Floor Statements

Mr. President, this week, we mourn the loss of Pete Domenici, a former Senate colleague, a respected and leading voice in bipartisanship, and, most of all, a friend.

Pete had the distinction of being the longest serving Senator in New Mexico's history. He spent almost half a century as a public servant.

Most knew Pete for his outspokenness on energy and budget issues, but I remember him best for his commitment and dedication on behalf of Americans struggling with mental illness.

In 2008, two Senators--Paul Wellstone, a liberal Democrat from Minnesota, and Pete Domenici, a conservative Republican from New Mexico--came together to pass legislation that prohibited health insurance companies from treating mental health differently from physical health benefits.

The Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act finally set mental health and substance abuse benefits on equal footing with other health benefits, ensuring fairness in deductibles, copayments, provider networks, and lifetime limits.

Those two Senators couldn't have been more different, but they each had family members who were touched by mental illness.

Pete Domenici and Paul Wellstone asked, Why should we treat illnesses of the brain any different than a cancer, diabetes, or heart disease?

That shared bond brought them together. It is why they spent years fighting with insurance companies about the importance of mental health coverage and ultimately got a law passed.

The Wellstone-Domenici Parity Act laid the groundwork for so much of what we fought for in the Affordable Care Act: the idea that people should have access to coverage, regardless of what their medical needs are.

You see, the ACA built off this law by requiring that all individual market insurance plans cover mental health and substance abuse services as an ``essential health benefit.''

Thanks to Pete's hard work, millions of Americans no longer have to fight for mental health benefits or addiction treatment benefits, so important in the face of today's opioid crisis.

Pete taught us that mental illness is exactly that--an illness--and that those who suffer from any illness deserve equal rights and access to care.

Senator Domenici was also a strong advocate for immigration reform.

Back in 2002, he signed on as a cosponsor of the original DREAM Act, legislation that I introduced to give a path to citizenship to talented young immigrants who grew up in the country.

As the son of an Italian immigrant mother and an Italian-born father who earned citizenship after his service in WWI, Pete understood firsthand the immigrant experience.

He once said, ``I understand this whole idea of a household with a father who is American and a mother who is not, but they are living, working, and getting ahead. I understand that they are just like every other family in America. There is nothing different. They have the same love, same hope, same will and same aspirations as those of us who were born here have.''

Pete didn't just talk; he put his money where his mouth was.

In 2006, he voted for the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill that included the DREAM Act.

It passed the Republican-controlled Senate on a strong bipartisan vote, but unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives never brought it to a vote.

Senator Domenici's work in the Senate is a great example of the good that can come from bipartisanship--of what can happen when we start working together to get something done for the American public.

It is my hope that we can carry on Pete's legacy of equal rights for all through bipartisan means.

My condolences to the Domenici family and thank you for sharing such an earnest man with us.

Mr. President, I want to stand in support of the statement just made by my colleague from the Commonwealth of Maryland. He knows, as I know, that our responsibilities as U.S. Senators include important votes. Some of the votes we cast will blur into history, and we will be hard pressed to remember them. But certainly any vote involving sending America to war is a vote you will never forget--at least not this Senator. Many of those votes cast over the years in the House and the Senate have created sleepless nights before the vote because you understand that even under the best of circumstances, people will die as a result of your vote. Not just the enemy but even our own risk their lives and die in defense of the United States.

It was 9/11/2001 when this U.S. Senate was faced with the awesome responsibility of voting to go to war. There were two votes. The first was on the invasion of Iraq. There were 23 of us--22 Democrats and 1 Republican--who voted against the authorization for the use of force and the invasion of Iraq. I continue to believe that when it comes to foreign policy, it is the most important vote that I have ever cast. Twenty three of us voted no.

The second vote was on the invasion of Afghanistan and a different vote completely. We had just gone through 9/11, and 3,000 innocent Americans had been killed. The images are still in my mind--and will be until I die--of what I saw as a result of that heinous attack, that atrocious attack by terrorists on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon, and, of course, what happened in the fields of Pennsylvania.

So the vote came to the floor, and they basically said: When it comes to the invasion of Afghanistan, we are going after the people responsible for 9/11. I joined every other U.S. Senator of both political parties in voting yes. We had to make clear to terrorists around the world that when you strike the United States, you will pay a price. We will hunt you down, we will find you, we will bring you to justice or bring you to your end on Earth. I voted for it, and I knew it was the right thing to do. That is what I was sent here to do.

Little did I realize, having cast that vote 15 or 16 years ago, that I wasn't

just voting to go after the terrorists responsible for 9/11; I was voting for the longest war in the history of the United States of America, a war that continues to this day in Afghanistan. I don't think there was a single member of the Senate--either party on the floor--who would have believed that was what we were voting for. It has happened.

To date we have lost almost 2,400 American lives, tens of thousands have been injured in Afghanistan, billions and billions of dollars have been spent, and there is no end in sight. Who is responsible for that? Ultimately, Congress is responsible for that. The Constitution and the people who wrote it made it clear that we have the responsibility to declare war. It is a responsibility that may have clarity in the Constitution, but it is one that we don't accept willingly in most circumstances. Most Members of the Senate will acknowledge that constitutional opportunity and authority, but they don't want to cast a vote for fear that they are going to vote an incorrect way as history will judge.

Now we have a proposal by Senator Paul of Kentucky. It is one that I think should be supported by every Member of the Senate. What it says is this: Within 6 months, the authorization for the use of military force we voted for so long ago is going to be eliminated, and we, in that period of time, have to come up with a new authorization that reflects the new reality of the threat against the United States. That is our constitutional responsibility. The President, as Commander in Chief, always must step up and defend America, but when it comes to the declaration of war, that is the responsibility of Congress.

I will be supporting this effort by Senator Paul. I believe it is consistent with our constitutional responsibility, and I believe it is also time for us to renew the debate as to our future in Afghanistan, a war that has claimed so many American lives, created so many casualties, and cost us so dearly. It is time for us, on behalf of the American people, to engage in that debate again.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Mr. President, it was 1 week ago when President Trump and Attorney General Sessions announced that they were going to rescind the DACA Program. This is a program created by President Obama by Executive order that allowed those who had come to the United States as children to have an opportunity to be given 2 years on a renewable basis where they would not be subject to deportation and could work.

These young people are known as the Dreamers, a term that came about when I introduced the bill 16 years ago called the DREAM Act. These are young people who, frankly, are just asking for a chance, an opportunity to be part of the only country they have ever known.

The laws of the United States are very tough and very strict, and they say that, if you are undocumented, in their situation, you have to leave America for 10 years and then petition to come back in. That is why I introduced the DREAM Act. So these young people who were brought to this country by their parents would have a chance.

President Obama used his authority in an Executive order to allow them to apply for DACA protection. They had to pay a substantial filing fee and submit themselves to a criminal background check before they would be allowed to stay. So 780,000 young people did just that, and they are protected currently, but only for a few more months, under this DACA provision.

What is going to happen to them, we don't know. The only thing that makes any sense at this point is for Congress to act, for us to do something to replace the DACA Program, which the President is going to rescind, with a law--a law that establishes clearly the requirements, as well as the rights, that will be given to these individuals under the law.

That is why I have introduced the Dream Act with my cosponsor Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina. There are three other Republican cosponsors at this point, and we hope to move this forward.

President Trump has said he is interested in working with us, and we are going to take him at his word. Despite rescinding DACA, I hope the President will be on our side to come up with a replacement that is fair.

Also, I want to address many of the myths that have come up about DACA, as well as the Dream Act. I am going to quote an unusual source for this Senator. The source is a man named David Bier. David is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Those of us who live in this Washington environment of politics know that the Cato Institute is not a liberal think tank. It is the opposite. It is a conservative, largely Republican think tank, and Mr. Bier has published an article that has been seen in the Washington Post, in the Chicago Tribune, and in other papers entitled the ``Five myths about DACA.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Washington Post article entitled ``Five myths about DACA.''

Mr. President, in this article, he spells out in some detail why some of the myths that were perpetrated by Attorney General Sessions and others last week need to be explained. One of them is that DACA somehow incentivized an increase in illegal immigration. Mr. Bier makes it clear that, when it comes down to it, you cannot arrive in the United States today and expect to be protected by DACA tomorrow. In fact, you have to have arrived in the United States at least by June 15 of 2007, more than a decade ago. So to argue that DACA was an incentive for more immigration in this country is just plain wrong.

What about those kids who showed up on the borders years ago, thousands of them? Well, it turns out that they weren't eligible for DACA or the Dream Act, and it also turns out that most of them were not from Mexico but from parts of Central America, which has been devastated by crime waves and gang activity.

The second myth that Mr. Bier addresses is that these DACA recipients--780,000--are taking jobs away from Americans. What he points out is that, if you start with the premise that we have a static amount of jobs in this country--what he calls a ``lump of labor fallacy''--then, it is dog-eat-dog to fight for those jobs.

