SECURE Act

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, yesterday we began floor debate on something that we have literally been talking about for years. I remember, after the election of 2012, meeting at the White House with then-President Barack Obama, with Speaker of the House Boehner, Leader McCarthy, Senator McConnell, and others. The President was prepared to do something he had threatened to do, which we actually asked him not to do, and that is, to try to take unilateral Executive action to deal with the issue of these young adults who came with their parents, when they were children, into the United States in violation of our immigration laws.

We said: Please, President Obama, give us a chance to work with you to come up with a solution.

He listened and said: No. I am going to sign an Executive order or action, and I am going to go this alone.

Well, unfortunately for the young people who were the beneficiaries of this DACA Executive order, the court struck it down, so they were left in doubt and in some jeopardy, wondering, now that they had been granted a deferred action against deportation by President Obama, what their future would look like. So President Trump, upon the advice of General Kelly, who was then Secretary of Homeland Security, said: Give the Congress some time to deal with this.

Indeed, here we are with a deadline of March 5. All of the time that this President has been in office--since January 20 of last year--this has been basically living on borrowed time insofar as the DACA Program is involved. President Trump quite appropriately said that this is a legislative responsibility and that Congress needs to deal with this.

Well, here we are. The debate actually began on February 8, which is the date that Senator McConnell, the Senate majority leader, agreed to initiate the motion to proceed on the debate. Of course, you will remember what happened. The government was shut down because our Democratic colleagues refused to proceed to deal with the continuing resolution for funding the government until there was some resolution of this DACA issue. So the majority leader said: We are going to deal with it starting February 8 if there is no other agreement, and it is going to be a fair and impartial process. Everybody's ideas are going to be aired, and people should be able to vote on those ideas.

Well, here we are. We started yesterday with cloture on the bill. Now, under the Senate rule, there are 30 hours that will expire tonight at 11 p.m. or thereabouts, and we are waiting on our colleagues across the aisle to begin this process that they were so eager to initiate that they shut down the government.

So far, the majority leader came to the floor and made an offer at about noon today, saying: We will start with a vote on an amendment of your choosing, and then we will go to one of our choosing. We will go back and forth and have an orderly process so I can follow through on my commitment to keep a fair, equal, and orderly process.

Well, even though they were willing to shut down the government to bring us to this point, now they seem to be incredibly reluctant to actually have a vote on any of their proposals. It really is bizarre.

We all want a solution for these young adults. In America, we don't punish children for the mistakes their parents made, and we are not going to punish these young people, who are now adults, who have been able to go to college and, in many instances, become very productive people. We want to provide them an opportunity to flourish. Indeed, the President--notwithstanding the fact that 690,000 DACA recipients currently exist, he said: I will be willing to up that number to everybody who is eligible, whether or not they signed up. That is 1.8 million young people. Do you know what? We are not only going to give them deferred action, we are going to give them an opportunity to become Americans.

It is incredibly generous, but our colleagues across the aisle seem to be tripped up by their own plan and unable to respond to this generous offer.

The President has said: In return for the 1.8 million young people who will have a pathway to citizenship and predictability and stability and a great future for their lives, we are going to have to secure the border. We are going to have to do the sorts of things the Federal Government should have done a long time ago.

Coming from Texas, a border State, we have 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. As we heard this morning in the world threats hearing in the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Director of National Intelligence said the transnational criminal organizations or cartels, which are commodity agnostic--they make money trafficking in people, drugs, or other contraband, and they are exploiting the porous nature of our border with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. Indeed, Central American countries are sending even their young children up to the border, exploiting a loophole in our law.

The President has also said that in addition to dealing with border security, he wants to change legal immigration to focus on the nuclear family--mom and dad and the kids. If other people want to come to the United States, then they can qualify

for various employment-based visas. They can come study as a student. They can come as a tourist. They can qualify for an H-1B visa as somebody who is highly skilled. There are other ways to come. But we are going to limit the number of visas and green cards based strictly on your family relationships.

Then the President said that he wanted to deal with the diversity lottery visa. This is perhaps the most difficult to understand visa our government issues. Basically, what we say is that there are 50,000 diversity visas, and for those countries that aren't otherwise represented, we are going to sort of spread those like bread on the water and welcome 50,000 people without regard to their background, their education, their other merits or qualifications.

Some have said, like the President--and I agree with him--that we ought to look at not only how immigrants can benefit from coming to the United States but also what qualities they have that they can bring us. Yes, we ought to compete for the best and brightest--for example, the 600,000 or so foreign students who come to our colleges and universities. What about focusing on those who graduate in STEM fields--science, technology, engineering, and math. There have been some folks who have said: Well, we ought to staple a green card to those people because we want to continue to attract the best and the brightest. We don't want to train them, educate them, and send them home, only to compete with us.

Well, those are some great ideas. We are not going to be able to have votes on bills unless our friends across the aisle will agree to get onto a bill. Preferably it is the bill that Senator Grassley and others, including myself, have cosponsored, which will be filed this afternoon, based on those four pillars.

Coming from a border State, I have spent quite a bit of time in the Rio Grande Valley, down in Laredo, and over in El Paso, and I have learned a lot from the experts at the border, who would be the Border Patrol agents themselves. I have talked to people like Manny Padilla, who is the chief Border Patrol officer in the Rio Grande Valley, which is one of the most active regions in the country. His sector, at times, has been one of the busiest in the country, with some 200,000 apprehensions a year just in the Rio Grande Valley itself. I have seen the border firsthand, of course. It is vast, and the terrain varies widely, from portions where the Rio Grande River flows strongly, to ones where it has dried up, where there is hardly any water at all separating Mexico and the United States, and still others that include 3,200-foot cliffs along the riverbank, particularly out in the Big Bend area of West Texas.

