practices were not all that different from Corinthian--lying to students about job prospects. I remember meeting a young girl in Chicago. She had been smitten by all of these criminal investigation shows on television. So she signed up at Westwood, and she signed up to take courses in criminal justice. It took her 5 years to finish, to get her so-called degree from Westwood College in Chicago. Do you know what she found afterwards? Not a single law enforcement agency would even recognize her diploma. She spent 5 years and, even worse, she went deeply in debt--almost $90,000 in debt--for a worthless diploma from Westwood College. She moved back into her parents' home, living in the basement, and her dad came out of retirement to try to earn some money to help pay off the student loans at this worthless Westwood school. Guess who accredited Westwood College. ACICS, the same agency. In fact, in the course of their investigation, the attorney general's office found that ACICS was not annually verifying even a sample of job placements reported by Westwood and other institutions they accredited. There are so many other examples of negligence by this accrediting agency. That is why 13 State attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Illinois, have written to the Department of Education asking them to revoke ACICS' recognition. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the attorneys general be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, ACICS has shown time and again that it is not a reliable authority when it comes to the quality of an education. It is not a responsible steward of taxpayers' dollars. Follow the money in this case. Think of schools like Corinthian that took billions of dollars out of the Federal Treasury through loans that are assigned to students and paid into Corinthian so they can maintain their operations and pay handsome salaries to their CEO. Now they go bankrupt, and at that point the students of Corinthian have a choice. They can keep their worthless semester hours from Corinthian and keep their debt or they can walk away from both. Well, many of them choose to walk away. When they walk away, they have wasted years of their lives, but even more important, taxpayers have just taken a beating. These are corrupt capitalist ventures that rely, for 85 to 95 percent of their revenue, directly on the Federal Government. These are not free market entities. These are not private corporations. It is crony capitalism at its worst. So, today, I want to commend the Department of Education for making its recommendations to NACIQI to withdraw ACICS' federal approval. I hope this is the beginning of the end for this awful organization that has been complicit in defrauding students and the fleecing of taxpayers by major for-profit education companies for way too long. I encourage the Department to continue to remain steadfast in its current position and to ensure that the students and institutions that ACICS currently accredits are well informed that this process is under way. Finally, I will say that ridding our higher education system of ACICS is a good first step, but more needs to be done to reform it. In the coming weeks, I will be introducing an accreditation reform bill with several of my colleagues, and I hope this issue will be front and center during the Senate's consideration of a Higher Education Act reauthorization in the next Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was 4 years ago that President Barack Obama announced a new program through an Executive Action. It was called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. This was an action by the President which I had asked him to consider. I had written a letter with Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, and later with another 21 Senators, asking President Obama to consider the creation of this program because many of us believed that it was the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. It was 15 years ago that I introduced the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was really a response to a constituent case in my home State of Illinois. A young woman, Korean, had been brought to this country at the age of 2, came in on a visitor's visa, and when the visa expired, she and her mother and the rest of the family stayed. The papers were filed for everyone in the family but her. Now she was here in the United States, undocumented and illegal at the age of about 18. She wanted to go on to college. She had a promising music career ahead of her. But under American law as written--and still written--it was very clear that she didn't belong in the United States and that she had to leave for 10 years and petition to come back. It seemed fundamentally unfair that a young person brought in at the age of 2 would face that sort of onerous responsibility and have to leave America, so I introduced the DREAM Act. If you were brought here under the age of 16, finished high school, had no serious criminal record, and you were prepared to go to college, enlist in the military, we would put you on the path to citizenship. It was that simple. That was 15 years ago. That measure has been passed in the House, it has been passed in the Senate, but it has never passed in both Chambers in the same year, so it is still a bill waiting to become law. Yet there are 2.5 to 3 million young people who could qualify under the DREAM Act. So we wrote to President Obama and said ``Could you give these young people some protection from deportation if they were brought here under the conditions of the DREAM Act,'' and 4 years ago he said yes. He created the DACA Program. The signup was to start in August of that same year, 4 years ago, and I joined with Congressman Luis