Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the ``Preventing Online Sales of E-Cigarettes to Children Act,'' which would help address the concerning rise of electronic cigarette use among America's youth.

This common-sense bill would protect children by requiring online retailers of e-cigarettes to meet the same standards as those that sell regular cigarettes and other tobacco products online.

E-cigarette use among teenagers has increased dramatically over the past few years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 20 percent of high school students used electronic cigarettes in 2018. In comparison, only about 1.5 percent of high school students reportedly used e-cigarettes in 2011.

Even more disturbing, the rise of teenage use of e-cigarettes appears to be accelerating. Between 2017 and 2018, e-cigarettes use among high school-aged children jumped 78%. Today, e-cigarettes have become the most commonly used tobacco product among America's youth. These severe levels of e-cigarette use by middle and high school-aged children are staggering.

According to a U.S. Surgeon General report on e-cigarette use among youth and young adults, the developing adolescent brain is uniquely sensitive to nicotine. Studies have also shown that the development of the brain during adolescence can be permanently altered by nicotine. As a result, children exposed to nicotine may be at greater risk for acting out drug-seeking behaviors, experiencing deficits in attention and cognition, and suffering from mood disorders. These effects may continue into adulthood, long after e-cigarette use has stopped.

Given the effects of nicotine on children, it is critical that we close any legal loopholes that have allowed underage youth to gain access to tobacco, particularly through e-cigarettes.

Among underage e-cigarette users, 86 percent reported that they obtained the product from somewhere other than a retail store. And a recent survey of adolescent e-cigarette users showed that 32 percent of them reported purchasing their products online, making online sales the single largest source of underage purchases.

Our legislation would build off the ``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act,'' which has been a tremendous success in preventing underage use of cigarettes. Since it passed, the number of middle and high school students who use cigarettes has been nearly cut in half. We should expand on this success by requiring e-cigarette retailers to meet the same requirements as those that sell regular cigarettes online.

By applying the same safeguards that have worked with online sales of regular cigarettes, our bill would ensure that online e-cigarette sellers are verifying the age of their customers, properly labeling packages, and checking identification at delivery.

In addition, our bill requires deliveries of e-cigarettes to comply with relevant State tobacco taxes and reporting requirements, as is currently required of online sales of regular cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. E-cigarette retailers will also need to register and maintain a record of their online sales, which will be accessible to State and Federal law officials. Law enforcement will be able to identify and shut down online vendors that are systematically breaking the law by marketing their e-cigarette products to children.

This bill complements efforts by the Food and Drug Administration, which has recognized the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use and proposed a number of policies meant to prevent underage retail purchases, limit flavors that appeal to children, and enforce age verifications.

Over the last 50 years, the United States has made remarkable progress in reducing the number of Americans that use tobacco products. However, the dramatic recent rise of e-cigarette use among our youth threatens that progress and requires a strong response.

I want to thank Senator Cornyn for joining me in introducing legislation on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill to address the epidemic of e-cigarette use among America's youth. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of David Bernhardt to be Secretary of the Interior.

I opposed his nomination as Deputy Secretary of the Interior because of his numerous conflicts of interest as a former lobbyist.

Bernhardt's tenure, both as Deputy Secretary and now the Acting Secretary at Interior, has since confirmed my initial concerns and given rise to new ones.

As a former partner at a powerful DC lobbying and law firm, Bernhardt represented numerous oil, gas, mining, and water companies with ongoing business before the Department that he now oversees.

The Washington Post recently reported that he has at least 22 known conflicts of interest, the most of any of President Trump's nominees.

This is particularly concerning given that Mr. Bernhardt's recusals mandated by President Trump will expire in August, and he has refused to commit to continuing recusing himself beyond then on any issues that could benefit former clients.

In fact, during his recent confirmation hearing, Bernhardt stated that recusal isn't ``really is the best strategy''--an unacceptable stance.

By refusing to recuse himself, Bernhardt has shown a potential willingness to put his former clients' needs before the public good.