I have also had the opportunity to welcome many of my colleagues who don't come from border States to my State so they could become better informed about the nature and the challenge of border security. When you spend time there and speak to the local officials and people who live and work along the border, you realize the scale of the challenge we are facing in securing the border, as well as combating the cartels and people who are importing poison into the United States and unfortunately taking far too many lives as the result of drugs. You realize that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. Generations of Texans know that too.

People who live in border communities are an invaluable resource, and we ought to be talking to them about what would work best to provide the security in a way that would also be helpful to their local community. I have mentioned before one of those down in Hidalgo, TX, where the Border Patrol said: We need some physical barriers to help control the flow of illegal immigration across the border.

The local community said: Well, we need to improve the flood levee system so that we can actually buy affordable insurance, so that we can develop our property at a reasonable cost.

Out of that came a bond election for a levee wall system that was a win-win. It provided the flood protection needed by the community, and it provided the physical barrier that the Border Patrol said they needed in order to control illegal immigration.

So there is an opportunity for a win-win here if we will just listen to the experts and we will talk to the local stakeholders and the people who live, work, and play along our border with Mexico.

I have also had many conversations with Hispanic leaders from across my State. One of them is my friend Roger Rocha, the president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, who has been courageous in putting his reputation on the line in order to find common ground and give DACA recipients an opportunity not only to stay and work but to eventually become American citizens.

Well, yesterday, I said there will be a process that is fair to everybody--that is what the majority leader guaranteed--and all of our colleagues will have a chance to have their proposals considered. Amendments will have a 60-vote threshold before they can be adopted. That is the rule of the Senate. What I am interested in is solving the problem, and that means not only finding a proposal that can get 60 votes in the Senate but one that can pass the House and be signed into law by the President.

I read this morning--when I got up and was making a cup of coffee and looking through the newspaper--that our colleague across the aisle, the Democratic whip, whom I have worked with and met with on this topic many times, said his goal was to get all the Democrats and 11 Republicans to get to that 60-vote threshold. That was his goal in this legislation. What is missing is how he would propose to get this passed through the Republican majority in the House and signed by the President if it doesn't comply with the President's requirements that he laid out in his four pillars. I am not interested in a futile act; I am interested in actually making a law, which means passing the Senate, passing the House, and getting signed into law by the President.

Yesterday, a group led by Chairman Grassley of the Judiciary Committee put forth a proposal that I believe can pass the Senate, can pass the House, and can be signed into law by President Trump. It is called the Secure and Succeed Act. The name itself is quite fitting. We have to secure the border, and we have to be able to provide for the future success of DACA recipients. It is not one or the other; it is both. The Secure and Succeed proposal provides a pathway to citizenship, like the President proposed, for 1.8 million DACA-eligible recipients, which is far more than President Obama ever offered. I mean, this is pretty incredible. What President Obama offered was DACA for 690,000 young people. This President has offered a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million. Some people may think that is far too generous, but the President made that offer expecting to get border security and these other provisions done at the same time.

This legislation provides a real plan to strengthen our borders and utilize boots on the ground, better technology, and infrastructure. It reallocates visas from the diversity lottery system in a way that is fair, and it continues the existing family-based immigration categories until the current backlog is clear.

I am proud to cosponsor this commonsense solution, not because it is perfect--no piece of legislation ever is--but what it does is it advances the issue in a way that can pass the Senate so the House can take it up and the President can ultimately sign it. That is the only way I know to get something accomplished here.

Everybody needs to get to work. Our Democratic colleagues who voted to shut down the government over this issue now seem unprepared to meet the deadline they themselves insisted upon, even after the majority leader has provided a fair and open process for everybody to participate. So everybody needs to get to work. Our colleagues have known for a while that this was coming. They asked for this debate, but they have not yet filed any proposed legislation. I am wondering what the holdup is.

Here is the bottom line. I am not interested in gamesmanship for gamesmanship's sake, political theater for political theater's sake, or ideas that can't become law. As the President said 2 weeks ago, the ultimate proposal must be one where nobody gets everything they want but our

country gets the critical reforms that it needs. About 124,000 young people hope we can rise to the occasion. Just in my State alone, there are 124,000 DACA recipients who hope we can rise to the occasion and take advantage of the tremendous, generous offer President Trump has made in a bill he said he would sign into law if we were able to pass it in the Senate and in the House and get it on his desk.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am here for my 197th ``Time to Wake Up'' speech. My poster board is getting a little dog-eared, but we keep moving doggedly along.

Last week, I spoke about corporate America outsourcing its lobbying to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--a determined enemy of any action on climate change. When pro-climate companies support the chamber, they support its anti-climate lobbying, its anti-climate election spending and threatening, and they enable the chamber's anti-climate stranglehold with the fossil fuel industry on Congress.

The chamber is not alone in its anti-climate advocacy on behalf of corporate America. Another big Washington trade association obstructing climate action, despite having been a pro-climate action member, is the National Association of Manufacturers, often called NAM.

Over the last two decades, NAM has spent more than $150 million lobbying the Federal Government, and each year, NAM lobbies extensively for the fossil fuel industry.

Here are some of the greatest hits of NAM's fossil fuel lobbying.

NAM lobbies to expand offshore drilling in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and Arctic. I wonder how many of its members want to be out there supporting offshore drilling in all those areas.

NAM advocates for the continued use of coal in the electric power and industrial sectors. There is not a congressional district left where a majority of voters don't want coal-plant emissions regulated. Yet there is NAM.