Gutierrez in offering a signup day at Navy Pier in Chicago. We had volunteer immigration lawyers come in to help these young people fill out their forms so they could qualify to stay in the United States for a few years, not be deported, and pay their fee and be here and have a future. We didn't know if 200 would show. We were worried when we heard it might be 300. In the end, there were thousands who came signing up. Many of them waited in line all night with their parents. This was their first chance to stay in America legally. It was an amazing day, one of the most rewarding days of my public career, to see these young people so anxious to be part of America's future to sign up under this program. That was 4 years ago that President Obama created it. He thought--and I think wisely--that if these young people are a part of America's future, what about their parents? What if in the same household there is a father or mother undocumented? If they have no serious criminal issues, if they are prepared to pay the fee, if they will pay their taxes, if they will sign up with the government, shouldn't they be allowed to stay in America at least on a temporary, renewable basis? That led to the DAPA Program--DACA for the children, DAPA for the parents, created by Executive order by the President. Well, that Executive order has been challenged in Court, across the street in the Supreme Court. In a few weeks, I expect it will be resolved, and I believe the President's position will be sustained. He has said it is his Executive responsibility to decide priorities in deportation. He wants to deport felons, not families, and he wants to make sure young people have a chance. The President is doing what every other President has done in both political parties. He has been challenged by Republican Governors in a handful of States, and those challenges have suggested that these young people and their parents should be deported. In fact, there is a Presidential candidate on the Republican side, the presumptive nominee, Mr. Trump, who has called for the deportation of these people--the deportation of people whom you are going to meet every single day. They are your neighbors. They are the people who wait on you in the store. They may be working in a nursing home caring for your parent. They might be sitting next to you in church. The Trump position--and those of the more radical wing of the Republican Party--is that they should be asked to leave America and deported. To me, that is unwise and unfair. These people should be given a chance to earn their way to legalization and citizenship, to pay their taxes, pay their fees, go through a background check to make sure they are no threat to our country, and be allowed to continue and stay and live in the United States. Well, the challenges to DACA, the program for the original DREAMers, have reached the point where one judge in Texas, Andrew Hanen, a district court judge, hearing the case challenging DACA, ordered the Justice Department to turn over the details on 108,000 of these DREAMers who received 3-year DACA permits, including their contact information. Judge Hanen indicated this information could be provided to the Republican Governors who filed the lawsuit. DREAMers are understandably very nervous about this personal information being turned over to Republican officials who made clear they want to deport these young people back to countries where they haven't lived since they were children. Thankfully, Judge Hanen's order to turn over this information has been put on hold while we await the Supreme Court's decision. Even if the Supreme Court upholds President Obama's actions in creating DACA and DAPA, consider the possibility of Donald Trump as the next President. Mr. Trump has referred to Hispanic immigrants in the most offensive terms. He has called them ``killers'' and ``rapists.'' Mr. Trump has pledged that if he is elected President, he will eliminate DACA and DAPA and deport the 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in this country. Over the years, I have come to the floor to tell the individual stories of these DREAMers, the young immigrant students who grew up in this country. I want to put a face on the people Donald Trump would deport. I want people who are following this debate to meet the young people who they believe have no right to be in the United States and have no future in this country and should be asked to leave--in fact, forced to leave. I want to show America who these people are. Let's not talk about these undocumented people. Let's talk about the individual who is involved and the families who are involved. This photo is Lisette Diaz. Lisette was brought to America when she was 6 years old from Chile. She grew up in Long Island, NY, and was a pretty good student--in fact, excellent. In high school, she won the AP Scholar with Distinction Award and was a member of the National Honor Society. She made the high honor roll because she had an overall average grade above 95 percent. I wish I could say the same for my high school career. Lisette was involved in extracurricular activities, including soccer, the literary magazine, and the dance team. Here is what she said about growing up in Long Island, NY: I knew that being undocumented made me different from my [high school] classmates. But I couldn't help but feel like I belonged here. I recited the pledge of allegiance every day in school. I knew U.S. history better than Chilean history. I watched American television. The vast majority of my friends were American. I just really felt American. Lisette went on to attend Harvard University, where she received numerous awards and participated in many extracurricular activities. She volunteered