One troubling example is his relationship with Cadiz, a company that wants to profit by draining a critical aquifer in the Mojave Desert.

Before coming to the Department of the Interior, Mr. Bernhardt was a partner at and led the natural resources division of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Cadiz's lobbying firm that retains a financial stake in the project.

This project would destroy the treasured California desert that I have fought my entire Senate career to protect.

In order to sell the water, Cadiz needs to build a more than 40-mile pipeline through the desert to connect to an aqueduct.

Several months after Bernhardt was nominated as Deputy Secretary, the Department of Interior temporarily suspended its own solicitor's opinion requiring Cadiz to get Federal permits to build its pipeline along a railroad right-of-way.

That solicitor's opinion was ultimately reversed 2 months after he was confirmed, completely removing the Federal permitting authority for this project.

The timing of this decision is extremely troubling, particularly in light of the Interior Department's own independent science that has repeatedly questioned the sustainability of this project.

The U.S. Geological Survey, which is part of the Interior Department, stated in 2002 and confirmed in 2017 that the natural recharge rate of the aquifer is only 2,000 to 10,000 acre-feet per year. Cadiz proposes to withdraw water at more than 50,000 acre-feet, or 16 billion gallons, per year for 50 years.

Taking that much water would rob the desert of its most precious natural resource and harm the surrounding flora and fauna.

Now the Federal Government, despite its own science saying Cadiz would take too much water and legal opinions requiring Federal review, has removed itself from the permitting process.

Even the mere appearance of favoritism or special favors for Cadiz is extremely inappropriate and a concern with this nomination.

I am also concerned that throughout his tenure at Interior, Bernhardt has shown a willingness to ignore the public's interest for political purposes.

During President Trump's government shutdown--the longest in U.S. history--Acting Secretary Bernhardt kept most of the national parks open to avoid public backlash for the shutdown.

Left open but severally understaffed, major damage occurred to parks across the country. Few places felt the impact of his poor decision more than Joshua Tree National Park.

Iconic Joshua trees were cut down, cultural artifacts stolen or destroyed, and pristine desert habitat marred by vehicle traffic.

I have twice requested from Mr. Bernhardt a full accounting of the damage and costs of his decision and have not received a response.

I am also deeply concerned by steps Interior has recently taken to expand offshore oil drilling, despite bipartisan opposition from coastal States.

Californians don't want new offshore drilling along our coast. We still remember the horror of the 1969 Santa Barbara spill, when an offshore oil rig leaked more than 100,000 barrels, the third largest oil spill behind the Exxon-Valdez and Deepwater Horizon disasters.

There has been no new drilling in State waters since that spill and no new drilling in Federal waters off the coast of California since 1984.

Now, the Department of the Interior is openly discussing the option of restarting such drilling.

Bernhardt's ties to the fossil fuel industry give me zero confidence that the Interior Department will reach the right conclusion if he is confirmed.

For the reasons I have stated, I cannot vote to confirm Mr. Bernhardt.

Should he be confirmed, I again ask that he fully recuse himself from all matters related to former clients during his tenure as a lobbyist.

I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this nomination before voting.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I understand the majority is considering another change to how judicial nominees are considered.

My understanding is the majority leader may move to break the rules of the Senate and cut the time that Senators can debate nominees after cloture is invoked from 30 hours to 2 hours.

Just yesterday, the Senate rejected this change. The Lankford resolution was voted on and did not receive 60 votes, let alone the 67 votes required to change the rules.

The resolution would also have changed postcloture debate time on circuit court and Supreme Court nominees from 30 hours total to 30 hours divided between the majority and minority leaders or their designees. This means debate on a Supreme Court nomination could be limited to only 15 total hours of debate.

Despite bipartisan opposition to the Lankford resolution, the majority is now considering limiting debate time by breaking longstanding rules of the Senate.

Changing the rules is not only unnecessary, but also is dangerous, especially when we are talking about lifetime appointments. Further, given this administration's failure to properly vet its own nominees, the Senate should not restrict critical vetting and due diligence.