It turns out that we have an expanding economy, and he proves it by giving us a statistic. Between 1970 and 2017, the U.S. labor force doubled. So rather than ending up with a 50-percent unemployment rate, our U.S. employment doubled. It is an expanding and dynamic economy.

The case can be made effectively that the DACA recipients are people who can add to the economy. All of them have to have the equivalent or a high school education. Many of them--large percentages of them--have college degrees and even more. So they can bring a lot to the economy.

The other point or the other myth that Mr. Bier addresses is whether repealing DACA would benefit taxpayers. The point he makes is that these DACA recipients are paying taxes in the jobs they are working and, by and large, are ineligible for any Federal programs or any Federal assistance.

So they are a net gain in terms of our Treasury and in terms of what they can do. For example, if you are protected by DACA today on a 2- year renewable basis, you do not qualify for a Pell grant to go to college. You don't qualify for a Federal Government loan. You have to find out how you are going to do it some other way. So these young people who are working and paying taxes are not drawing from any of the government programs that other people their age draw from.

There is also this argument that DACA somehow is going to make America less safe and that there will be more criminals. Don't forget what I said earlier. To qualify for DACA, you have to submit yourself to a criminal background check. The likelihood of the next crime being committed by a DACA recipient is very narrow. The likelihood that it is committed by someone who is already an American citizen is much more likely.

Finally, there is the argument that DACA is just about politics. Well, it can be about politics, unless we do our job in Congress. We are supposed to pass the laws. The President has challenged us to pass a law that will help deal with DACA. We have, I think, an awesome responsibility to do just that.

I was at Loyola University's medical school on Friday and met several of the DACA students who are in medical school at Loyola. They are extraordinarily bright individuals who competed and were accepted at Loyola's medical school. Now they have a program. As they complete the 4 years of medical school at Loyola, they want to apply for residencies so they can specialize. If you are going to be a resident, you had better be prepared to work. If you don't have DACA protection, you can't legally work in the United States. Thirty-two aspiring, really bright, young medical students soon to be doctors will be stopped in their tracks if we don't replace DACA because they cannot apply for residency because they cannot legally work in America without DACA protection or something like it.

Would we be better off in America if those 32 individuals did not become doctors? Of course not. We want them to become doctors. In Illinois, the State is helping to pay for their education with the promise that they will practice medicine in an underserved area of our State. I am from downstate Illinois, small-town Illinois, and I will tell you that we desperately need more doctors, not just in individual towns but at the hospitals that serve those towns. If these 32 can help us reach those goals, we are going to have better medical care across our State, but that depends on Congress and Congress meeting its responsibility.

I have come to the floor of the Senate over 100 times now to tell the stories of individuals who are affected by

DACA and the Dream Act, and I want to do that again today. I found that speeches are great and statistics are fine, but when you hear the stories about these individuals--who they are, what they have done, and what they aspire to do--you can understand the context of this important national debate.

The person I want to introduce today in the Senate is this young lady, Cristina Velasquez. She was brought to the United States at the age of 6 from Caracas, Venezuela. She went to elementary school in Madison, WI. She wrote me a letter. Cristina wrote the following:

I spent my formative childhood years in the Midwest where I

learned to assimilate and learned the values this country was

founded on. The salt-of-the-Earth quality of people around me

and extraordinary kindness between strangers shaped my own

values and attitude toward others. Growing up in Madison

taught me a great deal about compassion, patience, and hard

work.

Cristina was an outstanding student. In high school she was a member of the National Honor Society. She was elected vice president of her class, and she managed the track team. She found time to volunteer at a local summer camp for pre-K students. She graduated from the Honors College at Miami Dade College. She is currently a student at Georgetown University, majoring in international law, institutions, and ethics. She has received the President's Volunteer Service Award 2 years in a row and is a Walsh Scholar. As a graduate of Georgetown, I can tell you nobody ever named me a Walsh Scholar. This young lady obviously is very talented.

During her time at Georgetown, Cristina has interned in the House of Representatives and has piloted a college mentorship program at a local high school. In addition, she also has found time to have two part-time jobs. She has to. You see, as a person who is protected by DACA and undocumented, she doesn't qualify for government assistance to go to college--certainly not at the Federal level. So these students have to work extra hard to stay in school.

She has dedicated two of her undergraduate summers and a full school year volunteering to teach in Miami and in San Francisco. In both of these cities, she worked with high-achieving, low-income students trying to get them into college. You see, Cristina's dream ultimately is to be a teacher.

Last week in my office, Cristina joined 15 other students from Georgetown who came in as we were debating DACA and the Dream Act on the floor. I am sure they wanted to hear my speech on the floor but, just to make sure, we bought a dozen pizzas and the crew seemed to be pretty happy with that decision. It was an impressive group of students. Every one of them was a DACA recipient.

These young people have so much potential, but they are worried. They don't know what their future will be with the decision made last week by the Trump administration to repeal DACA. Congress hasn't acted to pass the Dream Act, and we should.

As for Cristina Velasquez, she will graduate from Georgetown in December. She has been accepted into Teach for America. Most of us know that organization well, but for the record, it is a national nonprofit organization that places the most talented recent college graduates in challenging school districts in urban and rural areas where they have a shortage of teachers. Teach for America has 190 teachers working in these challenging districts who are currently DACA Dreamers. They are teaching kids all across America.

What does it say about us? What does it say to their students if these Teach for America Dreamers are invited to leave the country? That is exactly what Mr. Steve Bannon said on 60 Minutes on Sunday when he came out against our efforts to pass the Dream Act. He wants Cristina Velasquez gone. He thinks America is a better place if she is gone. I think he is wrong, and I think most reasonable people would agree.

Cristina is going to start the program, Teach for America, next summer and teach next fall, but without DACA or the Dream Act, Cristina and 190 other Teach for America teachers will be forced to drop out and leave their students behind.

Instead, many would have them deported back to countries they have never known, saying they are not part of the United States and they don't have anything to offer us. Will America be a stronger country if we deport Cristina or if she stays here to teach children in challenging districts? I think the answer is clear to any reasonable person.

When we introduced the Dream Act, Senator Lindsey Graham and I--a Republican of South Carolina and a Democrat of Illinois--cosponsored the measure. We gave a press conference. Senator Graham said: The moment of reckoning is coming. Well, that moment has arrived.

Republican leaders in Congress need to help us to pass the Dream Act once and for all and make it the law of the land. We need to bear responsibility for these hundreds of thousands who can make America a better country. They show with their lives that the promise of America is still very much alive.

As for this Senator, I have been at this for a long time. I am going to see it to the finish line. I still have that dream of the day when President Trump signs the Dream Act into law in the Oval Office. It will be a great day, particularly for this country to recognize that these young people offer special talents and a special commitment to the future of America, which we desperately need.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

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

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

Mr. President, when we finish this period of morning business, which is open to speeches and statements on many different topics, we will then go to the Defense authorization bill. Our process in the Senate is to authorize spending and then to appropriate the money for the actual spending. Occasionally, those two things are in sync, but many times they are not. I am afraid that what we face today is uncertainty.

Senator McCain, who is the chairman of the defense authorization committee, will bring his proposal to the floor, but it is at a spending level that is not allowed by current law. The Budget Control Act will not allow Senator McCain or the Senate to spend at

the level at which he wants to spend. I can make a good argument that the statutory level we are required to hold to is inadequate to our national defense. If we are honest about taking care of the problem, we not only have to pass this authorization bill, but we have to change the Budget Control Act so that we can put more money into our national defense. That debate will get started this week. It is near and dear to Senator McCain's heart. He works hard on it each year with Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island.

There will be many amendments considered, I am sure, during the course of this week on Defense authorization.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Whitehouse for his kind words.

I come to the floor to join in with a dozen or more of my colleagues who were here earlier to talk about the situation we now face. Senator Whitehouse is correct--this is an issue that is very personal to me. It is one that dates back to the year 2001, 16 years ago. It was a time when we received a call in my office in the city of Chicago, and the person on the other end was with a program called the Merit music program. She said: I have a problem with one of my students, and I need your help.

The Merit music program is a special opportunity for young people in Chicago's public schools, particularly from low-income families, to be trained on a musical instrument, free of charge, and some amazing things happen. Every student who is part of the Merit music program goes to college--every single one of them. They learn self-esteem, they learn a musical instrument, and it shows. Their lives are transformed.

She told us the story of one of these students. Her name is Tereza Lee. Tereza Lee was born in Korea and brought to the United States by her mom and dad when she was 2 years old. They came through Brazil before they came to Chicago, but they settled in Chicago. Her mom and dad raised her and her brother and sister. They were not well-off at all. In fact, they were poor.

Mom worked in a dry cleaner establishment, which is fairly common in Chicago; Korean Americans probably work there more than any other group. Her father was an aspiring preacher who wanted to open a church for the Korean population, but it never seemed to materialize. Mom worked extra hard, and the kids went to public schools.

At age 12, Tereza Lee heard about the Merit music program, signed up for it, went in, and fell in love with playing the piano. She turned out to be a prodigy. She was extraordinary.