at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, where she worked as an interpreter. Of course, because of her immigration status, Lisette wasn't eligible for any Federal financial assistance for college. Thanks to the DACA Program, which we are commemorating today, she has been able to work as a student supervisor at Harvard Kennedy School Library to help support herself and put herself through school. Just last month, Lisette graduated from Harvard with honors. Her dream--to become a lawyer and to work in public service. Lisette Diaz is one story. One of the 730,000 who have successfully applied for this deferred action under President Obama's Executive order. Lisette is one of these undocumented people Donald Trump would deport and send away from America. Mr. Trump and those who happen to be endorsing him don't have any use for young people like Lisette Diaz. They believe they should leave. They add nothing to this country, in their estimation. They are just wrong. Both Donald Trump and other Republicans have made their agenda clear. They want to shut down DACA and DAPA and deport hundreds of thousands of DREAMers and the parents of American children who may be undocumented. If they have their way, Lisette will be deported back to Chile, a country where she hasn't lived since she was 6 years old. Will America be a stronger country without her? Will we be a better country if someone of her extraordinary talent is gone? Will it make us any safer, any better, if she is deported, as Donald Trump has called for? The answer to most rational people is very clear. I am hopeful the Supreme Court will uphold the President's immigration action. Then I hope the Republicans in Congress will reject Donald Trump's bigoted rhetoric and work with us to pass comprehensive reform immigration and fix our broken immigration system once and for all. There was a time, and it wasn't that long ago, when we passed comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. Senate. Fourteen Republicans joined with the Democrats to make this bipartisan measure at least a vehicle for us to finally address immigration reform in America. It was one of the better days in my service in the U.S. Senate. What happened to that bill after it passed with a bipartisan majority? It went to the House of Representatives, where it languished and died. In 3 years, not a single piece of legislation has been brought forward on the issue of immigration reform. Everyone concedes our immigration system is broken. We know we have undocumented people in this country. Those who are dangerous should be deported immediately; those who are not should be given a chance. That is what the bill said--a chance to file their filing fee, to go through a criminal background check, to pay their taxes, to register with the government, and go to the back of the line and wait, many times waiting for 10 or 15 years for that chance to finally become a citizen of this country. That is what our bill said. I think it is fair, but the House of Representatives, under Republican leadership, would not bring it up. Sadly, this Presidential campaign has shown that many in the Republican Party are not only opposed to that legislation, they are opposed to the concept of immigration. They are opposed to the notion that people can come to this country and make a difference. Of the Fortune 500 companies in this country, the biggest employers, the ones that have had the most impact on our economy--a study found that 90 were started by immigrants to the United States, including some of the biggest and the most important. This is a nation of immigrants. I have said before, and I will again, I am proud to stand here as a first-generation American. My mother was an immigrant to this country. Thank goodness my grandparents had the courage to get up and leave Lithuania and come to the United States of America. Because of that, I stand here today. That is my story. That is my family's story. It is America's story, and those who reject that history of this country and that heritage of this country are rejecting our birthright and our identity as the United States of America. This campaign by Donald Trump against immigrants--building walls and all the hateful things he said--is going to be remembered by a lot of people for a long time. It is going to be transformational as people identify where they think America's future will be. I don't believe it is going to be part of the hatred and fear that is being peddled by Mr. Trump and others who support him. We are a hopeful, positive nation. When we come together, our diversity is our strength. It is our unity. It is what distinguishes us in the world. Today, on the fourth anniversary of the President's Executive order for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, I thank the President again for his leadership. I hope the Supreme Court decision, in a few weeks, will chart a path for us to open this so we can start moving through the President's leadership toward a goal which we started in the Senate and unfortunately which died in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Connecticut will yield for a question--first, let me say at the outset I thank him for his leadership. I am happy to join with this willful band who feels as he does; that this is an issue long overdue and that the American people have asked us over and over again: When is Congress going to do something about these mass shootings and the carnage which has taken place? I would like to ask a specific question, though, about an element here. We have talked about terrorism, those who may be on a terrorism watch list or some version of it, which Senator Feinstein will address in her amendment, but there is a second part to this which is equally, if not