NAM lobbies to roll back fuel economy standards that save consumers billions of dollars at the pump. Never mind that the equipment that keeps cars cleaner is manufactured; the National Association of Manufacturers is opposed.

NAM sent what it calls a key vote letter to all Members of Congress urging repeal of a rule to protect streams from mountaintop removal coal mining pollution. More on that in a moment.

NAM urged the Trump administration to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. More on that in a moment too.

Finally, NAM opposes any efforts to put a price on carbon pollution.

Back to that key vote letter. ``The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that votes on H.J. Res. 38, including procedural motions, may be considered for designation as Key Manufacturing Votes in the 115th Congress.'' This letter warns Members of Congress to vote the way the group wants or risk losing out on its endorsements and all the campaign support that goes with it. Who knows--run up a bad enough score and NAM may support your opponent.

Well, you would think protecting streams and drinking water from pollution from coal mines would be nothing but common sense. Streams fouled by coal mining waste literally run orange. This is the actual photograph; this is not a black-and-white photograph that has been color-corrected. This stream is running orange. As one West Virginia woman whose local stream was contaminated told the New York Times, ``Orange is not the color of water.'' But NAM and its fossil fuel allies opposed those clean water protections. Why? Where is the manufacturing value in streams that look like that? Follow the money. Look at the National Association of Manufacturers' major donors. A lot of the usual suspects--coal companies, oil companies, and Koch-owned oil production companies.

But here is what is strange. There are also a lot of companies that care about climate and sustainability that fund the National Association of Manufacturers. Just look at the pharmaceutical and healthcare sector. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, and UnitedHealth all belong to and fund NAM. If you go on their websites, you will find them urging people to live healthier, longer lives. So why are they lobbying through NAM to let coal companies make streams look like this? You will find these companies, on their websites, touting their commitments to sustainability and to reduce carbon emissions. So why are they lobbying through the National Association of Manufacturers against climate policies they actually support?

The National Association of Manufacturers rather inexplicably opposes all serious climate action. In particular, it opposes putting a price on carbon emissions. It even funded a debunked study that claimed putting an economy-wide price on carbon would cost millions of jobs. It lobbied for a legislative amendment making it more difficult to begin pricing carbon. But look at NAM's own member companies that are already pricing carbon emissions. Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Corning, Microsoft, and Stanley Black & Decker all apply a price on carbon in their own internal management and accounting. They understand that pricing carbon doesn't kill jobs. They understand that pricing carbon makes economic and environmental sense.

Here in Congress, what we see is NAM claiming to represent them but actually carrying water for the fossil fuel industry and waging full- scale war on good climate policy. Just like with the chamber's pro- climate members, we see essentially no pushback when the ostensible mouthpiece for these companies lobbies against these companies' stated position. Why would you, as a big American corporation, take a position on a very big issue and then delegate your lobbying to an entity in Washington that is opposed to your stated position? Indeed, we see virtually no corporate lobbying by anyone for good climate policy. Even companies with an internal carbon price don't lobby for a carbon price.

The American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act, which Senator Schatz and I have introduced in the last two Congresses, would create an economy- wide price on carbon emissions, using market forces to dramatically reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, protect our future, and improve public health. It would be border adjustable to protect American companies from unfair competition abroad, and it would return all of the revenue it raised to the American people. Liberal and conservative economists agree that this is the best way to tackle climate change. But the National Association of Manufacturers, on behalf of its fossil fuel allies, opposes us. It protects at all costs the massive market failure that allows the fossil fuel industry to duck the costs of its pollution. That is market failure 101.

It is not just that. NAM opposed cap and trade. NAM opposed the Paris Agreement. NAM sued to stop the Clean Power Plan. NAM supports the climate deniers of the Trump administration. They have no alternative, no better idea, no other way that they want to address the climate crisis; they are just against any serious action on climate change.

Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Corning, Microsoft, and Stanley Black & Decker are members of NAM. All of them supported the Paris Agreement, but all this time, they continue to fund the National Association of Manufacturers. It doesn't make any sense. These companies are already pricing carbon. They know it is good policy. They support the Paris Agreement. Yet they fund the trade advocacy group that is pulling out all the stops to kill the policy they support and the agreement they support. I asked last week, and I will ask again: When is the cavalry going to get here?

Lots of pro-climate companies fund the National Association of Manufacturers' anti-climate crusade. It is bizarre, but it is true.

Intel says it ``believes that global climate change is a serious environmental, economic and social challenge that warrants an equally serious response by governments and the private sector,'' but Intel funds NAM as NAM fights any response by governments.

KPMG has an entire practice area devoted to advising companies on the emerging risks and hazards of climate change, but KPMG funds NAM as NAM ignores and talks down those very hazards.

McCormick is focused on reducing its carbon emissions and, like a lot of good companies, even expects its suppliers to do the same, but McCormick also funds the National Association of Manufacturers.

Pernod Ricard is committed to reducing its carbon emissions, but Pernod Ricard funds NAM.

Procter & Gamble says:

As a global citizen, we are concerned about the negative

consequences of climate change. We believe industry,

governments, and consumers can work together to reduce

emissions to protect the environment.

That is what they believe, but they fund the National Association of Manufacturers, which tries to stop any such effort.

Verizon is so concerned about climate change that it has reduced its own emissions by over 50 percent, but Verizon still funds the National Association of Manufacturers.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Company after company claims that addressing climate change is their priority, and many do great things--truly great things--inside their fence lines and in many cases even out their supply chains, demanding sustainability compliance out their supply chains. But here, where the rubber hits the lawmaking road in Congress, the corporate support is for groups leading the war against climate action here in Washington, and virtually none of the companies show up here on the other side.