By the time she was ready to graduate from high school, they said: You have to apply to a music school.

Well, she wasn't sure. Nobody she knew had gone to college. But she started to fill out the application and ran into the question about her Social Security number. She turned to her mother and said: What am I supposed to do about this?

Her mother said: I don't know. After we brought you to the United States at the age of 2, we didn't file any papers.

What could they do? They reached out to the Merit music program, and the Merit music program said: Let's call Durbin's office.

They called my office and contacted my caseworker, whose name is Clarisol Duque. She is now my chief of staff, but back then she was a caseworker. She looked up the law. She called the INS, and they said: The law is very clear. Tereza Lee from Korea is undocumented. She is in the United States. Although she is now 17 or 18 years old, she never filed the appropriate papers, and under the laws of the United States of America, the recourse is for her to return to the last country she was in--Brazil--to wait 10 years, and apply to come back to the United States--10 years.

I thought to myself, and so did my caseworker: Why would you do this to this young girl? She did nothing wrong. In fact, she is a pretty amazing story of success from a poor family.

I sat down and said: Let's write a law to deal with it, and we wrote the DREAM Act. My original cosponsor of the DREAM Act was Orrin Hatch of Utah. This goes back, as I said, 16 years ago, so when I stand here today and talk about this issue, it is an issue I have come to know in a lot of different ways. Most importantly, I have come to know the young people whose lives have been affected by our laws as they currently exist.

Over the years, an interesting thing has happened. After I wrote the DREAM Act and would go around Chicago and tell the story of this new bill that I had just introduced, there would be a lot of young people, mainly Hispanic youngsters, who would listen to me and not react very much at all. Then, many times, I would go out to my car to go back home at the end of the night, and in the darkness, standing by my car, would be one or two young people. They would look in both directions to make sure no one could hear them, and they would whisper to me: Senator, I am a Dreamer.

These were undocumented children--teenagers, adolescents--who had been taught early in life to be extremely careful: Never, ever admit that you are undocumented; never, ever get involved with the law because you could be deported tomorrow morning, and your family might be deported with you. So they grew up in fear--fear of what might happen with a knock on the door.

So now comes this politician, this Senator, who says: I am going to change the law. I am going to make it right for you.

Well, many of their parents were skeptical. They didn't believe it. Politicians say a lot of things. But these young people did something very interesting. Their approach to this evolved from standing in the darkness and whispering ``I am a Dreamer,'' listening to their parents tell them ``Don't say out loud that you are undocumented''; they, of course, did exactly what their parents didn't want them to do. They started standing up and saying publicly: I am a Dreamer. I want to tell you who I am and my story.

They wore T-shirts and buttons, and they rallied, and there was no question that they were going to come and tell their stories. As they told their stories to me, I decided the best thing I could do was to tell their stories on the floor of the U.S. Senate. So I started telling them. With their permission and a color photograph, I would tell the stories of these young people. Each one of them, standing at this desk and other places in the Chamber, usually captured the attention of the people who would gather because each one of these stories was so compelling. They were compelling stories because here were young people who had all the odds against them.

I remember when I was a teenager, in my insecurity, wondering what I would ever do and afraid of doing the wrong thing. Then I think of these young people, who have the decks stacked against them. They have been told they are not legal in this country, and there are people who would like to see them gone tomorrow. Yet these young people started emerging and telling the stories, and I started repeating them. Then some amazing stories started emerging about what they were doing with their lives.

You see, if you are undocumented in this country, you don't qualify for a lot of things most Americans take for granted--Pell grants to go to college. Students from low-income families receive up to $5,000 or more a year to go to college. Undocumented students, Dreamers, receive nothing--nothing--from the Federal Government.

The same thing is true about student loans. For the most part, unless there is a State program, these undocumented students can't qualify for any government student loans. They have to find some other way. They usually have to work their way through college--or whatever their aspirations might be.

Over the years, this bill was heard before committees and was voted on from time to time in the House and in the Senate. Unfortunately, we never could quite find that moment when the bill could pass the Senate and the House in the same year and the same session. It never came together. There was a time when we passed it with a majority vote in the Senate, but under our rules we needed 60 votes. So we fell just short of being able to move the bill forward.

Along the way, I had a colleague in the U.S. Senate named Barack Obama, my junior Senator. He was a cosponsor of my DREAM Act. Of course, he went on to bigger and better things and became the President of the United States. I am very proud of him for his achievement. But I didn't waste any time after he was elected President calling him and saying: Help me. We have to do something to help these young people.

I wrote him a letter, cosigned by Republican Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, asking him to think of a way he might be able to protect the Dreamers from being deported until we passed the law. I didn't get a response.

A year passed--a year. I sent a second letter, this time with 23 Senators signing it, urging President Obama to do something, and he did. He created the DACA program.

The DACA Program was basically an opportunity for young people to come forward, to register with the government, pay a filing fee, submit to a criminal background check, and then see if they qualified for a 2- year protection from deportation and a 2-year opportunity to legally work in the United States.

Well, I was just reminded: August 15, 2012, was the first day to sign up. I joined with my friend and colleague, Congressman Luis Gutierrez, of Chicago. We decided we would create a sign-up, an opportunity at Navy Pier, a historic place in the city, and invite young people who qualified for DACA--Dreamers--to come in and sign up. We got volunteer immigration lawyers who wouldn't charge these young people anything, and we sent out the notices to every group we could think of: Come on in if you are eligible to sign up for DACA.

Congressman Gutierrez and I didn't know how many would show up. We were afraid it might be 200 or 300 people, and we didn't know if we could handle any more than that with the volunteer attorneys we had.

Then something happened. It was amazing. At midnight, the night before, they started queueing up outside of Navy Pier, families--mom, dad, and that young son or daughter who qualified for DACA--and they waited in the dark all night for the chance to sign up. When it was over, it wasn't hundreds, but thousands--thousands--who came to Navy Pier. We couldn't handle them. We had to set up workshops all over the city afterward to give them their chance to sign up.

It was a big risk for them. This was the first time in their lives they were going to trust the Government of the United States with information that they had carefully kept personal, confidential, and secret. They were going to trust this government by signing up for a program because the President of the United States had said: It will protect you. They had the $500 or $600 they needed for the filing fee. They were prepared for all the background checks. At the end of the day, after 5 or 6 years of DACA, 780,000 young people have signed up for this protection.

What has happened to these young people is nothing short of amazing. I could go on for a long time about the success stories of the DACA recipients once they got that protection, once they could work.

I love to tell the story about Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine. That school decided they were going to open up competition for their medical school to DACA-protected young people-- not a special spot for them or a set-aside of quotas or numbers. No, they had to compete with everyone else. But that medical school said: These young people now deserve a chance.

As a result of that decision, there are 28 medical students at Loyola Stritch School of Medicine in Chicago, and they are there because there was no place else that would accept them. This college of medicine said: If you are DACA protected, we will let you compete to come to our school.

The word spread around the country like lightning. Some of the best and brightest young people finally got their chance, and they were accepted to this medical school. They are impressive.

Remember what I said: They don't qualify for government loans. Medical school is expensive. My State, under Governor Patrick Quinn and now continued under Governor Bruce Rauner, a Democrat and Republican, set up a loan for them--but with a catch. Our State loans them enough money to go to medical school at Loyola, as long as they promise to give 1 year of medical practice for each year that we loan the money--1 year of medical practice in the inner cities in Chicago, in Waukegan, in East St. Louis, or in rural areas where they can't find doctors, and they anxiously do so. They anxiously do so because this is their chance. I tell that story because it is one that is particularly poignant.

When President Trump and Attorney General Sessions yesterday decided to put an end to DACA, they put into question whether these young people will ever finish medical school. You can't go to medical school and be an intern and work if you cannot legally work in the United States. They can legally work because of DACA. When DACA disappears, their right to legally work disappears. Their ability to be interns and work in the medical school disappears as well.

What is going to happen to them? Is that the end of their medical education? Loyola stuck its neck out and gave them a chance. Filling those slots will be impossible. Second- and third-year students--you just can't fill those slots. It will be a real loss--a loss of great talent and great opportunity.

When President Trump made this announcement with Attorney General Sessions yesterday, I was really troubled. I have had only one face-to- face conversation with the President. It was his Inauguration Day. It is no surprise that I didn't support him, but I went up and shook hands with him, congratulated him on being elected President, and I said: I want to thank you for the kind things you have said about Dreamers.

He looked me in the eye and he said: Don't worry about those Dreamers. We are going to take care of the Dreamers.

I listened then and so many times afterward when he publicly said something very similar. He said at one point: We love the Dreamers. We are going to take care of those kids--over and over and over again. And I was convinced--I want to be convinced--it was a genuine sentiment in his heart that he was expressing.

He has said some harsh things when it comes to immigration. I think they are fundamentally unfair things--calling Mexican immigrants murderers, rapists; travel bans against people of the Muslim religion. Those things are, in my mind, inconsistent with the values of this country. But he said them, and many people found them appealing.