more, important, from my perspective. We define mass murder as those that involve more than four victims, but many of us are living and representing communities where there is massive murder taking place over long periods of time. Maybe not so many deaths in one particular incident but over a long period of time. Yesterday, our colleague from New Jersey eloquently explained to us, in our private caucus luncheon, about the carnage in his hometown that has taken place in New Jersey for a long period of time. My question to the Senator from Connecticut goes to a city which I am honored to represent, the city of Chicago. There were 488 homicides in Chicago in 2015. The vast majority of those were shootings. Chicago's 488 murders were the highest total number of any U.S. city last year. In New York, there were only--only--339 in comparison, and in Los Angeles, 280, cities much larger than Chicago with much smaller numbers of homicides. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has gone to the areas of Chicago where we have the most intense gunfire and killings taking place on a regular basis. Here is what they told me in 2015: Forty percent of the crime guns confiscated after these homicides and killings came from gun shows in Northern Indiana, just across the border from Chicago. The reason I raise this question is, I believe the second part of this suggested approach--terrorists, the loophole, closing that once and for all, and, secondly, closing the loopholes when it comes to background checks--would include and envision putting an end to what we see happening in Chicago, where in the most dangerous neighborhoods 40 percent of these crime guns are crammed into the trunks of cars at gun shows in Northern Indiana, with no background checks. Then, the people who buy them head for the city, to the streets of Chicago, to sell them, usually to teenagers who then spray their bullets at night in gang warfare and other activity. My question to the Senator from Connecticut--there are so many other aspects we need to address--straw purchasing is one, assault weapons is another--but what the Senator is trying to focus on is not just the horrible tragedy that occurred in Orlando but to really expand our reach in terms of addressing new legislation when it comes to closing the loopholes in the law--loopholes which allow gun show sales without background checks and sales over the Internet without background checks. I would ask the Senator from Connecticut the rationale behind including that provision.

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

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy. You have been on the floor for a little over 3 hours in the process of raising an important issue about gun violence in America. I think it is important for us from time to time to remind those who might be just joining this conversation why we are here. You are certainly a leader in this, as are Senator Blumenthal, Senator Booker, and so many others, because we have each in our own ways been touched by gun violence--the terrible tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook in Connecticut, the tragedies we see every weekend and every day in the city of Chicago, in Newark, and all across the United States. I thank the Senator for bringing this to our attention. Certainly, it is Orlando that our attention is focused on these days. As I understood your earlier statement, you came to the floor because there was no indication from the Republican leadership that we will even have a debate on the issue of guns, terrorists, and keeping America safe. Senator Murphy came to the floor saying that he would hold the floor in the hopes that we can move this to the point where there is an actual debate in the Senate. That would be historic--a real debate in the Senate about an issue that really means something. In Orlando, we found what really means something with these grieving families of 49 victims and 53 more who were seriously injured. I want to make sure there is clarity as to what we are trying to seek with this group gathering in terms of the two proposals, the two amendments we are seeking. I ask the Senator to clarify. One relates to whether someone who is suspected of being a terrorist can buy a weapon, such as an assault weapon, which literally killed 49 people in that nightclub in Orlando and could have killed many more--more than 50 were injured. So if we suspect that a person is a terrorist and a threat to the United States, can we slow them down or stop them from purchasing a military-style weapon? I think the Senator from Connecticut was very prescient in noting that we think of terrorists and bombs, terrorists and airplanes, not with automatic weapons and semiautomatic weapons. These terrorists have the capacity to kill dozens of people, if not more. So the first question is, What can we do to stop those suspected of terrorism from buying assault weapons and threatening us? The second question is, If we cannot stop them through the ordinary process of going to a gun store, how are we going to stop them if they decide to buy a gun on the Internet or to buy a gun at a gun show where there is no background check? I understand the Senator from Connecticut has suggested we need to close the loopholes so that the roughly 40 percent of firearms sold without a background check in the United States is reduced dramatically and so that we know who is buying a gun and we can guns out of the hands of those who misuse them. So if the Senator would state with clarity what our goal and objective is in this now 3\1/2\-hour debate. I credit him with leading it, but I ask him to state with clarity--a question from me--what is our purpose, what is our goal and the reason we have taken the floor?