It is not as though they say: OK, I will support the National Association of Manufacturers and their efforts to obstruct any climate action, but I am going to come down and make clear on my own, in my own lobbying, that we want climate action. I am going to offset the lobbying that this group I fund does against the position I espouse.

No, they don't do that. They almost never come in on their own to support good climate policy to counterbalance what their own advocates are advocating when their own advocates are advocating against them, which explains why the fossil fuel guys keep on winning here in Congress. It is easy to win when the other side doesn't show up or, if they do, shows up wearing your jersey.

Here is how bad it is. The National Association of Manufacturers and the chamber and the fossil fuel industry hired a bunch of Washington lobbyists to create a fake consumer group called the Consumer Energy Alliance. This fake consumer group then created a fake initiative in Kentucky called--these names are always so comical--Kentuckians for Solar Fairness. What is the goal? The goal is to support Kentucky legislation making it harder for consumers to sell rooftop solar power back to the big utilities.

NAM is behind this scheme. Why? If you are Johnson & Johnson or Cargill or Corning or Microsoft or KPMG or Procter & Gamble, why do you want to be associated with a scheme like this? Remember, this is ostensibly the National Association of Manufacturers. Out in the real world, there is a lot of manufacturing going on in renewable energy.

We manufactured offshore wind turbines in Rhode Island's waters. Rhode Island boat builder Blount Marine even got the contract to manufacture the new boat to get technicians out to service the manufacturer turbines. The framing on which our offshore wind turbines stand was manufactured in Louisiana. Solar arrays are manufactured and installed all around the country, providing more American jobs than coal. In Texas alone, solar provides nearly 9,000 jobs, and more than 1.6 gigawatts of solar capacity has been manufactured and installed in Texas. Go to Iowa, where one-third of their electricity is from wind, and look how much ground-based wind turbine manufacturing and maintenance is going on--really good jobs.

Why is the National Association of Manufacturers so violently opposed to manufacturing in the renewable energy industry? Why does NAM get involved in a Kentucky utility regulatory issue with nothing apparent to do with manufacturing? Why is the National Association of Manufacturers exactly and perfectly aligned with the fossil fuel industry and not its own membership on so many issues?

In Washington, the fossil fuel lobby is relentless. They have a bad name and an obvious conflict of interest, so they like to do their political dirty work through groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I get it. Disguise is an age-old tactic. But why does corporate America put up with having its trade association used as disguise to fight climate action and to get involved in State quarrels that benefit only the fossil fuel industry?

The effect of corporate America allowing its trade groups to be captured by fossil fuel interests is that corporate America is now, for all practical purposes, collectively united against climate action in Congress. Say whatever they say on their websites; do whatever they do within their fence lines or out their supply chains; sign whatever they sign by way of letters and advertisements; that is all good, but when it comes to Congress, where the lawmaking rubber hits the road, corporate America is collectively united against climate action, either through direct antagonism like the fossil fuel industry or by letting antagonists like the National Association of Manufacturers and the chamber be their lobbying intermediaries and erase their good climate policies by the time they get to Congress and replace them with the fossil fuel industry's climate denial or by simply ducking the fight and not showing up on game day.

If we are going to meet America's responsibilities and finally pass good climate policy, we are going to need everyone, including corporate America, to do their part. Right now, fossil fuel interests from corporate America are all over the field, armed and ready for battle, and the good guys are not even showing up at the game.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues a concern I have about a group of people who are legally in this country and have a similar problem as the DACA registrant Dreamers who we need to pay attention to. I am strongly in support of passing legislation to protect DACA and Dreamers. I will talk a little bit about that also.

There is a group of individuals who have been in this country for a long time--similar to the Dreamers--who know no other country but the United States of America. They are legally here. They also have a date on their back as a result of the Trump administration, in some cases, not renewing what is known as temporary protected status; in other cases, it has deferred that decision making on the extension of temporary protected status.

In 1990, Congress passed legislation that authorized the creation of the TPS program. We recognized that there were times in which armed conflict or environmental disasters or other extraordinary circumstances would present itself where individuals would not be safe in their home country, and they would be permitted to legally come to the United States under this protected status. I would like to call it ``humanitarian protected status'' because these conditions have continued in many of these countries for decades.

Many of these people have been here for decades because the circumstances in their home country have not changed. Administration after administration has renewed their protected status, and they have been permitted to live here legally, to be able to work and go to school. They serve in our military. They have served our Nation very, very well.

The numbers are smaller than those of the Dreamers. The total number is approximately 437,000. The largest country by far is El Salvador, which is 195,000; Honduras, about 57,000; and Haiti, about 50,000.

I think Members of Congress are fully aware of the circumstances in Central America and recognize the fact that, for many families, it was not safe for them to stay in their countries because, if they had, their children would have either ended up in gangs or have been murdered and that the economic circumstances in these countries had not allowed for economic opportunities for their families. As a result, the United States welcomed them here in a protected status, and they have become part of our economy.

For the State of Maryland, this number is actually larger than the Dreamer category. We have 22,500 who are in the TPS status--97 percent from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti. It has been estimated that this group has contributed $1.2 billion to Maryland's GDP. They have been in our country for decades. The young people particularly know no other country than the United States of America. It would not be safe for them to return to their countries.

We have information about that, and I call it to my colleagues' attention. The process in going forward on extending the TPS status is that we first get the recommendation from our Embassy in the country itself. In this case, I had a chance to review the recommendations from the Embassy, and it is clear that our experts on the ground in the country felt that these families should be able to remain in the United States. There are many reasons for that.