Yet he always had a special comment when it came to Dreamers and DACA, and I thought maybe--just maybe--he is going to give them a break.

He did until yesterday. His announcement that he is going to put an end to DACA in 6 months--that is going to cause a lot of problems for a lot of innocent people. The good thing that has happened--if there is any good to come of this--is that all across America now, there is a sensitivity, an understanding, an appreciation of who these young people are. It is almost amazing to me that many folks can miss the whole debate for a decade or more, but when you start talking about removing this protection under law, people wake up, stand up, and speak up.

In my city of Chicago, which I am honored to represent, John Rowe is an executive. He is of the opposite political faith. I know it. I like him. He likes me. He is retired now and a very generous man--he and his wife--and helps a lot of young people. In Chicago, he has been the leader in gathering over 120 Chicago business leaders who support DACA and the DREAM Act. They are gathering thousands like them around the United States, business leaders. If you saw the news accounts this morning, leaders of Google and Facebook and others are coming out against President Trump's decision to end DACA.

They are not alone. In addition to that, there is an extraordinary outpouring of support for DACA and Dreamers from the faith community across the United States. I am proud that the Roman Catholic cardinal in Chicago, Blase Cupich, has been outspoken in supporting immigration and supporting the Dreamers and those protected by DACA. It is not the only religion where the leaders have said that. In faiths--Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim religions--you find the support coming forward. It is an indication to me of the growing support across America.

When 76 percent of the American people agree on anything, we ought to stand up and take notice. And 76 percent of the American people believe we ought to treat these DACA-protected people and Dreamers fairly, justly. That is what we should do.

Yesterday on the floor, I talked about Jesus Contreras. Jesus Contreras was brought to the United States at the age of 6, and his family settled in Houston, TX. He went to Lone Star College down there. Again, he is undocumented, a Dreamer. He finished a course in paramedics. He became a licensed, certified paramedic because of DACA. He happened to be there, of

course, when Hurricane Harvey hit, and he worked night and day saving lives, trying to help the victims of the hurricane.

There were thousands just like him, but the important part of this story is that this young man is one of those undocumented folks who really care about the people of Houston, the people of Texas, and America. He calls this home, and he wrote me a letter and told me that. I read it on the floor yesterday.

There are others. I want to tell you about one today. I am going to try to pronounce her name correctly. Ximena Magana. I probably missed that, but I am close. At 9 years of age, she came to the United States from Mexico City. She was raised in Houston and lives there today.

In high school, Ximena served in the U.S. Army Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. It is better known as Junior ROTC. She was the battalion commander of her high school Junior ROTC Program. Under her leadership, Ximena's battalion was named the best in the Houston Independent School District.

Ximena was the captain of her high school soccer team and a regular volunteer at the Houston Food Bank. Currently, she is majoring in communications at the University of Houston. She interned with U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and Houston City Council Member Robert Gallegos.

Due to Ximena's community service, she was asked by the mayor of Houston to serve as the youngest member of the Mayor's Hispanic Advisory Board. She is the first DACA recipient to serve on that board.

Last week, in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, Ximena stepped in to help her community, just as she has always done. She volunteered at shelters, helping people with FEMA and Red Cross applications. She was joined by many other DACA recipients.

She wrote me a letter. She asked for only one thing--for President Trump to come and visit Houston and meet the DACA volunteers, to meet those heroes, to look in their eyes, to hear their stories before he made his decision about whether they had a future in the United States.

Ximena and so many others have so much to give to this country. Without DACA, she faces deportation. This President, who said ``We love the Dreamers,'' with his decision yesterday, has said that we are going to deport the Dreamers. Ending the protection of DACA will mean they will be subject to deportation any minute of any day. They would send her back to Mexico, where she hasn't lived since she was 9. If that happened, would America be a stronger country or a better country? The answer is clear.

When we introduced the Dream Act, Senator Lindsey Graham, who is my cosponsor and a great ally and friend in this, a Republican from South Carolina, said: ``The moment of reckoning is coming.'' That moment is here. Republican leaders in Congress have to make a decision about Ximena and thousands just like her. Are we going to be a fair and just society? Are we going to give these young people a chance for a future? Are we going to tell them ``No thanks. You are not welcome. Leave''? One of the President's appointees to the voter fraud commission, the secretary of state of the State of Kansas, said that this morning. He said that after the President's decision when it comes to eliminating DACA, it is time for them to leave this country. I think he is wrong.

These people, just like this young lady, deserve a chance to be part of our future. How many times has she stood before that great American flag and pledged allegiance, sang the national anthem--the only one she really knows--and believed this was her country, her flag, her future? And now we are going to tell her ``No thanks, Ximena. As good as you are, as much as you have done, America doesn't need you''? I don't think so.

As for this Senator, I am going to do everything in my power to protect those Dreamers and give them a chance to not only live legally in America but to become full-fledged citizens of this country.

To all of the Dreamers who are listening to this debate, don't despair. You had the courage to come out of the shadows and to stop whispering and to stand up and tell the world who you are. Because you did that, we are in a stronger position today to help you realize your dream, to become part of the future of America.

I am joined this evening by a number of visitors in my office. We invited them to come and hear me say a few words on the floor. We really lured them in with pizza. They had a little snack upstairs with me, and they are listening to this speech. They are the Dreamers from Georgetown University, my alma mater.

As we said, we learned of their stories and talked about this. I thought it was a pretty big deal when I transferred from Saint Louis University to come here to Georgetown as a sophomore so many years ago. It was kind of a bold thing. I had never been to Washington. I never visited the campus, and I came to the university. What I did was nothing compared to what they have done. They have fought against much greater odds. They have shown more determination and maturity than I ever had at their age. All they are asking for is a chance to graduate from that great university and become part of this great Nation.

Here is what we need to do. We need to make sure that we don't leave this Senate, this House of Representatives this month or in the next few weeks without passing the Dream Act. All I am asking for--all any of us are asking for--bring it to the floor. Bring it to the floor for a vote. I have confidence that we can find 60 votes in the Senate to pass it. I think at this moment in history we can.

I open my office door and my heart to those of good faith who want to join us in this effort from the Republican side. From the bottom of my heart, I thank Senator Graham, Senator Flake, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Gardner--four Republican Senators who have made this, thank goodness, a bipartisan effort in the Senate. We need to do the same thing in the House of Representatives. We need to say once and for all: Your dream of becoming part of the future of America is going to be a reality because we are going to step up today, some day soon, and make it a reality.

Finally, I ask the President of the United States--as disappointed as I was by your announcement yesterday, as disappointed as I was after believing that perhaps it might end differently, we still need your help, Mr. President. If you truly do love these Dreamers, if you do believe these young people deserve a chance, we need you to step up and speak up and join us. Let us pass this measure on a bipartisan basis. Join us in passing this measure. Whatever you are thinking about DACA, whether it was constitutional or illegal, let's put that behind us. Let's pass a real law, and let's have a signing ceremony that says on a bipartisan basis we are going to give these young people across America their day of justice, their day of opportunity, their chance to make this an even greater nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at the outset, let me say that I share the feelings of so many across the Nation who really try to understand and appreciate the immensity of the tragedy that struck Texas, Louisiana, and nearby places with Hurricane Harvey.

We followed the news. I have family in Texas who, through emails, kept us informed as to what was occurring and the horrible stories of people who lost their homes, their businesses, their lives. There is the story that Senator Cornyn has told about Officer Perez, who lost his life in service to the people whom he represented as a law enforcement officer. It touched us. It touched us dearly. We know that there have been extraordinary cases of heroism and bravery by individuals across the board. Many of them will never be reported and will be known only to a handful of people, but it really was an endorsement of the American spirit--the Texas spirit--when it comes to fighting this disaster.

So I say to the Senator from Texas that I am not one of those Senators who picks and chooses natural disasters only in my State to support. I have supported Federal assistance for natural disasters all across the United States because I know what happened when they hit Illinois and when I needed others to stand by me. I am prepared to stand by Texas, stand by Louisiana, stand by all of those who are victims of Hurricane Harvey. I believe that, as an American family, we have a responsibility to stand together, and I thank the Senator from Texas for his statement.

Mr. President, I want to tell a story about one of the great volunteers in Texas. His name is Jesus Contreras. He is a young man who has a great story, who was one of the heroes of Hurricane Harvey in his own small way.

At the age of 6, Jesus was brought from Mexico to the United States by his parents. It was not a family decision. His mom and dad made the decision and brought him to Houston, TX, where he grew up and got good grades in school. He wanted to go to college. He went to the Lone Star College in Houston and became a paramedic--a paramedic who responded to Hurricane Harvey.

He spent 6 straight days out there, helping people who were in desperate need. Because of his training as a paramedic, he was able to give them emergency first aid and insulin when they were suffering from the impact of diabetes, and he did it day after day after day. He would go home, take a shower, and go right back out again. He finally took a day off and got some rest, and he went back and did it all over again.