There is simply no need to limit debate on President Trump's judicial nominees. In fact, President Trump's judicial nominees have been confirmed at a record pace.

Through his first 2 years in office, President Trump had more circuit court nominees confirmed than any other President had at the same point in their tenure--30 total. That is on top of two Supreme Court Justices and 53 district court judges.

Further, the current administration's circuit court nominees have been confirmed nearly twice as fast as President Obama's, 256 days for President Obama's nominees versus 139 days for President Trump's nominees.

The rules change is also unnecessary because Senate Democrats are in no way obstructing confirmations. Senate Democrats have not required cloture votes on more than half of President Trump's district court nominees.

On average, the Senate has used only 3 hours of floor time for debate on President Trump's district court nominees.

In addition, a higher percentage of President Trump's district court nominees have been confirmed by voice vote as compared to President Obama's district court nominees, 49 percent versus 35 percent. In other words, Senate Democrats have not required the majority to hold rollcall votes on nearly half of President Trump's nominees to the Federal district courts.

Finally, Democrats have worked with the Trump administration to identify qualified judicial nominees.

For example, Delaware's two Democratic Senators, Senators Carper and Coons, worked with the White House to identify two qualified nominees to be judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Senators Durbin and Duckworth of Illinois worked with this administration to identify two highly qualified nominees to be judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Both of those nominees were confirmed unanimously.

In addition, we are right now in postcloture time on the nomination of Roy Altman to the Southern District of Florida. Several Democrats voted for Mr. Altman in committee, and Democrats have not demanded a full 30 hours of debate time on Mr. Altman's nomination.

Despite all of this, Republicans are nevertheless breaking the rules and pushing the Senate closer to a body that is governed simply by the whim of the majority.

All of this leads to an unmistakable conclusion--shortening debate time is unnecessary. It is a response to a non-existent problem, and it is simply a power grab meant to stack the courts at an even faster rate.

It is also important to stress why it is so dangerous to allow the Trump administration to stack the courts in this way, without adequate debate time.

We have seen this administration fill lifetime positions with young, inexperienced nominees who are often outside the legal mainstream. We have seen them try to do this without properly vetting those same nominees, as in the case of Brett Talley, who failed to disclose to the Judiciary Committee nearly 15,000 online comments, including one in which he defended the founder of the KKK.

The Senate needs sufficient time to scrutinize the records of these nominees--nominees like Matthew Kacsmaryk and Patrick Wyrick, who have led efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act; nominees like Brian Buescher, who has argued that States should go after women's reproductive rights ``bit by bit''; and nominees like Wendy Vitter, who refused to acknowledge that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided and who falsely claimed there is a connection between the use of contraceptive pills and the incidence of cancer.

Two hours is simply not enough time to scrutinize these nominees' records, especially when so many of this administration's judicial nominees fail to disclose materials to the Judiciary Committee.

In conclusion, all Senators, and not just those on the Judiciary Committee, need adequate time to review the records of these judicial nominees, who, if confirmed, will serve for life.

All Senators need adequate time to make an informed decision about whether these nominees are qualified to decide the fate of thousands of people's lives. After all, the American people deserve to know that, if they find themselves in a Federal court, they will have an impartial, qualified, mainstream jurist who has earned the right to sit on the bench.

This decision to break the rules and reduce debate time on judicial nominees not only harms the institution of the Senate, but also harms the Federal judiciary.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act.'' This bill would help address our Nation's current homelessness crisis by establishing a new Federal grant program to increase support for comprehensive services paired with housing.

As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless populations--families with children, veterans, individuals with mental health conditions, people who simply could not keep up with increases in rent--our Nation's homelessness crisis is not going to resolve itself on its own.

According to the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are more than 552,000 homeless individuals and families in the United States. Nearly 25 percent of this population is in California, with approximately 129,972 homeless people sleeping on the streets on any given night.