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a question without yielding the floor, I know the answer to this, but I want to ask this question for the record. We have had votes on both of those measures. After San Bernadino, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California came forward and asked the Senate to vote on the simple proposition that if someone's name appears on a terrorist watch list, they would not able to buy firearms, and her effort failed. Similarly, a bipartisan measure by Senators Manchin and Toomey to close the loopholes so that there will be background checks failed as well. I would ask the Senator from Connecticut--and I know his response-- why would we revisit two issues that have already been voted on in the Senate?

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for one more question.

Mr. DURBIN. The CJS bill, incidentally, is a bill that includes the Department of Justice appropriations. We are raising this issue on a bill which has real relevance to the question of our national security and law enforcement in keeping America safe. I would ask the Senator from Connecticut--we think of the tragedy that occurred in your State with those 20 beautiful children who were killed in their classroom at Sandy Hook. We think of what happened in San Bernardino and what has happened across America and now most recently in Orlando. But the point I tried to make earlier was that those are mass murders--more than four people killed in each instance-- but for many of us, the urban violence that every day, every weekend is claiming even more lives should also be our concern. I mentioned to the Senator earlier that when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives took a look at the crime guns that were confiscated in the worst, deadliest sections of Chicago, 40 percent of them came from gun shows in northern Indiana, where people did not submit themselves to a background check; they just went in and bought guns in volume to come and sell them to gangbangers and thugs on the streets of Chicago. Our intention is to focus clearly on mass murder but even more so on gun violence in America to protect innocent people who are losing their lives to those who would abuse the use of firearms and those who would turn to these assault weapons, which have no purpose for the legitimate hunter or sportsman. I have said that if you need an AK-47 or AR-15 to hunt a deer, you ought to stick to fishing because that is not the weapon of choice of real sportsmen in my State or those whom I know. I ask the Senator, when it comes to this general issue of gun violence, even though we speak of terrorists as part of this, how will closing the loopholes have value to the overall issue of gun violence?

Mr. DURBIN. Our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, has filed an amendment. I believe she is making slight changes to it, but the amendment addresses the first issue. It enables the Attorney General of the United States to deny a request to transfer a firearm to a known or suspected terrorist. The Senator from Connecticut said repeatedly, and I would like to repeat it myself, this is something the vast majority of Americans say: You mean a terrorist can buy a gun in America and you can't stop him? So, overwhelmingly, Democratic, Republican, Independent, gun owners, non-gun owners believe this is common sense. The Senator from California in this amendment says: Hereafter the Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm if the Attorney General determines, based on the totality of circumstances, that the transferee-- Purchaser of the firearm-- represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources therefor. So in the first sentence of about a six- or seven-sentence amendment, the Senator from California, in a few words, says exactly what the Senator from Connecticut has said. We want to give to the Attorney General the power to stop a suspected terrorist from buying a firearm in this country. Today we had a briefing, and I know the Senator couldn't attend because he was here on the floor with this important responsibility. The briefing came from the leader of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jim Comey, and Jeh Johnson, the head of the Department of Homeland Security. They talked about what happened in Orlando. Some of the things they told us cannot be repeated outside of that closed- door briefing and some of it will come out as the investigation unfolds, but here is something they told us that can be shared. This man who went into the Pulse nightclub at 2 o'clock in the morning in Orlando had two firearms with him. Before that tragic evening ended, he had shot hundreds of rounds into that crowded nightclub--this one man, hundreds of rounds. What I asked him was to please put this in perspective for me. Since 9/11, we have focused on what happened that terrible day when 3,000 innocent Americans died because terrorists took over airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and might have crashed them into this building had the brave passengers and crew not stopped them over Pennsylvania. What we do every single day is to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for safety on airplanes and airports because we don't want to run the risk that a passenger will get on board a plane and endanger the lives of passengers, up to 200 passengers or more, with a bomb or some other means. We go to elaborate lengths. Think about it. How many times have you taken off your shoes, opened your bags, put things on the conveyor belt? We have done that now for 15 years so we don't have to relive the tragedy of 9/11. Think about this for a second. If that same terrorist decides not to use an airplane but to use a semiautomatic weapon, the kind of weapon used by this man in Orlando, that person can endanger the lives of hundreds of people and killed 49 in that tragic situation. So my question to the Senator from Connecticut is this. As we are focusing on the use of these military-style weapons, are we not reflecting the new reality of the terrorist threat to America--not just airplanes and the other means they have used but now what appears to be a more common weapon of choice, commonly purchased at gun stores by even suspected terrorists. Is that not what you were focusing on and we are focusing on as the first thing that needs to be changed in the law?

