[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 200 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7922-S7923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  DACA

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to spend a couple of 
minutes talking about the Dream Act and the so-called DACA issue. There 
are so many acronyms here in Washington. Sometimes we rely too much on 
them, but in this case, a lot of Americans know what we are talking 
about--the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
  This policy was put in place in the prior administration. Then in 
September, in this administration, the President made an announcement 
to end the program, to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
Program. The President imposed, I would argue, an arbitrary deadline of 
March 5 of next year, which is looming now. Something on the order of 
20,000 DACA recipients have already lost their protection from 
detention and deportation, and I believe that it is critical for 
Congress to act now to pass the bipartisan Dream Act.
  What are we talking about here?
  We are talking about young people who arrived in this country, in 
many cases, at very, very young ages--some of them babies, some of them 
young children at the time. When you hear their stories, you come away 
impressed that they have succeeded, that they have become part of the 
fabric of American life.
  In a meeting a couple of months ago--sitting in a conference room, 
around a long conference table with other DACA recipients, because of 
the looming deadline and the potential that she could lose the status 
she has now and be deported--one DACA recipient said to me: The only 
country I have ever known doesn't want me--or at least she was 
reflecting that the policy the administration had enunciated seemed to 
send a message to her that she was not wanted.
  This makes no sense at all on a number of fronts, and I will get to 
each of them in a moment, but I will start with the word ``promise.'' 
These young people were made a promise by our government. It was made 
by the President of the United States of America when he said: Come 
forward, and we will protect you because you have taken that 
affirmative step forward.
  That promise cannot be violated, in my judgment, by any President or, 
certainly, by inaction on the part of Congress. If this government is 
willing to break that promise to what most believe is something on the 
order of 800,000 young people who have lived in the United States since 
their childhoods and after our having allowed them to better contribute 
to their families and their communities, why would any government 
around the world, let alone our own people, believe any other promise 
that we would make?
  Would we have that moment, I would hope that we would be confident 
that a foreign government that happens to be an ally would be able to 
take our word for something--take the word of the President, take the 
word of a Federal official or a Member of Congress--when we make an 
assertion.
  We all remember the story in the context of the Cuban missile crisis, 
when an American official went to see President de Gaulle of France--an 
ally, a close ally, an ally for generations. In discussion with 
President de Gaulle of France, that envoy said: The President of the 
United States wants me to present evidence to you to prove that there 
are missiles in Cuba.
  As we were told, President de Gaulle said: There is no reason for you 
to show the surveillance pictures. If the President of the United 
States says there are missiles in Cuba, I believe him, and you don't 
need to prove it to me.
  Part of that was because, over the generations, leaders of our 
country had built up a kind of credibility, a believability, that was 
very important to our international relationships--in this case, having 
to do with the French people.
  Yet our government would break a promise to 800,000 young people--
law-abiding young people, young people who have succeeded, in many of 
whom our country has invested by way of their educations. They have 
been educated in our school districts--educated in grade school and in 
high school and in our institutions of higher education in some 
instances. We are going to break a promise to them? Why would anyone 
trust us around the world if we would break a promise to 800,000 young 
people?
  This is the responsibility not only of the administration but of both 
parties in both Houses because, if that promise is violated by inaction 
or action, then I think that we damage our credibility here at home, 
especially, but also around the world.
  We know that there are economic consequences to this action or 
inaction. By one estimate, when I consider just Pennsylvania, here are 
some of the numbers. In Pennsylvania, the Deferred Action for Childhood 
Arrivals Program has allowed nearly 5,900 young people to come forward 
and to pass background checks to live and to work legally in this 
country. That was the promise. You come forward, and you allow a 
background check to proceed. You pass it, and you work legally in this 
country.
  What kind of impact would play out in Pennsylvania if those 5,900 
young people were to be lost because DACA would have ended?

  The cost for our State would be, by one estimate, $357 million. The 
national number is extraordinarily high. For the 800,000 young people 
who have lived in the United States since their childhoods, if DACA 
ends, the national economy will lose more than $460 billion--that is 
billion with a ``b'' as opposed to the Pennsylvania number, which is in 
the millions--over the decade. So it would be, roughly, $46 billion or 
so every year for 10 years. Why would we do that? Why would anyone want 
that to happen--to have that kind of economic hit to the national 
economy?
  I think it is wrong just based upon its being a violation of a 
promise. It is a sacred obligation of any government, especially to the 
people who are living within the boundaries of the United States of 
America. That is offensive enough for me to speak out against action or 
inaction that would be against the interests of these young people. 
Even if you did not prioritize the violation of a sacred promise, you 
could also arrive at the conclusion that ending DACA would be a mistake 
for purely economic reasons if you were concerned about the national 
economy.
  These young people, known as Dreamers, as I said, have lived in this 
country since they were very young. They are law-abiding residents. 
They have learned English. They pay taxes and have gone to school. They 
have secured jobs to support themselves and their families. For many of 
these Dreamers, America is, indeed, the only home they have ever known. 
Here are a couple of examples, in this case, from Pennsylvania.
  Audrey Lopez, a Dreamer from Lancaster, PA, was brought to the United 
States from Peru when she was just 11 years old. Audrey spent most of 
her childhood in Pennsylvania, and her parents instilled in her the 
value of hard work and an education. Like so many Dreamers, Audrey 
Lopez only learned that she was undocumented when she started applying 
to college and learned that she did not have a Social Security number.
  Despite her not having access to financial aid, Audrey worked hard 
and graduated from Millersville University