In a Nation as prosperous as ours, we can and we must do better. Our city, county, state, and Federal governments must work hand-in-hand with the non-profit and private sectors to establish collaborative efforts to significantly address the issue of homelessness.

The good news is that we have seen a model that works: supportive housing can truly stabilize an individual or family and change their life. Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference.

One success story is the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles. This shelter allows homeless and formerly homeless women to transform their lives through a combination of permanent, supportive housing and workforce development. This would not be possible without the Center's partnerships with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Health, and other critical stakeholders. I've visited the Center, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same to see why this model works.

It will take a significant investment to solve the current homelessness crisis. The ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act'' authorizes a new Federal funding grant program of $750 million per year, subject to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive set of services, and they must provide a 25 percent match for any Federal funds received.

Because each individual and every community is unique, the grant program created by this bill would be flexible in order to work in any region or for any homeless population. This bill supports the great work already being done across the country, allowing local governmental entities and non-profit organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where they will make the most effective impact.

This bipartisan legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local government, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, including the Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Mayors and CEOS for U.S. Housing Investment, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Association of Counties, National Education Association, National League of Cities, National Low Income Housing Coalition, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, and Treatment Communities of America.

I particularly want to thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on this important issue. I hope our colleagues will join us in cosponsoring the bill and moving it through the Senate. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act.'' This bill would help address our Nation's current homelessness crisis by establishing a new Federal grant program to increase support for comprehensive services paired with housing.

As we have seen with the growing diversity of our homeless populations--families with children, veterans, individuals with mental health conditions, people who simply could not keep up with increases in rent--our Nation's homelessness crisis is not going to resolve itself on its own.

According to the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are more than 552,000 homeless individuals and families in the United States. Nearly 25 percent of this population is in California, with approximately 129,972 homeless people sleeping on the streets on any given night.

In a Nation as prosperous as ours, we can and we must do better. Our city, county, state, and Federal governments must work hand-in-hand with the non-profit and private sectors to establish collaborative efforts to significantly address the issue of homelessness.

The good news is that we have seen a model that works: supportive housing can truly stabilize an individual or family and change their life. Supportive services such as mental and physical health care, substance abuse treatment, education and job training, and life skills such as financial literacy are critical components. Paired with intensive case management, supportive housing models make a difference.

One success story is the Downtown Women's Center in Los Angeles. This shelter allows homeless and formerly homeless women to transform their lives through a combination of permanent, supportive housing and workforce development. This would not be possible without the Center's partnerships with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Health, and other critical stakeholders. I've visited the Center, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same to see why this model works.

It will take a significant investment to solve the current homelessness crisis. The ``Fighting Homelessness with Services and Housing Act'' authorizes a new Federal funding grant program of $750 million per year, subject to annual appropriations. Grantees must serve individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless by providing housing paired with a comprehensive set of services, and they must provide a 25 percent match for any Federal funds received.

Because each individual and every community is unique, the grant program created by this bill would be flexible in order to work in any region or for any homeless population. This bill supports the great work already being done across the country, allowing local governmental entities and non-profit organizations to expand their capacity and ensure a greater reach by putting Federal dollars where they will make the most effective impact.

This bipartisan legislation is supported by a wide coalition of local government, housing, health, and child welfare organizations, including the Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense Fund, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Mayors and CEOS for U.S. Housing Investment, National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Association of Counties, National Education Association, National League of Cities, National Low Income Housing Coalition, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, and Treatment Communities of America.

I particularly want to thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on this important issue. I hope our colleagues will join us in cosponsoring the bill and moving it through the Senate. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress and which is at the desk; further, that the concurrent resolution be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to make remarks as in morning business.

Madam President, last Friday, Special Counsel Mueller submitted his report to Attorney General Barr. On Sunday, the Attorney General provided a four-page summary of that report to Congress and the American people.

Unfortunately, the Attorney General's summary tells us little about what Special Counsel Mueller actually found. In fact, according to the summary, Mueller's office spent 2 years investigating, with a team of 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents and other professional staff. The special counsel issued

more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing the use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. That is quite a record.