Mr. DURBIN. I wish to direct a question to the Senator from Connecticut. First, I would like to acknowledge that the Senator from Connecticut took the floor about 10 hours ago and has stood here with his colleagues, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Booker, and many others who have joined him during the course of the day. Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut was also here. I would like to ask a few questions and then ask the Senator to react to a news story that just came out. I think it is important for us from time to time to remind those who are just starting to follow this debate why we are here and particularly why the Senator has been on the floor for 10 hours straight. This is unusual in the Senate. It is technically known as a filibuster, when one Member takes the floor and doesn't yield the floor. It is done for a variety of reasons. It has been done throughout the history of this Chamber. But I hope we can make it clear from the outset why we are doing it today, why the Senator is leading it, why we are joining him today, and why this is an important message that we are trying to send across America from one coast to the other, including the islands of Hawaii. We are dealing with this because what happened in Orlando has really focused America on gun violence and the terrible tragedy that occurred there, with 49 deaths and over 50 who are seriously injured as a result of this gunman who turned his guns loose on these poor people who gathered at this nightclub. I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut, at the risk of repeating himself--which is part of what we do here, making sure that those who are following the debate--if he would tell us the two issues that he believes bring us together in this common effort late this evening on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Connecticut, without asking him to yield the floor, if he will yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question without yielding the floor?

Mr. DURBIN. Despite the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States of America that occurred in Orlando, FL, despite the national reaction and international reaction to this tragedy, there was nothing scheduled this week in the U.S. Senate on the issue of firearms and terrorism, nothing--not until the Senator from Connecticut took the floor 10 hours 20 minutes ago and said: I am not going to sit down until there is an agreement that we are going to debate this issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It was not even on the schedule of things for us to discuss this week until this Senator from Connecticut and his friends and colleagues decided to make an issue of it. I ask the Senator if he is aware of the fact that the American Medical Association put out a press release in Chicago. I think it is historic and I would like to read a story about it if my colleagues will bear with me for a minute. This is from the American Medical Association. The worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history has prompted the American Medical Association to call gun violence a `public health crisis' and urge that Congress fund research into the problem. The AMA, which lobbies on behalf of doctors, said on Tuesday it will press Congress to overturn 20-year-old legislation that blocks the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting research on gun violence. A 29-year-old gunman slaughtered 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, FL, before dawn on Sunday. The AMA adopted the policy at its annual meeting in Chicago. It called U.S. gun violence a crisis that requires a comprehensive response and solution. ``With approximately 30,000 men, women and children dying each year at the barrel of a gun in elementary schools, movie theaters, workplaces, houses of worship and on live television, the United States faces a public health crisis of gun violence,'' Dr. Steven Stack, AMA president, said in a statement. ``Even as America faces a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country, the Congress prohibits the CDC from conducting the very research that would help us understand the problems associated with gun violence and determine how to reduce the high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries.'' Congress placed restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the federal budget in 1996 at the urging of gun rights supporters who claimed the agency was biased toward gun control. AMA has several long-standing gun safety policies including support of legislation that calls for a waiting period before the purchase of any form of firearm in the United States. It also supports background checks for all handgun buyers. (Reporting by Susan Kelly in Chicago; Editing by Caroline Humer and Matthew Lewis)

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to complete the question to the Senator, and then I will be happy to yield. The point that we are getting to is this is the beginning of an important national debate brought on by the tragedy in Orlando. It is a debate which would not have occurred this week had the Senator from Connecticut and his colleagues not taken the floor with this filibuster on the Senate floor. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this. I ask the Senator if we can reach a point where we have a statement by the Republican leadership of the Senate that they will give us the votes on these two key issues that we raised over and over again; is that the purpose and intent of your filibuster?