The important part of this story is that Jesus Contreras is a paramedic because of the DACA Program, which you have just heard described on the floor by the Senator from Texas. It was President Obama's DACA Program that allowed him to stay in the United States, after having been brought here as a 6-year-old, and to go to school and become a paramedic. The DACA Program did that because it protected him from deportation, and it allowed him to legally work here in the United States as a paramedic. It was only because of DACA that this young man was able to step up and be part of that huge group of people who came forward in Houston, TX, and other cities and made such a difference in the lives of so many people.

So when I hear the DACA Program dismissed as just overreach by a President, illegal, and unconstitutional, I beg my colleagues: Take a look at the human side of this story for a moment. Take a look at the human side of 780,000 people, just like Jesus, who have been protected from deportation, and what they have done with their lives. He didn't vote to leave Mexico. His parents did. He didn't vote for them not to file papers once he arrived in the United States. His parents did. That is what the Dream Act and DACA are all about.

If I am speeding down the highway and a patrolman pulls me over and gives me a speeding ticket, they don't give a ticket to my grandson sitting in the backseat. He wasn't driving the car.

In this situation, the Dreamers and those protected by DACA were young people brought to this country and who know no other country.

For year after year, he stood up in the classroom and pledged allegiance to the only flag he knew. He believes himself to be American. Listen to what he wrote to me. This is what Jesus Contreras wrote to me:

Houston is my home and these are my people. I love my

career--it's given me an opportunity to help people in ways I

never imagined I could. DACA means everything to me--I would

lose my license and certifications without it. I would be

sent back to a country I don't know and would lose

everything.

Is that what we want to see happen here? Do we want to set up a circumstance where this young man doesn't have a chance to continue to serve people as he did during Hurricane Harvey in Houston, TX? Of course not.

The announcement by the President today that he is going to bring an end to DACA, I guess, came as no major surprise, but I listened carefully to what President-Elect Trump and what President Trump said about DACA and Dreamers over the months. He said to me personally--he looked me in the eye and said: Don't worry about these kids. We are going to take care of the Dreamers. He said publicly: We love the Dreamers. Well, now we have a chance to do something about it.

I just had a press conference with Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican, of South Carolina. He and I have come together to introduce the Dream Act, which says, once and for all, that we need permanent law to protect these young people. It is not a new concept. I introduced the bill 16 years ago. If you said someone was a Dreamer 16 years ago, they would have said: Is he with the British rock group? People didn't know what a Dreamer was. They know today. It is people like Jesus, brought to this country as kids and who are just asking for a chance to be part of America--and they are willing to sacrifice.

When he went through Lone Star College, as an undocumented student, Jesus Contreras didn't qualify for one penny of Federal assistance--no government loans for him. He had to work his way through school. It takes that kind of determination to make it through school and to become an important part of America.

So today I am disappointed by what has happened--the announcement by Attorney General Sessions, who has never ever, in my time in the Senate, supported any immigration reform. He has never voted for the Dream Act. The fact that he was the first public voice saying that he was going to rescind--that the administration would rescind--DACA was no surprise. That is where he has been for as long as I have known him, publicly and politically. But I hope that the President now, because of the good things he said in the past about the Dream Act and DACA, will be part of the solution and will help us in the 6 months to pass something that makes a difference.

I listened to the Senator from Texas stack up a whole list of things we need to have before we can help people like Jesus. There are a lot of things we need to do. Comprehensive immigration reform is one of them. I was one of the persons who put it together and voted for it when it had 68 votes in the Senate a few years ago. We need that. But, for goodness' sake, we have a time-sensitive issue now with the Dreamers and DACA. We need to do something about it and do it quickly. That is why Senator Graham and I are calling for passing the Dream Act in this September session. We know it is there. We have heard positive things said about it by Speaker Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House, and even by Senator McConnell, Senator Hatch, and many who cosponsored it. We have to bring this measure up and get it done, once and for all.

In the meantime, 780,000 young people in America protected by DACA heard the news today, and their hearts were broken. They know now that the clock is running. It is the deportation clock. If we don't act--and act in a timely fashion--young people like this man here, who risked his life and helped the people in Houston during Hurricane Harvey, may be deported, and he will certainly lose any opportunity he has to continue to be a licensed paramedic.

Will America be better if Jesus Contreras has to leave the United States? Would Houston have been better during this crisis if he had not been there? I don't think so. We know better. We know that these young people really care and really want to be a part of our Nation. They are willing to turn in all their family information, go through background checks, and pay a filing fee under DACA. You know they want to be a part of this country. They want to serve in the military. They want to be of service to the people they live with in their communities. Now it is up to us.

So let's not make excuses. Let's make some law. Let's do it the right way. Let's pass the Dream Act now. Let's make this a priority as we return this September. Let's get it done with the other priorities we need to consider this month.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I want to start this morning's presentation on the floor of the Senate with a question. What is the most heavily subsidized private business in America--the for-profit business that receives more Federal subsidies than any other? Is it a defense contractor? No. Is it some farming operation? No.

The most heavily subsidized for-profit, private business in America today is for-profit colleges and universities. Why? Because the revenue they receive from the Federal Government accounts for 85, 90, 95 percent or more of all of the revenue they take in. How can that possibly be? How could you run a private for-profit business and have a Federal subsidy of 98 percent? How is that possible?

Here is how it works. A student graduates from high school. The student applies to a for-profit college or university. The for-profit college or university accepts the student on the condition that the student sign over Pell grants--Federal money--and the student's Federal Government loan. The student signs over the Pell grant, signs over the loan, and is enrolled in the school.

This for-profit school now is home free. They admitted the student. They received all the money from the student, and the student is headed for classes. It works only if the student, at the end of the day, ends up with some value in their education--some experience that helps them go on to get a job to pay off their student loans.

It turns out that, in too many instances, for-profit colleges and universities entice these young people into signing up for classes that are worthless. They end up not preparing them for any job. Now they are in a terrible fix. If they finish the course, they have a heavy, large student debt and they end up in a position where they can't get a job and pay it off.

How often does this happen? Think of three numbers. So 9 percent of students graduating from high school today in America go to for-profit colleges and universities. What am I talking about--for-profit? There is the University of Phoenix, DeVry, Rasmussen, and the list goes on and on. So 9 percent of high school students go to these schools, and 20 percent or more of Federal aid to education goes to these schools. Why? Because the tuition they charge is so high. But here is the kicker: 35 percent, one out of three students in America who defaults on their student loans has attended these for-profit colleges and universities.

We decided under the previous administration, the Obama administration, to start asking some hard questions. How are these for- profit colleges and universities enticing these students in? What are they saying to them to bring them in to sign up for classes and for their student loans?

Secondly, if the students finish their degrees at these for-profit colleges and universities, how likely are they to end up with a job that is worth something--a job that allows them to pay back their student loan? Those are legitimate questions; aren't they? If you were the parent of a child who said: Dad, I just heard about the University of Phoenix, and I want to go to school there, you would obviously say: Well, what are you interested in taking? Is it a good course? How much does it cost? What will be your debt when you are finished? What is your likelihood of finding a job? Those are obvious questions. We put all those questions into something called the gainful employment rule. At the end of graduating from for-profit colleges and universities, will you be gainfully employed as a graduated student into a job that gives you a chance to pay off your student loan and really keeps the promise that the for-profit school made to you?

Just weeks ago, the new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, announced that our U.S. Department of Education was going to rewrite the gainful employment rule. The rule, as I said, was written by the Obama administration after years of contentious debate with the industry. It was designed to ensure that career training programs that receive Federal student aid are meeting their statutory obligation to prepare the students for a job--for gainful employment.

Don't forget that a lot of young people applying for college are in families that have limited college experience. Mom and Dad may have never gone to college. So when you say DeVry or University of Phoenix, Mom and Dad may say: Is it any good, Son? Is it any good,

Daughter? The son or daughter can say: Dad, the Federal Government will loan me the money to go there. It must be a good school. They wouldn't loan me the money to go to a place that is bad. That is a natural reaction. We are, in fact, condoning, endorsing this industry by saying: If you go to these schools, you get taxpayer-funded student loans.

I don't think it is too much to ask the programs promising to train students for specific jobs that actually lead to students being able to get those jobs and, in the process, repay their loans.

The gainful employment rule cuts off Federal student aid if programs where graduates' ratio of student debt to earnings is too high during any 2 years of a 3-year period. We look at the jobs of the graduate of the for-profit schools, we look at the income of the students, and then ask: What is the likelihood that student can make their student loan repayment based on their employment? Is it, in fact, gainful employment?

So prior to leaving office, the Obama Department of Education released gainful employment data for the year 2016. It showed that graduates of public undergraduate certificate programs--now that is those who go to community colleges, different colleges altogether--earn $9,000 more than those who went to for-profit colleges and universities. Do you know what the difference is?