[[Page S7923]]

of Pennsylvania in 2012. After graduation, she took a job in public 
service at Church World Services in assisting refugees with 
resettlement. This past fall, Audrey accepted a nearly full scholarship 
to American University, here in Washington, where she will obtain a 
master's in international development. She has chosen that course of 
study, in part, due to fear of deportation. She is hoping to arm 
herself with the tools to make her country a better place.
  We should be supporting young, hard-working people like Audrey who 
want to work in the service of others and our Nation. Instead, there 
are people here in Washington who are threatening their futures--not 
only her future but our Nation's future--by making us less safe and 
damaging the economy.
  I say ``less safe'' if that is the way we treat law-abiding 
individuals in our country, people who have lived here their whole 
lives. They may not have been born here--they may not have a number--
but for all intents and purposes, they are Americans. They live in 
American communities and attend American schools. They have achieved 
things that we would hope every American would achieve, and they have 
worked hard. In some cases, they didn't realize they were any different 
from any other child until much later in life when they were told they 
might not have had a number or a special status that others around them 
might have had. In any case, in addition to being the wrong thing to 
do--violate a promise--and in addition to hurting our economy, if you 
end DACA, it will not be good for our security.
  Again, why would anyone believe that we could enter into a hard and 
fast security agreement or protect our own people if we would not be 
willing to protect people in our own country who have followed the law? 
This would be an insult and an outrage if it were hundreds of people, 
but we are talking about 800,000 who will be subject to losing their 
status and, ultimately, be deported because the U.S. Congress doesn't 
have the guts and doesn't have the integrity to protect them.
  So this is a test, a test of the U.S. Congress--both Houses--and it 
is a test for the administration as well. I hope they can pass this 
test, the test of whether we keep our promise or whether we lie to the 
people. That is what this is about. This is about basic integrity, and 
there is no in-between here. You either keep your promise or you don't. 
We will see what the administration does, we will see what the Congress 
does, and we will see whether people care about the economy.
  There is a lot of talk about growing the economy. How can we say we 
want to grow the economy, when you reject because of some ideology or 
some special interest--reject and compromise and damage the future of 
800,000 people who live here? That is inexcusable and unforgiveable. I 
hope we see some moral courage over the next couple of weeks when it 
comes to these young people. Ending DACA is bad for our economy, it 
tears away the integrity of our government, and it is bad for our 
security. If this program is ended, we are less safe as a country, 
without a doubt.
  This is why Congress must move immediately to pass the bipartisan 
Dream Act. It is a bill I was proud to vote for and move forward in 
2007 and 2010. The bill would allow Dreamers to become permanent 
residents if they meet the very stringent qualifications outlined in 
the bill. This means giving those 5,900 Pennsylvanians who have been 
granted DACA status some security and a future they can count on. This 
is why we can say America is a great country, when we keep our 
promises, when we protect our own folks in our communities, especially 
these individuals who work very hard.
  So this is a basic test. I hope our government will meet it. I hope 
the administration will work with us to make sure we can finally pass 
into law a measure that will remove this uncertainty and remove the 
fear people live with.
  Let me conclude with one observation. I was in a meeting a couple of 
weeks ago with a young woman who said: The only country I have ever 
known doesn't seem to want me.
  Another young woman in the same meeting said her whole goal in life 
was pretty simple. She wanted to be a nurse. She said she wanted to 
heal people. She had done well in school, had followed all the rules, 
and now she may be in trouble, subject to deportation down the road, if 
somehow this DACA policy isn't upheld, if our promise is violated, our 
sacred promise to 800,000 people. This young woman was telling a room 
full of people about this goal she had, this aspiration to be a nurse, 
and when she said, ``All I want to do is heal people,'' she became very 
upset.
  Another young woman who had achieved in school and had done well was 
a volunteer firefighter in Pennsylvania. She worries about it as well. 
Story after story, example after example of young people who have 
worked very hard their whole lives, have achieved in school, their 
friends are all around them, and their families are a part of these 
communities. Is our government going to violate a promise to them? Why 
would anyone believe our government after that on any promise if it 
violates a promise that fundamental? Why would anyone trust the U.S. 
Congress if these young people aren't protected?
  I hope Congress will meet this test, support the Dream Act, and get 
it done. If we get that done, then we can say we are a government 
people should trust. If you don't get this done, it is a lot more 
difficult to make the case that our word is good here at home and that 
it is good internationally.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________