One is the bilateral relationship with the country itself, in which the country has asked us not to return these individuals to the country because it cannot handle this population's returning to the country. They don't have jobs, and the infrastructure in the country will not handle that. I think we are all familiar with Haiti and how devastated it has been by storms. It literally does not have the capacity to be able to handle the return of the Haitians. It would be an incredible burden on the country of Haiti, and there are no jobs available for these individuals.

I think all are familiar with what happened with the returning of certain individuals to Central America. If we force deportation, make no mistake about it, the individuals who have been law-abiding here in the United States, who have been adding to our economy, who are part of our social fabric, and who believe that they are Americans will be returned to an environment in which they are going to be vulnerable to the intimidation of gangs, and they will be without employment. Many will have no choice but to choose to either join a gang or be subjected to the type of intimidation and violence that one's standing up to the gang brings not only to oneself but to the members of one's family. That is something that we should not be allowing.

There are also economic reasons for which there have been recommendations to continue this program. The challenge is that they now have dates on their backs because of the decision in some of these countries not to extend the TPS status by the Trump administration.

These are very similar circumstances to those of the Dreamers, but it doesn't quite have the same amount of attention around the Nation. These individuals are legally in this country. They came here legally, but they have been here for the same length of time, and they are part of our fabric, which is the same as the Dreamers. It is for that reason that the right result is to protect their legal status here in the United States and to give them a pathway to citizenship so that they can become legal citizens of the country they know as home.

S. 2144, the SECURE Act, was introduced by me, Senator Van Hollen, Senator Feinstein, and others in order to accomplish that. I hope that, during the debate that we are having here, we will find a way to incorporate protection for these 437,000 people who are legally here so that they know their futures are here and that they are protected in the workforce.

As I said, it is very similar to the Dreamer issue. We know that the Dreamer issue--the crisis, the March date that we are facing--was created by the President of the United States. The DACA Program was created by President Obama on June 15, 2012. Since that day, we have had about 800,000 people who have been registered under the DACA Program. They are now legally working, attending schools, and are able to operate motor vehicles. They are, clearly, our future teachers, our doctors, our engineers, and our entrepreneurs. They are very much a part of our economy. In Maryland we have 10,000 who have registered under the DACA Program. They have contributed $500 million to Maryland's GDP.

For so many reasons, it would just be common sense for us--I would think without too much controversy--to pass a bill that would say to, I believe it is, a total of 1.8 million: We know that you know of no other home but America. We welcome you. We are going to pass legislation that protects your status and gives you a pathway to citizenship.

We do that because America doesn't tear families apart. We don't say to people who know no other home but America that we don't want them to stay here. That is what we stand for as a nation. These are the values that make America the strong nation that it is. By the way, these individuals are contributing to the growth of our economy, and all of us benefit.

Over the last several months--over a longer period than that--I have been in the company of many of the Dreamers and many of the people holding TPS status. I have been at roundtable discussions during which we have had opportunities to listen to their stories about how they view America as their home.

One said that the best birthday present she ever received was when President Obama passed the DACA Executive order--when she knew that she had a future in America. Others have told us stories: Without the protection under the DACA Program, one never could have gotten a driver's license and, therefore, never would have had an opportunity to advance in our economy. Others have attended our colleges.

The interesting thing is that I have been in many meetings on college campuses in which, for the first time, students have recognized that their fellow student had been a Dreamer. They hadn't known that. They had just known him as one of their classmates in school. I have been in businesses when, for the first time, employees had discovered that one of their colleagues happened to be a Dreamer. They hadn't known that. They had just known him as a fellow employee.

This is widely supported. It is important for our economy and important for our values to keep the families together, and the American people support us on this. Poll after poll shows that Americans believe that those Dreamers should be protected here in the United States.

I include statements that I have received from Prince George's, Anne Arundel, Howard, and Montgomery Counties and Baltimore City school superintendents.

They wrote:

Maryland is a national leader in providing students with a

world-class education. Essential to our success is our

commitment to providing children in our schools with a safe

and welcoming environment to learn. Termination of DACA will

have direct and damaging effects on the Maryland students who

are current beneficiaries.

It is a direct threat to Maryland's economic stability and

safety, as it will strip students of their ability to work

and drive legally, pay taxes, and pursue post-secondary

opportunities. Parents who lose work authorizations will face

deportation or be moved into a dangerous underground economy,

causing financial uncertainty for their families and harmful

stress on their children--our students. In addition the DACA

decision could impact our ability to motivate our youth to

remain committed to their education and pursuing college or

careers, and will lead to worsening economic hardships of our

DACA community.

I have seen many letters of support and many testimonies from both-- those with TPS and the Dreamers--but I emphasize the one letter that I received from the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force, which is cochaired by the Montgomery County police chief, Tom Manger. What he said, I think, is very important. There are a lot of reasons we should be protecting TPS recipients and DACA recipients, but he wrote:

We are concerned that, absent action by Congress, the

Dreamer population will be driven back into the shadows and

be hesitant to report crimes or cooperate with

investigations. Such an outcome would risk undermining

community safety.

We are not safe by people going into the shadows. This is the United States of America. Why would we want people to try to hide from us? That is not the country we are. We do not create fear in the hearts of law-abiding citizens. These are law-abiding citizens. They have sisters and brothers who are U.S. citizens. They have other family members, some of whom are TPS recipients, some of whom are Dreamers, and some of whom are U.S. citizens. We don't tell families that we are going to tear them apart. That is not what America believes in. These are all individuals who have gone through security checks. These are people who have been law-abiding--complying with our laws--working, serving in our military, building this country.