The fact is, a four-page summary cannot possibly illuminate what this thorough of an investigation uncovered. I find it so disappointing that so many are rushing to judgment without being able to see the full report or all of the underlying facts.

This report should be made public. As has been, I think, well stated, not only is the official government interested, but the American public is interested in our findings as well.

We know the Russian Government interfered with the U.S. election. That has been reported by the intelligence community and intelligence committee--I sit on that committee--and it has been reaffirmed by the special counsel's investigation.

We also know, from court filings, documents, and press reports, that the President and at least 17 people associated with his campaign had more than 100 contacts with Russia or Russia's intermediaries.

However, Attorney General Barr's summary provides no information about any of these contacts or multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the campaign, and that is a quote--``multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the campaign''-- referenced in the Attorney General's summary.

Congress must determine the risks to national security, whether there was, in fact, misconduct, whether existing laws are sufficient to deter and punish election interference, and what next steps are appropriate. The American people also have a right to the truth about what happened in the 2016 election and to judge the facts for themselves.

Special Counsel Mueller also did not draw a conclusion, one way or the other, as to whether the President committed a crime through his efforts to obstruct the investigation. Instead, Mr. Mueller wrote: ``While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.''

Since Special Counsel Mueller elected to describe the facts but did not decide whether to charge the President with a crime, we don't know why he made this decision, but clearly we do need to see the facts for ourselves to be able to make a decision about how to proceed and what, if any, additional steps are necessary.

While the Attorney General concluded there was no crime of obstruction committed, we knew that was his conclusion 9 months ago when he wrote a 10-page memo explaining why the President can't be charged with obstruction of justice. Special Counsel Mueller found that there is ``evidence on both sides of the question.'' Congress and the American people should be able to see that evidence and make a determination, including what the appropriate next steps are, if any.

I am very disappointed that some Republicans are saying Democrats need to move on before we even see the report or underlying evidence. Many of these Republicans called for eight congressional investigations into the Benghazi attack and demanded and received 880,000 pages of documents related to the Clinton email investigation. We have also already obtained documents related to Mueller's investigation, including classified FISA Court applications.

Of course, unwarranted foot-dragging is really not good, and really bad for this country. I had thought we were past that with prior events where we did take action, and we were able to see both sides. After 37 indictments, 6 of whom were indicted Trump advisers, as well as 7 guilty pleas, surely spending more than a week on understanding what happened and asking for the full report is warranted. How can we have 37 indictments, 6 Trump advisers, as well as guilty pleas, without being able to understand what actually happened and not be afforded the material to gain that understanding?

I hope this can be a bipartisan effort to ensure the full record is produced and the facts are uncovered. It is really puzzling to me why the Republican side would not want to do this. Do they presume guilt on their side, and therefore they want to hide it from the public? If you don't, why wouldn't you want whatever the true facts are to come out? The American people deserve no less.

On March 14, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for Special Counsel Mueller's report to be made public. The vote was unanimous, 420 to 0--420 to 0. Both sides of the House of Representatives said this should happen.

Senator Schumer, our minority leader, has now twice sought unanimous consent for the Senate to consider that resolution. These requests have been blocked by Republicans. I don't understand that. If the House can consider this, why can't we look at what the House has done? This, to my knowledge, in the quarter of a century that I have been in this body, has never happened before, where the Senate has actually refused to look at information.

I very much hope there can be a change of mind and allow the U.S. Senate to do its due diligence in this matter. Hiding the information will not solve the problem.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' This legislation would update the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to phase out the use of harmful drift gillnets and replace them with more sustainable fishing gear. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Capito, for once again co-leading this important bill.

Drift gillnets, which are approximately one to one and a half miles long, are intended to catch swordfish and thresher shark off the coast of California. Tragically, nearly 60 other species are frequently caught and killed in the nets, including dolphins, porpoises, whales, sea lions, and sea turtles. These are known as bycatch.