If you decide to go to a community college in my home State of Illinois, in my hometown of Springfield, and go to Lincoln Land Community College--a great community college like most of those in our State--you are going to get an education, a good one, and it will not cost you much. Let me give you the kicker. All of your hours can be transferred to upper level colleges and universities, but if you make a bad decision and go to a for-profit college, different things happen. You end up with a real debt for that first year out of high school and guess what. Virtually none of the credit hours you take at that for- profit school can be transferred to any other college or university. That is the reality of what students face.

Of the programs that saddled students with too much debt compared to the income students receive after the program--listen to this--when we looked at all of the student debt and all of the jobs of all of the graduates across the United States, it turns out, 98 percent of the students who couldn't pay off their student loans after graduating went to for-profit colleges and universities. That was the 2016 analysis. That is what led to the gainful employment rule.

This is cruel to take a young person who is doing just what they were told to do--go to college, get a degree, don't quit with high school-- saddle them with debt, make an empty promise about what is going to happen after they graduate, and then they find themselves in a job they can't pay off their student loan. Let me give you a specific example so you can really understand what we have run into.

The digital photography program at the Illinois Institute of Art in Schaumburg, IL--now, let me quickly add, the folks who put this together were pretty smart. We have an outstanding college in Chicago called the Art Institute of Illinois. My daughter graduated from there. However, this bunch, the for-profit group, decided to call their operation the Illinois Institute of Art, instead of the Art Institute of Chicago.

They are owned by a for-profit giant, the Education Management Corporation. They failed the gainful employment rule in the year 2016. Listen to what it wrote on their website for students who wanted to enroll:

There's a market for people who constantly find innovative

ways to fill the world with their ideas, impressions, and

insights. And Digital Photography can help you make a

positive impression when you're ready to match your talents

against the competition. From the very start, we'll guide

your development, both creatively and technically . . . it's

a step-by-step process that's all about preparing you for a

future when you can do what you love.

That is what is on the website for the high school student who likes the idea of majoring in digital photography at the Illinois Institute of Art in Schaumburg. Boy, doesn't that sound good?

So let's contrast that with what the gainful employment rule found about that particular program. Get ready. Do you know what the total cost of the digital photography course was at the Illinois Institute of Art, the for-profit school--total cost of tuition, fees, books, and supplies to prepare you to be a digital photographer? It is $88,000-- $88,000. It gets better. That is if you live off campus.

Do you want to live on campus? The company helps you find an apartment nearby. Over the 4 years, it is an additional $56,000.

Let's do the quick math here. That is $144,000 in debt, finishing 4 years, majoring in digital photography at the Illinois Institute of Art. How many students have to borrow money to do that? Eighty four percent of the students who went to that school and took digital photography had to borrow the money--84 percent.

Guess what the typical graduate of the Illinois Institute of Art in Schaumburg, IL, in the digital photography course earns after leaving the program. Do you remember that promise on their website? How much do they earn? On average, it is $20,493--$20,493.

Here is a quick calculation. What if I am being paid the minimum wage in America? In Illinois, it is $9.25 an hour. Well, I would be making right around $18,500 a year in a minimum-wage job. I have gone to the Illinois Institute of Art in Schaumburg to take the digital photography course and instead of making $18,500 a year, I am making $20,493. That is almost $2,000 more a year. Oh, I forget. I forgot $144,000 in debt that I also have. Let's do the math. How many years of an additional $2,000 to pay off $144,000? It is only 72 years, and you would be able to pay off your student debt. What a rip-off. These people ought to be ashamed of themselves, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves that we are supporting this kind of fraudulent activity at the expense of students who were just trying to get a better education.

That is why we wrote this gainful employment rule, to say to the Illinois Institute of Art and those just like them: Stop it. Stop fleecing these kids, stop burying them in debt. Incidentally, many times parents and even grandparents sign on for that debt too.

You know something else you ought to remember? Of all the debts you could incur in life, there are only a handful of them that can never be discharged in bankruptcy. Student loans would happen to be in that category. Do you know what that means? No matter how bad it gets--and it could get to the point where you have no income whatsoever--no matter how bad it gets, you can't go to the courts and say: Please, turn me free. Discharge this debt in bankruptcy. Give me a chance to start all over again.

You can do it with your home mortgage. You can do it with an auto loan. You can do it if you have a loan for a boat but not with student loans. It is with you for a lifetime.

We have had cases where Grandma decided to help her granddaughter by cosigning the note at one of these miserable schools. The granddaughter couldn't pay back the student loan, and they went after Grandma's Social Security payments. That is what this is all about. That is how serious this can become.

There is no way students leaving that digital photography program at this for-profit college in Schaumburg will ever repay their loans making that money. Under the gainful employment rule, if the Illinois Institute of Art doesn't change its program or lower its price or help its students get better jobs, we would stop providing student loans to the students who are engaged in that program. We are not going to be complicit--we shouldn't be--in this fraud. The rule requires schools to post their gainful employment data online using a new, easy-to-read disclosure so students can read what happened to students who took the digital photography course. Did they get jobs? How much did they earn?

That is also one of the requirements of the gainful employment rule. It requires schools to provide warnings to students in advertising and marketing materials about failing programs so they know before they sign up--they know before they go in debt.

Think about what these disclosures and warnings might have meant to Ami Schneider from Hoffman Estates, IL. Ami went to this notorious art institute--the Illinois Institute of Art--

the Schaumburg digital photography program from 2007 to 2010. She wrote me a letter and told me her story.

Ami said she moved out of her parents' house at age 19, and after a few years, realized she couldn't have the life she wanted with the job she was working. She was getting 50-cent-an-hour raises every year. She said: I wanted to pursue a career, and I really was serious. I was passionate about it. She visited this Illinois Institute of Art campus in Schaumburg. ``I went into [the school],'' she wrote me, ``and they fed me all these success stories. They told me they had [an] excellent placement'' program.

What do you think would have happened if they would have told Ami that at the end of the day, she would have been making slightly more than minimum wage after taking all these courses and incurring all this debt? What if they had been required to tell Ami that employers wouldn't accept her degree and she would never pay off her student loan?

Well, Ami and tens of thousands of students like her across the country would have been spared from a hardship that can change their lives. Ami says her time at the Illinois Institute of Art ``ended up ruining my life.'' In her twenties, she made a decision to go to college, got so deeply in debt, and can't pay it back.

The program culminated in a portfolio show where the students displayed their best work. Do you know how many employers--after Ami finished the course and did her display--do you know how many employers showed up for Ami's class portfolio show at the Illinois Institute of Art? None. Not one.

Ami and her family who took out the loans to help her now hold more than $100,000 in student loan debt from her time at the Illinois Institute of Art. She is stuck with a degree which, as she said, she ``considered a joke.''

Using the questionable legal authority, which she claims she has, the new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, has decided to delay for a year the requirement that schools warn students like Ami about these failing programs--delayed it for a year. That is another year that for- profit education companies will be able to hide the truth about their miserable results. It means students are going to be defrauded because Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has decided to let it happen.

It means more students like Ami and more Federal dollars in the pockets of these greedy, for-profit college executives. You wouldn't believe what these people pay themselves who head up these for-profit colleges and universities. Take the most successful basketball coach in the United States of America at the college level, take the most successful football coach in a State like Alabama, take a look at what they get paid--and I am sure in Alabama they would pay them even more if they could--and then compare it to what these CEOs pay themselves off these poor students. It is disgraceful. For the sake of the students and taxpayers who immediately would benefit from real warnings, it is time for us in Congress to speak up.

We also know Secretary DeVos intends to eventually rewrite the gainful employment rule, what she called a ``regulatory reset.'' What does that mean?

We hear a lot of speeches on the floor about too much government regulation. If you were Ami Schneider or her parents, would you consider a disclosure to students about the real results of their education, a disclosure to students about the debt they are going to incur and the income they are likely to earn overregulation by the Federal Government?

We are putting a lot of money on the line to give $100,000, at least, of the Federal taxpayers' dollars to Ami to go to school, but she has to promise to pay it back. If she defaults, that money isn't paid back into the Treasury. For the good of the taxpayers as well as for her family, we should have some basic regulations, some basic accountability.

While Secretary DeVos says the rule is unfair and arbitrary, the Department of Education Inspector General agreed with the assertion that it was a good rule in terms of protecting kids and protecting taxpayers. I am proud to say the rule is supported by many State Attorneys General, including Lisa Madigan in my home State of Illinois, veterans groups, and student advocates.

Secretary DeVos said the gainful employment rule has been ``repeatedly . . . overturned by the courts'' Wrong. In effect, since it went into effect in 2015, every Federal court it has been in front of has upheld the underlying rule. The Secretary is just plain wrong.

It is time for Secretary DeVos and the Trump administration to stop aiding and abetting for-profit colleges that defraud students and bilk taxpayers.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, many times over the last 6 months, I have come to the Senate to speak out on issues and to disagree with President Trump. It is clear that we have very profound political differences when it comes to the issues that face us, but I come to the floor this morning in an unusual position to express my gratitude to President Trump for a position he has taken, which I think is the right position for America.