I know that the first order of business is to make sure that the Dreamers are protected. I strongly support that and would vote for a bill on the floor right now, tonight, which has been introduced by some of our colleagues, that protects the Dreamers, in and of itself, with nothing else connected to it. We should do it, and it shouldn't be controversial. I also urge us to make sure that we take care of those who are in TPS status. It is a smaller group, and it doesn't have the same degree of national attention, but this is about the same values and the same economic concerns, the same families and the same issues.

I hope we can find a way in which we can include both the Dreamers and TPS recipients in protecting their status here in America and giving them

pathways to citizenship because it is the right thing for them, the right thing for their families, the right thing for our Nation, and the right thing for our economy.

I know that my colleague from Maryland is on the floor. He has been one of the great leaders on this issue. I know he has met with many from the community who are in both the Dreamer and the TPS status. I have joined him at meetings around Maryland in which we have talked to the families. Through the Presiding Officer, I personally thank my colleague for all of the work he has done in order to bring this issue to the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Dreamers are part of this country. They are America's future. They are helping to build this great Nation, and they need our attention now.

The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. One of their principal responsibilities is to pass a budget. We are now 4 months into the fiscal year and we don't have a budget and we are talking about another continuing resolution through mid-February.

A couple weeks ago, we were told on the floor to give it a couple more weeks and we would work some of these issues out, but that time has now come, and we still do not have a budget. We should not be going into February without dealing with the problems of this country. We need a deal on the budget. We need a deal for an agreement on the Dreamers. We have so many issues that need to be addressed. There is no excuse why the Republican leadership has not brought these issues to the floor of the Senate for action.

I want to start, in regard to the Dreamers, by commending the bipartisan work of a group convened by Senators Graham and Durbin. They have come up with a good plan that addresses key issues needed for a compromise on immigration reform. I was pleased to see they put on their website a summary of the proposed legislation that deals with the Dreamers. It deals with border security, deals with diversity visas, those who are in temporary protective status, and family reunification and migration.

The draft legislation we saw would provide a 12-year pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, with up to 2 years of credit for time with DACA. The qualified Dreamers must have entered the United States by June 15, 2012, when President Obama and the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of the DACA Program. I think most of us know DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program.

Let me just talk a few minutes about the Dreamers. These are individuals who entered our country as minors, when they were brought here by their parents to seek a better life. Under the DACA Program, they were entitled to a 2-year renewable work permit and the ability to remain in this country without fear of deportation. Each one has to go through a criminal background check. They need to be enrolled in school. They must either be high school graduates or in the U.S. military.

In the United States today, we have 800,000 who are registered under the Dreamers. There are about 10,000 in my State of Maryland, and they are contributing half a billion dollars to Maryland's gross domestic product. They are a key part of our economy. They are the next generation of teachers, doctors, engineers, and entrepreneurs. They are going to help build America. Most know no other country but the United States, which is their home, and our values, which make America the great Nation it is.

We are a welcoming country. We are a country in which people have come over the years to build this great Nation. That is America's strength. Let us build on our strength, not run away from it. Are we going to turn our back now on the values that built this country? Are we going to rip families apart? Is that what America stands for? I find that hard to imagine.

At the same time, we would hurt our economy and hurt ourselves. I have met with many Dreamers in Maryland. We had one in my office a few weeks ago who had tears in her eyes. She said: I have an expiration date on my back. She doesn't know what is going to happen when that date occurs. To me--and I hope to all Americans--this country is not a country where someone should have to live under those fears. We need to take action to help the Dreamers.

I have had several roundtable discussions with Dreamers in Maryland. I had them in College Park, Baltimore, and other areas throughout Maryland. Let me just mention two Dreamers I met with. Adam was originally born in Canada. His family grew up in Pakistan. He came to the United States with his parents when he was very young. Becky--who was born in Peru--came here with her parents to the United States. I mention them collectively because they both attend the University of Maryland, College Park.

Our State allows Dreamers to have instate tuition to go to college and get the tools they need in order to succeed. They need work permits because they have to work; otherwise, they never would have been able to get through school. They need a driver's license. Adam explained to me he needed a driver's license to get to a magnet school so he could advance his own education.

That was all possible--the ability to get a driver's license and the ability to work--because of President Obama's Executive order, the DACA Program. Now all of that has been put in doubt because of President Trump's announcement that the program will end. It puts their lives on hold in fear, and they wonder whether they need to go into the shadows of the United States of America.

This is a crisis which was created by President Trump when he announced the end of the DACA Program in 6 months. That will expire in March. President Trump's actions to rescind the DACA Program are wrong. We can correct it. That is what Congress can do and what we must do.

Our university community in Maryland strongly supports the DACA Program. I have heard from the University of Maryland system, Johns Hopkins University, and many other schools in our State. This fall, I received a joint letter from the public school secondary systems of Prince George's County, Anne Arundel County, Howard County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore City. This is what the school superintendents wrote to me:

Maryland is a national leader in providing students with a

world-class education. Essential to our success is our

commitment to providing children in our schools with a safe

and welcoming environment to learn. Termination of DACA will

have direct and damaging effects on the Maryland students who

are current beneficiaries.

The schools' letter continues:

It is a direct threat to Maryland's economic stability and

safety, as it will strip students of their ability to work

and drive legally, pay taxes, and pursue post-secondary

opportunities. Parents who lose work authorizations will face

deportation or be moved into a dangerous underground economy,

causing financial uncertainty for their families and harmful

stress on their children--our students.

In addition, the DACA decision could impact our ability to

motivate our youth to remain committed to their education and

pursuing college or careers, and will lead to worsening

economic hardships of our DACA community.

This is from our school systems in Maryland.