While some of these species can be sold, most are wastefully thrown back into the ocean either dead or seriously injured.

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, these harmful nets account for 90% of whale and porpoise species killed in West Coast Fisheries. In the 1980s, Congress enacted legislation to end the domestic use of driftnets approximately 1.5 miles or longer. Under President George H.W. Bush, the United States entered binding international agreements banning such nets worldwide.

Driftnets are prohibited or are not utilized off the United States' Atlantic and Gulf coasts as well as in Washington State, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. Mexico permanently banned the use of these nets in the Gulf of California in 2017.

However, neither domestic nor international law currently includes the drift gillnets used in Federal waters off the coast of California to catch swordfish and thresher shark, despite their significant impact on protected marine life. This California-based fishery is the last place in the United States where these deadly driftnets are allowed.

Last year, the California legislature passed a bill, subsequently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, to phase out these large-mesh drift gillnets in State waters and establish a buyout program over a four-year period.

The State law requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to establish a voluntary ``permit transition program'' by March 2020 that will compensate fishermen during this transition process. California has already dedicated $1 million for the program and another $1 million is being sought through a public-private partnership.

Now that these nets are banned in State waters, our legislation to ban the nets in Federal waters is more timely than ever. The ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'' would phase out the use of drift gillnets over the five years after enactment. The bill also authorizes the Department of Commerce to assist fishermen in transitioning from driftnets to more sustainable gear types, which studies have shown actually increase profitability.

Updated fishing gear that could replace driftnets is available and has been successfully deployed in the Atlantic Ocean and in trials in the Pacific Ocean. Deep-set buoy gear, for example, allows fishermen to more accurately target swordfish and other marketable species in deep, cold water. The gear alerts fishermen immediately when they have fish on the line, so the fish can be retrieved and delivered to market quickly, thereby garnering a higher price.

In a 2016 poll, California voters overwhelmingly supported efforts to end the use of drift gillnets to catch swordfish, with 87 percent of those surveyed in a poll commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts agreeing that fishermen should use less harmful gear.

Our bill enjoys support from a wide range of commercial fishing companies, sportfishing groups, and environmental organizations, including: the American Sportfishing Association, the International Game Fish Association, Coastal Conservation Association of California, Yamaha USA, Okaiwa Corporation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, Oceana, Sea Legacy, and Mission Blue.

Our ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'' will protect valuable marine life unique to the West Coast, including several endangered species. This bill will also help fishermen to provide fresher, more profitable, and more sustainable seafood to American consumers.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the Floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' This legislation would update the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to phase out the use of harmful drift gillnets and replace them with more sustainable fishing gear. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Capito, for once again co-leading this important bill.

Drift gillnets, which are approximately one to one and a half miles long, are intended to catch swordfish and thresher shark off the coast of California. Tragically, nearly 60 other species are frequently caught and killed in the nets, including dolphins, porpoises, whales, sea lions, and sea turtles. These are known as bycatch.

While some of these species can be sold, most are wastefully thrown back into the ocean either dead or seriously injured.

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, these harmful nets account for 90% of whale and porpoise species killed in West Coast Fisheries. In the 1980s, Congress enacted legislation to end the domestic use of driftnets approximately 1.5 miles or longer. Under President George H.W. Bush, the United States entered binding international agreements banning such nets worldwide.

Driftnets are prohibited or are not utilized off the United States' Atlantic and Gulf coasts as well as in Washington State, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. Mexico permanently banned the use of these nets in the Gulf of California in 2017.

However, neither domestic nor international law currently includes the drift gillnets used in Federal waters off the coast of California to catch swordfish and thresher shark, despite their significant impact on protected marine life. This California-based fishery is the last place in the United States where these deadly driftnets are allowed.

Last year, the California legislature passed a bill, subsequently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, to phase out these large-mesh drift gillnets in State waters and establish a buyout program over a four-year period.

The State law requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to establish a voluntary ``permit transition program'' by March 2020 that will compensate fishermen during this transition process. California has already dedicated $1 million for the program and another $1 million is being sought through a public-private partnership.