Let me explain. Five years ago, President Barack Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. It enabled approximately 790,000 talented young people to contribute more fully to this country. They are teachers, nurses, engineers, small business owners, and more. DACA, which was an Executive action by President Obama, provides a temporary legal status to immigrant students who arrived in the United States as infants, toddlers, and children. They have to come forward under this Executive action and register with our government. They have to pay a substantial fee for processing. Then they have to submit themselves to a criminal and national security background check. If they are successful, they are given 2 years of temporary relief from deportation.

This program is based on the Dream Act, a bill that I first introduced in the U.S. Senate 16 years ago--in 2001. That bill would give undocumented students who grew up in this country a chance to become legal and to earn their way to citizenship.

These young people have come to be known as Dreamers. They came to the United States under the age of 16, some of them 1 or 2 years old. They grew up in the United States, going to our public schools, singing the ``Star Spangled Banner,'' pledging allegiance to the only flag they have ever known, the American flag. They are American in every way except for their immigration status. We have already invested in them, as you can tell--invested in their education, bringing them up in American schools. I can't believe it makes any sense for the future of our country to squander their talents by deporting them to countries that many of them have never known.

A recent study by the Center for American Progress finds that ending DACA, President Obama's Executive action, would cost our economy at least $433 billion in gross domestic product over the next 10 years. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that the 1.3 million young people eligible for DACA pay $2 billion each year in State and local taxes.

As I said at the beginning, I have had many differences with President Trump, particularly on the issue of immigration in some of the speeches and statements he has made, but I do appreciate-- personally appreciate--that this President has kept the DACA Program in place.

I have spoken directly to President Trump only two times--three times, perhaps. The first two times--one on Inauguration Day--I thanked him for the kind words he had said about Dreamers and the DACA students and those protected by the President's Executive action.

President Trump said to me: Don't worry about those kids.

Well, Mr. President, I continue to worry about those kids. I worry about them now more than ever, not because I have heard any change of heart or reversal from you but because of other circumstances that are bringing this issue to a head. The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, and nine other States have threatened to sue you, Mr. President, unless by September 5 you rescind the memorandum that established DACA by President Obama and announce that your administration will not renew or issue any new DACA permits. This direct, specific threat to the DACA Program has left hundreds of thousands of these Dreamers anxious, concerned, and worried about their future.

Last week I was joined by Senator Chuck Schumer, our Democratic leader, and 40 other Senate Democratic colleagues in writing a letter to President Trump, asking him to order his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to use all legal options to defend DACA so that these young people can continue to contribute to a country they love.

Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle oppose the DACA Program. To them I say: If you don't support DACA, let's immediately pass the bipartisan Dream Act. If you think President Obama went beyond his Presidential authority with this Executive action, then let's take up this matter where it should be taken up, here in the legislative branch of the government in the U.S. Senate.

I recently reintroduced the Dream Act with my friend and colleague, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Now that I am in the mood of thanking Republican leaders, including President Trump, let me thank Senator Lindsey Graham, as well as Senator Jeff Flake and Senator Lisa Murkowski. They have stepped forward to join me in cosponsoring this Dream Act.

Our government should give these young people a chance to earn their way to citizenship. They were brought to this country as children. They didn't make the family decision to cross the border. They have been raised in this country. They have created no problems in terms of criminal background.

They have gone to our schools. All they are asking for is a chance.

When we introduced the Dream Act a week or so ago, Senator Graham said that the young people who have received DACA should be treated fairly and not have the rug pulled out from under them. Lindsey Graham is right.

Over the years, I have come to the floor nearly 100 times to tell the stories of these Dreamers and to make it personal so that we come to know who they are and why I have taken the time to make this a major part of my service in the Senate. These stories put a human face on the DACA Program and on the Dream Act. They show what immigration actually means to our country in real terms.

This is Juan Martinez. When he was less than 2 years old, Juan was brought to America from Mexico. He grew up in Dallas, TX, with his parents and brothers. He was an honor student in high school. He graduated and was valedictorian of his class with a 3.9 GPA, a member of the National Honor Society, an active member of the debate team, and in student government.

He was an accomplished student, but he was also a very active community volunteer. Juan helped organize food drives at the local food banks, he cared for children at recreation centers while their parents worked, and he volunteered in soup kitchens.

In his senior year of high school, he applied to his dream school-- once my dream school--Georgetown University, and he was accepted. As a college student, Juan has studied international politics, concentrating on security, minoring in the Arabic language. In his first year of college, Juan was elected as a student senator.

In his spare time here in Washington, he mentors disadvantaged high school students so that they can apply successfully for college. His dream one day is to work for our government, to help our country--the country that he calls home--and to make the world a safer place.

Juan sent me a letter, and this is what he said:

Thanks to DACA I can focus on my studies without worrying

that it may all be taken away from me any second. I have

always thought of myself as an American, but it is thanks to

DACA that I can begin to truly feel like one, too. And that

feeling is something I am thankful for every single day.

Juan and other Dreamers have so much to contribute to this country. But without DACA, without a similar protection, Juan could be deported back to Mexico, a country where he hasn't been since he was 2 years old.

Would we be a stronger nation if we lost Juan Martinez--if he were deported? I don't think so. I think the answer is clearly no.

When we introduced the Dream Act last week, Senator Lindsey Graham said: ``The moment of reckoning is coming.''

I would say to the President first: Again, thank you. Thank you for allowing DACA to continue under your administration. Thank you for keeping your word to me and so many others when you said that these young people don't have to worry. But we are reaching a moment, Mr. President, when we have to come together and do something. We need you and you need us so that we can pass important legislation and you can sign it--legislation that will give these young people the protection they deserve, the opportunity they seek, the chance to make America a greater nation.

I know the reality of this issue. I know it from both political sides. I witnessed it for over a decade. I know it is not popular, Mr. President, that you have taken this position, to stand behind the Dreamers and those protected by DACA, but you told me that you thought it was the right thing to do, and I am sure you still feel that way.

Your new Chief of Staff, General Kelly, and I have had many conversations about this, and I believe that he, too, thinks that legislation is necessary to protect these young people. I hope we can come together. I stand ready. Senator Graham stands ready. We have a bipartisan coalition prepared to work with you.

Let's not let this decision be made in a courtroom somewhere far from Washington. Let's take on our responsibility, yours as President and ours in the Senate, to address this critical issue that really cries out for justice. This is the time to do it. The concern, anxiety, and stress is higher than ever among these populations of people affected by DACA and the Dream Act and, of course, their families as well. I hope you will join us in creating a legal option that will defend the DACA Program and will work with us in Congress to make the Dream Act the law of the land so that we can say to young people like Juan Martinez and hundreds of thousands of others: Yes, we will give you your chance--give you your chance to prove that you can become a valuable part of America's future, give you a chance to make America a stronger nation. That is all they have asked for, and that is something we, on a bipartisan basis with the President, should give them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is unanimously passing the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017, known as the Forever GI Bill, which would make important improvements to the GI bill.

The bill removes time restrictions on using the GI bill, enabling future recipients to use benefits their entire lives as opposed to within the current 15-year timeline. It provides 100 percent GI bill eligibility to Purple Heart recipients. It also increases GI bill funding for Reservists, Guardsmen, dependents, surviving spouses, and surviving dependents.

While the bill includes many provisions I support, I also have ongoing concerns about institutions of higher education, especially for-profit colleges, which prey on veterans using GI bill benefits. I do not believe this bill goes far enough to provide the type of protections we owe to our servicemembers and the kind of institutional accountability that taxpayers deserve.

I am particularly concerned that the Forever GI Bill does not address the 90/10 loophole which incentivizes for-profit colleges to aggressively recruit and prey on veterans. Under current law, for- profit colleges are prohibited from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from Federal taxpayers, but due to a loophole in the law, such revenue does not count Department of Veterans Affairs GI bill or Department of Defense Tuition Assistance funding. This means that, by targeting veterans and servicemembers, for-profit colleges can actually receive 100 percent of their revenue directly from Federal taxpayers.

And many do. According to data released by the Department of Education in 2016, 193 institutions received more than 90 percent of their revenue from Federal taxpayers when Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense funds were counted together.

I have long called for this loophole to be corrected and for the percentage of Federal revenue to be returned to the original 85 percent. I will soon reintroduce legislation, the Protecting Students and Taxpayers, POST, Act, to address this issue.

While not addressed in the Forever GI Bill we are passing today, I look forward to working with my colleagues--including Senator Carper who has authored another bill on this topic which I support--veterans service organizations, and others to consider this and other important accountability concerns.

Mr. President, last week, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate rejected a bill that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act. This should be a turning point, not just in our healthcare debate but in the way that we move forward in the Senate.

The speech given by Senator McCain when he returned to the Senate Chamber last week lasted about 15 minutes, and, in that short period of time, the senior Senator from Arizona reminded us of our historic responsibility here in the Senate and the role that we play under our Constitution as an independent branch of government, and he then exhorted us to put away the partisanship and the gamesmanship and move to what we would call regular order in the Senate: Send a bill to a committee, have the committee consider the bill, bring in experts, go through an amendment process, report it to the floor, and have another amendment process hoping that the collective wisdom of the committee and the body will result in a work product that actually achieves the goal that we set out to achieve. That is the regular order. That is what John McCain asked us to get back to, and now we have that chance.