I heard similar concerns from law enforcement officials. Tom Manger, who cochairs the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force and is the police chief in Montgomery County, wrote:

Our support for a legislative solution for Dreamers is

consistent with our longstanding support for bipartisan

reform of our immigration system. We support measures

allowing law-abiding people to feel safe and secure in their

communities, which reinforce trust and cooperation with state

and local law enforcement. Beyond the significant

contributions Dreamers make to our communities, we are

concerned that, absent action by Congress, the Dreamer

population will be driven back into the shadows and be

hesitant to report crimes and cooperate with investigations.

Such an outcome would risk undermining community safety. When

Dreamers, and all immigrants, feel safe engaging with local

police, all of our communities are safer.

I certainly agree with Chief Manger.

A group similar to the Dreamers are those who are here in temporary protected status, or TPS. There are 437,000 people in America from El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia,

Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. In Maryland, 22,500 people are here from El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti. The largest number is from El Salvador. Our TPS population in Maryland exceeds the DACA population. My own State's recipients contributed $1.2 billion to the gross domestic product of my State, so this is a major part of the Maryland economy.

This is a very similar situation to the Dreamers. They get a 6- to 18-month extension. They have been here for decades because the underlying conditions in the countries from which they came still exist. I have been to Central America. I can tell you that it is not safe for people to return to those gang communities. They have the same situation--they know no other country but America. If they are required to go back to the country in which they were born, it will tear families apart. We need to act. We need to act in order to protect this group of citizens.

I want to acknowledge legislation that was introduced. I join my colleagues, Senators Van Hollen, Feinstein, and others, who will provide a legislative fix, S. 2144, the SECURE Act. I am pleased that the outline of the Durbin-Graham compromise immigration legislation includes relief for TPS recipients. The legislation will make changes to the diversity visa lottery program and reallocate half of the annual visas to recipients of TPS. That would amount to about 27,000 visas annually.

Under the draft, TPS recipients would maintain legal status and work authorization while awaiting visas. This would give TPS recipients protection from deportation, work authorizations, green cards, and ultimately a pathway to citizenship. After the TPS backlog is cleared-- which could take roughly a decade to do, given the 300,000-plus recipients of TPS in the United States today--the annual visas would be allocated to nationals of priority countries.

In the past few months, the Department of Homeland Security has placed termination dates on TPS for those from El Salvador and Haiti and has extended the deadline for a decision on Honduras. These individuals are at risk. We need to act.

Maryland has a large number of El Salvadorans. I am gravely concerned about what will happen to these individuals--many mixed-nationality families who have been part of American communities for so long. For nearly a decade, El Salvador has consistently suffered per capita murder rates that have been among the worst in the world. In 2016, the people of El Salvador were victims of over 5,200 homicides--an alarming rate of more than 80 per 100,000 and the highest globally. El Salvador has limited capacity to absorb the nearly 200,000 individuals who could be subjected to immediate deportation. We welcomed these individuals to America to save them from danger.

As another example, although Haiti has made important strides toward reconstruction, its capacity to effectively manage repatriation efforts has faced substantial setbacks, including the continuing cholera epidemic and devastating hurricane in late 2016. Additionally, conditions in Haiti were further complicated by two category 5 hurricanes--Irma and Maria, which struck in September. These recent developments exacerbate already fragile conditions in Haiti.

As the Department of Homeland Security's own internal memorandum from April 2017 outlined, an estimated 30 percent of the population-- approximately 3.2 million people--suffer from food insecurity, and 40 percent of the population lacks access to fundamental health and nutrition services.

In other words, it is not safe for those individuals to go back to Haiti. They have been here. This is their home. They want to make this their home, and we should give them that opportunity.

Let me conclude by again quoting Becky, one of the Dreamers I met at the University of Maryland, College Park. She said that the best present she ever got was on her 13th birthday when President Obama executed the Executive order that gave her legal status and hope here in America.

Well, we can give her an even better present right now. We can give her the present of Congress acting to provide protection for the Dreamers and for those on TPS so they don't have to worry again and they know they have a home here in America.

I urge my colleagues to pass legislation that will protect the Dreamers and TPS.

Mr. President, I certainly hope we will do the minimum that the Congress of the United States can get done, and that is to pass a budget before the deadline of tomorrow evening.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, last September, President Trump took it upon himself to create an economic, humanitarian, and political crisis by rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA, without proposing a serious solution for the nearly 800,000 DACA recipients who now face deportation. These people and their families have had to endure fits and starts of uncertainty as Democrats and some Republicans have worked tirelessly to advance the Dream Act and other fair and reasonable compromises authored chiefly by my colleagues, Senators Durbin and Graham, also supported by the Presiding Officer, only to have President Trump and the Republican majority find every way to say no, or to stall the process.

This week, however, the Senate has an opportunity to address the panic and stress the President caused, not just for those on DACA and their families, but also for our Nation's businesses and our broader economy. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this chance for an open debate on a solution for Dreamers. In particular, I again thank Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, and Senator Flake for their advocacy and efforts to find a bipartisan compromise. I thank Leader Schumer for his leadership in pushing for a resolution, and Leader McConnell for keeping his commitment to have this debate. I thank them all.

The basic facts of this debate are clear. The American people overwhelmingly support finding a solution for Dreamers that protects them from deportation and provides a pathway to citizenship for those who work hard and play by the rules. I believe that a bipartisan majority of my colleagues want the same thing. The question before us is whether the partisanship and raw feelings surrounding this debate will prevent a solution to this crisis from becoming law. So I urge my colleagues: Let us forge the bipartisan agreement that the American people want and the Dreamers deserve. Let us end this crisis. Then, after this bipartisan show of good faith, let us again take up the kind of comprehensive immigration reform that many of us in this body have already voted to pass so we can fix our broken immigration system once and for all.