Now that these nets are banned in State waters, our legislation to ban the nets in Federal waters is more timely than ever. The ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'' would phase out the use of drift gillnets over the five years after enactment. The bill also authorizes the Department of Commerce to assist fishermen in transitioning from driftnets to more sustainable gear types, which studies have shown actually increase profitability.

Updated fishing gear that could replace driftnets is available and has been successfully deployed in the Atlantic Ocean and in trials in the Pacific Ocean. Deep-set buoy gear, for example, allows fishermen to more accurately target swordfish and other marketable species in deep, cold water. The gear alerts fishermen immediately when they have fish on the line, so the fish can be retrieved and delivered to market quickly, thereby garnering a higher price.

In a 2016 poll, California voters overwhelmingly supported efforts to end the use of drift gillnets to catch swordfish, with 87 percent of those surveyed in a poll commissioned by The Pew Charitable Trusts agreeing that fishermen should use less harmful gear.

Our bill enjoys support from a wide range of commercial fishing companies, sportfishing groups, and environmental organizations, including: the American Sportfishing Association, the International Game Fish Association, Coastal Conservation Association of California, Yamaha USA, Okaiwa Corporation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, Oceana, Sea Legacy, and Mission Blue.

Our ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act'' will protect valuable marine life unique to the West Coast, including several endangered species. This bill will also help fishermen to provide fresher, more profitable, and more sustainable seafood to American consumers.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the ``Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act.'' Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the Floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of Women's History Month to recognize the tremendous achievements women have made for the United States and pay tribute to their tireless efforts to fight for themselves, their families, and all Americans.

We have set aside this month for over 30 years to give us the opportunity to not only reflect on the past and observe the many accomplishments of American women, but to also inspire the next generation of women leaders. I look upon the great courage our foremothers have displayed with great admiration and continue to personally be inspired by those who blazed the trail for women like me.

When I first came to Washington in 1992, they called it the ``Year of the Woman.'' Only two other women were serving in the Senate, and four women had just been elected to the chamber, myself included. Today, a quarter of the Senate is represented by women and a record 102 women serve in the House of Representatives, including the first woman speaker. I am proud of the progress we've made and hopeful we will continue to build on that momentum toward full equality..

Even at record levels, though, the number of women in Congress falls far short of the 51 percent of our Nation's population that are women. I have great hope in the next generations of women to rise up and help lead the way in building a better California and United States.

As in government, women have been and continue to be leaders in major social change efforts in our Nation. The business world has been transformed by powerful women at the table, as have science, music, film, athletics, literature, and much more. Today, there are more than 10 million women owned American businesses and half of our workforce is made up of women.

Enrollment numbers at medical and law schools are now almost evenly split between men and women. Our women warriors serve in critical roles in the U.S. Armed Forces, with more than 200,000 active-duty servicewomen proudly serving and a growing number of women veterans representing every branch of service.

Women who have selflessly answered the call to duty have served their Nation with honor, courage, and distinction. I have the utmost respect for the dignity and valor they exhibit and they are commended.

As a United States Senator proudly representing California, I ask you to join me in celebrating the stories and greatness of American women who accomplished the unprecedented and honor their legacies by continuing to defend the rights they worked so hard to achieve. Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in calling for legislation to resolve the climate crisis. The need for action could not be more urgent. Every day of inaction in the U.S. Senate brings new risks of irreversible harm to our communities, our environment and future generations.

Unfortunately, this week's vote is not really about climate change. The Senate has been asked to invoke cloture on a nonbinding resolution that raises but does not really answer a broad range of questions about climate change and our economy.

The Senate is not ready to end debate on these issues. We have hardly begun.

The Democratic Caucus is united in recognizing the realities of climate change and calling for effective solutions.

However, this constitutes a minority view in the U.S. Senate. For too many years, our calls for comprehensive climate change legislation have fallen on deaf ears.

The Green New Deal in all of its ambition and breadth should be recognized as a sign of the frustration that is mounting in this country as a result of Republican obstruction.