On a bipartisan basis, I believe the Senate must come together and work on solutions to improve our healthcare system. First, we have to stabilize it. In just a few weeks, the major insurance companies are going to announce their premiums for the next year, and I am afraid they are going to show dramatic increases, because what the industry has told us over and over is that the one thing they can't calculate is the uncertainty of policy decisions. So as long as we have not done our job in stabilizing the healthcare system, they will either step away from risk or charge higher premiums to cover the possibilities of greater risk. That is what we face in just a few weeks and particularly if this administration--the Trump administration--follows what the President has said over and over in his tweets. We have listened to the President basically say what I consider to be an irresponsible thing: Let the healthcare system fail; then the Democrats will come on their knees and beg us to change it.

Well, if the healthcare system fails, it will not have much impact on the President and his immediate family. They will still have health insurance. But if it fails, many people will not be able to afford basic health insurance. They may lose it, and others may lose their coverage altogether. It could be a personal disaster--a family disaster across the board. I can't believe that anyone--let alone the President--would suggest that is the best path to a constructive outcome. Responsibility suggests that there is a better way.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 20 million previously uninsured Americans have gained healthcare coverage, including more than 1 million people in my State of Illinois. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, our Nation's uninsured rate is at the lowest level in history. We cut it in half in Illinois. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies can no longer engage in the type of abusive conduct that was well known and well established before the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Before the passage of that law, insurance companies decided that women, because of their gender, had a preexisting condition and, therefore, had to pay more for health insurance than men. They used to charge older people exorbitantly more than younger people for insurance. They would deny maternity care, mental health or substance abuse care, deny insurance to people with preexisting conditions or charge them sky-high premiums. They would impose annual or lifetime caps on benefits and kick people off insurance when they got sick and needed care.

The Affordable Care Act changed each and every one of those things. Young adults, in addition, can now stay on their parents' health insurance plans up to the age of 26, and seniors with Medicare are getting free preventive care and substantial discounts on their pharmaceuticals.

The law is far from perfect. Improvements can and should be made. We have done that over the years to Social Security and Medicare. We should do it again here. Six percent of Americans and 3 percent of Illinoisans purchase their insurance in the individual market, and more than 50 percent of those people receive premium subsidies to help them pay for their monthly premiums. For these people, especially those who don't qualify for subsidies, insurance options can be limited or expensive. So while there are clear challenges, we also need to be honest about the scope of the problem and where we need to make fixes. There are ways to help.

First, the 19 States that have refused to expand their Medicaid Program should do so. If they did, 4.5 million more Americans would instantly gain access to healthcare coverage. Many of these people who would gain coverage go to work every single day--sometimes to more than one job a week--and they don't have any healthcare benefits where they work. They have no place to turn. Medicaid can help. If Republicans are serious about wanting to provide people with access to affordable health insurance, Medicaid expansion is the most commonsense measure we can take.

Second, the administration should stop stoking uncertainty in the individual market and commit to paying cost-sharing reduction subsidies known as the CSRs. These Federal subsidies now help 7 million Americans with out-of-pocket health insurance costs. If the Trump administration sabotages the healthcare system and refuses to make these payments, premiums on these individuals would increase by 20 percent next year alone. Now, many of my Senate Republican colleagues, including HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, support the CSR payments. I think that is a responsible course of action. In fact, they are even included in some of the Republican healthcare repeal bills. It is time to end this ``will they or won't they'' game--this uncertainty--and reassure Americans and insurers that payments are going to be made. The uncertainty is going to raise the cost of health insurance for everybody. For goodness sake, let's move in the opposite direction, bring stability and bring assurances of where we are headed so that healthcare premiums can stabilize and perhaps not go up as far as they would otherwise.

Third, we should give people in the individual market more affordable options. I support offering a Medicare-like plan. If insurers choose not to participate in the individual market, why wouldn't the government step in and offer an option that individuals can decide whether they want to take it.

Finally, we have to do something about the high cost of prescription drugs. They are contributing directly to massive premium increases. The health insurance companies tell us--in Blue Cross Blue Shield's case in Illinois, they are paying more for prescription drugs in Illinois than they are paying for inpatient hospital care--that is driving premiums higher.

What have we done to deal with prescription drug costs exactly? Nothing. There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that even monitors these costs when it comes to the public at large and very little, if anything, has been proposed or passed in Congress to deal with these out-of-control increases in prescription drug prices. I think drug companies should have to publicly justify their prices and provide ample lead time when they are going to raise these prices.

Drugs that are developed with significant Federal taxpayer dollars-- and that is many of them--whether from the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Defense, should commit to reasonable pricing in their products. If these drug companies are using taxpayer subsidized research to develop a drug, I think they have a special public responsibility when it comes to the marketing of that drug to make sure the pricing is reasonable. The taxpayers helped them to a profitable position. They shouldn't go overboard and overcharge.

Last week when Senator McCain made his appeal on the Senate floor, he really called on us to work together to get something done. I have noticed that there is a bipartisan effort underway in the House. I believe we will hear one this week in the Senate. I am glad that we are heeding his advice. I agree with the Senator from Arizona that it is time for the Senate to turn to regular order, hold hearings, bring in experts, and really work together on proposals that would expand access to affordable health insurance coverage and care. Democrats stand ready to work with Republicans to do this. It is time to put ObamaCare repeal behind us. It is time to move forward on behalf of those who are counting on us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will support the nomination of Christopher Wray to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I met with Mr. Wray prior to his hearing, and I have carefully reviewed his record and listened to his hearing testimony. I believe he is well qualified and that he is sensitive to the fact that the FBI Director needs to be independent from this President and this Administration.

We are at a perilous moment in our history. Director Comey was fired by President Trump after he refused to pledge his loyalty to President Trump and after he publicly acknowledged that the FBI was investigating links between the Trump campaign and Russia. In the 109-year history of the FBI, only one FBI Director had ever been fired before. That director, William Sessions, was dismissed for serious ethical violations--not because the FBI was investigating the administration. Not since Watergate and the Saturday Night Massacre of October 20, 1973, has a President dismissed the head of an ongoing investigation into his administration.

From his own statements to NBC News and to Russian officials in the Oval Office, we know that President Trump wanted FBI Director Comey gone because of the Russia investigation. Let's be clear--Russia attacked our democracy last year. Almost every day, there is a new revelation about Russian contacts with the Trump campaign and administration. We owe it to the American people to get to the bottom of what happened.

Fortunately, we now have a special counsel, Bob Mueller, who is investigating whether any crimes were committed. We also need to make sure no foreign adversary can interfere with our elections again. It is imperative that the next FBI Director allow Special Counsel Mueller to conduct his investigation without interference and that the FBI provide Mueller with access to the information and resources he needs.

It is also imperative that we have an FBI Director who will carry out the functions of the office with independence, integrity, and a firm commitment to the rule of law.

I appreciate that Mr. Wray shares my view that the FBI Director should avoid meeting with President Trump one-on-one and that the FBI Director would be well-advised to make contemporaneous written records of any substantive conversations with President Trump.

Mr. Wray also told me he has no reason to doubt the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered in our election. I look forward to hearing more from Mr. Wray on this subject after he is confirmed and has reviewed the classified intelligence.

He also committed to work with me to address the scourge of illicit gun trafficking coming into the city of Chicago and to work with me on efforts to reduce youth exposure to violent trauma.

I asked Mr. Wray about the criminal division's involvement in a 2004 memo by the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel on torture. He said he was not involved in reviewing or approving this memo or any CIA interrogation techniques and that he agrees with former FBI Director Mueller that interrogation techniques such as painful stress positions and waterboarding are ``abusive under all circumstances.'' I appreciate his commitment to ensuring that FBI personnel never use or participate in abusive interrogation techniques. Mr. Wray also committed to me that, if confirmed, he would review the Senate Intelligence Committee's torture report, and I look forward to hearing his reflections on it.

Mr. Wray told me that he agrees with former Director Comey that Federal courts and Federa1 prosecutors are effective in prosecuting terrorists and obtaining valuable intelligence, which is clear when you compare our courts' record in convicting more than 500 terrorists since 9/11. In contrast, military commissions have only produced eight convictions, four of which have been overturned.

I appreciate Mr. Wray's commitment to ``seek to maintain and build trust with all Americans, including Muslim Americans.''

The next FBI Director will be under incredible scrutiny. We need an FBI Director who will face that pressure with integrity, independence, and a firm commitment to the rule of law. He may also have to stand up to this President if the interests of justice call for it. I believe Mr. Wray can do that, so I will support his nomination, and I hope I will be joined by my colleagues in closely monitoring the FBI to ensure Mr. Wray is effectively serving the American people and the rule of law.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) is necessarily absent.