I do not believe, however, that solving the DACA crisis, which President Trump in a sense created, should come at the cost of radically restructuring legal immigration. According to the conservative Cato Institute, President Trump's immigration proposals in exchange for resolving the DACA crisis would result in an approximate 44-percent reduction in legal immigration. This would be the largest cut to immigration in nearly a century. In addition to the profound effects such a cut would have on American families, culture, and opportunities, it would also level a massive blow to the American labor force and economic growth.

According to the Cato Institute and the independent research firm Macroeconomic Advisers, slashing legal immigration by about half could initially cut our projected economic growth rate by 12.5 percent in the next year or two. That would be a significant blow to our economy, and it could lead to further reduced economic growth projections down the line due to the reduction in the size of the American workforce. And, just as our Nation faces a skyrocketing deficit due to the impact of policies like the Republican tax plan, the National Academy of Sciences estimates that immigrants, on average, contribute over $92,000 more than they receive in government benefits over the course of their lives, and losing these American workers would only further shrink revenue that could help balance the budget.

If Congress decides to take on immigration reform of this magnitude, it must be in the context of bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform, and not in the context of resolving this crisis that has been prompted by President Trump.

Nor should this discussion suggest that a desire to do the right thing by Dreamers somehow indicates a lack of appreciation for the importance of securing our borders. I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that border security is of critical importance to our Nation. I have voted to increase the vetting of visa applicants, to heighten security on international travel, and to increase support for homeland security and border control by billions of dollars. In Fiscal Year 2000, there were 8,619 Border Patrol agents on the southwest border. Today, there are currently just shy of 20,000. The Obama administration alone added more than 3,000 Border Patrol agents on our southern Border, doubled the amount of fencing, and added technological systems, including aerial and ground surveillance systems. Unlawful immigration began lessening under President Obama, and today, fewer people are entering the country illegally across the U.S.-Mexico border than in the past 50 years. I believe in a strong border that continues to adapt the best technologies and tactics to keep our Nation safe. What I do not believe in, however, is symbolic action, like the construction of a wall that would drain taxpayer dollars without making Americans any safer.

There is a reason that Americans on both sides of the political divide have spoken out against deporting Dreamers. A great many of these young people are outstanding and accomplished, and our communities would feel the loss of all that they contribute. It is true that they were brought here as children outside the appropriate processes, but this was through no fault of their own. As they have grown up here, they have pursued higher education, started American families, worked hard and paid taxes, and stayed out of trouble with the law. They have passed background checks, been fingerprinted, paid hundreds of dollars in fees, and submitted detailed records to immigration enforcement officials whose job it is to prevent fraud and spot any criminals in the system. Indeed, DACA status is not blanket amnesty or an entitlement, but is something that must be earned and kept up.

Hundreds of DACA recipients served in the U.S. Armed Forces, like Zion Dirgantara, whose mother brought him and his brother from Indonesia to Philadelphia when they were young, and who did not know about his undocumented status until he applied for a driver's license. Last fall, Zion told the Washington Post that he was deeply affected when, at age 12, he watched the crash of United Flight 93 in his new home State of Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, but he could not join the Army out of high school because of his undocumented status. Because of DACA, he was able to enlist in the Army, but both his status and his ability to continue serving his country hang in the balance during this debate.

Many of my colleagues have spoken movingly and eloquently about the Dreamers who have come forward to tell their stories. I associate myself with their remarks, and challenge my colleagues who have not met these young people in person to listen to their stories and perspectives. Over the last few months, I, and my staff, have had the opportunity to meet several very impressive Dreamers living in Rhode Island who have illustrated what the loss of DACA means to them and their families. I met one young woman studying at Brown University who needs DACA to ensure that she can stay here to attend medical school and help fill the shortage of doctors in America. Another young man I met told me that DACA, for him, means being able to drive to school and work every day to save up for advanced education.

These young people want to live productive lives and, indeed, according to the Center for American Progress, letting DACA expire completely would

cost our Nation's economy over $460 billion over the next decade, including an annual loss to Rhode Island's economy of an estimated $60 million. Finding a solution for these people is not just the right thing to do, but it also makes smart economic sense, and I believe that is part of the reason why the American people are largely in agreement on helping Dreamers.

I also wish to note that this same moral and economic sense applies to the need to provide deportation relief and legal status for qualified recipients of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, and Deferred Enforced Departure. These individuals came to America from devastated parts of the world seeking safety and a fresh start, and they have become integral members of our community and our economy. Like DACA recipients, they have passed rigorous and periodic background checks, paid hundreds of dollars in fees, and demonstrated that they are not risks to public safety or national security. The average TPS beneficiary has been in America for 19 years and many have been here even longer. About 70 percent to 80 percent are employed, and they are collectively parents to nearly 275,000 American citizen children.

Since 1999, I have been fighting for a pathway to citizenship for Liberians who came to States like Rhode Island to escape two bloody civil wars and the Ebola virus outbreak. Some of these Liberian refugees have been fixtures of our community for nearly 30 years but, like DACA recipients, they could face deportation in a number of weeks because of the expiration of TPS and DED protections. Congress can and should include these populations in the solutions we discuss here this week.

Mr. President, I, along with many of my colleagues, have taken the tough votes to strengthen our border and ensure immigrants play by the rules. I have voted for the DREAM Act and for comprehensive immigration reform that passed in this body. I know that we can address this crisis if we choose to, but I also know that the only true path forward is real bipartisan compromise, not posturing or legislative gamesmanship. I urge my colleagues to support compromise legislation to address the specific crisis before us and, when we have done that, to begin earnest discussions on bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.