I do not agree with every aspect of this particular resolution. It addresses not only climate policy but also longstanding partisan disputes over healthcare, housing, jobs, and other economic policies.

These are important policy debates, but it is my view that the legislative effort to address climate change does not need to wait for agreement in these other areas. The need for action is too urgent.

But whatever our disagreements about policy approaches and nonbinding resolutions, it is long past time for us to set aside disagreements about the validity of climate science.

The scientific community has warned us about climate change for decades with increasing certainty and specificity, including in a report of the President's Science Advisory Committee in 1965, five assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since 1990, and four national climate assessment reports of the U.S. Global Change Research Program since 2000.

Most recently, a special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified the disastrous consequences if we allow the world to warm by more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial temperatures.

We are already at more than 1.8 degrees of warming. Sea levels have risen more than 8 inches. Ocean acidity has increased by 30 percent. Ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are melting into the sea at an accelerating pace of more than 400 gigatons per year.

Allowing the world to warm another degree, as we are on a course to do between 2030 and 2052, may well surpass our ability to adapt.

Continued warming will threaten rapid, widespread, and long-lasting increases in heatwaves, wildfire, disease, drought, crop failure, sea level rise, ocean acidification, mass extinction, collapsing food chains, mass population migrations, and human conflict.

To avoid warming in excess of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the special report identified that we will need to cut emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

That will require rapid transitions in all sectors at an unprecedented scale.

Unless the U.S. Senate can undertake the hard work of serious legislation soon, it is clear the world will be unable to meet that goal.

The good news is that there are a large number of good policy ideas the Senate can consider if my Republican colleagues agree to join with us in earnest.

There are bipartisan proposals for legislation to place a price on greenhouse gas emissions by placing a fee on fossil fuels.

We can even rebate the revenues to cover the costs for households and industry. These are good ideas that we should explore.

There are numerous examples of clean energy standards and other policy commitments at the State, local, and international level. These are also good ideas that we should explore.

My own State of California has demonstrated bold, creative new ideas for cutting emissions at the same time as it has grown to be the fifth largest economy in the world.

The State has mandated that 50 percent of its electricity must be from renewable sources by 2030.

We are actually ahead of schedule and are on track to reach that deadline by 2020, 10 years ahead of schedule.

From there, we are committed to be completely carbon neutral by 2045.

My State's policies work. From the low-carbon fuel standard to the zero-emission vehicle mandates to the economy-wide cap-and-trade system, each innovative policy approach makes it easier to meet our goals.

By harnessing the strength of the American economy to address climate change, we have an opportunity to create millions of new jobs while strengthening the infrastructure and industries that are critical to our future.

It is long past time for the Senate to move beyond show votes on nonbinding resolutions and move on to the hard work of actual legislation.

I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in this effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the resolution of disapproval before us that would terminate President Trump's phony national emergency.

President Trump's national emergency declaration, which he attempts to justify using falsehoods about immigration and the Southern border, presents a serious threat to the separation of powers and the rule of law.

First I would like to speak about how there really isn't an emergency at the border, then I would like to get into the constitutional problems with the President's actions.

While illegal border crossings do occur, all of the numbers refute President Trump's claim that there is a crisis at the border. Those claims simply don't hold up.

Unauthorized border crossings have been at their lowest levels in years.

In 2000, border agencies reported more than 1.6 million apprehensions.

In 2017, the agency reported just 303,916 apprehensions, one-fifth of the level just two decades ago.

It is clear that investments in border security have worked. Those include additional border patrol agents, fencing in urban areas, ground sensors, drones, and increased use of E-Verify.

In addition, since 2014, two-thirds of undocumented immigrants have come to the United States legally but then overstayed their visas, more than 500,000 per year. A border wall would do nothing to curb visa overstays.

Dangerous criminals aren't overrunning our country.

Immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. Data collected in Texas show the arrest rate for undocumented immigrants in 2015 was 40 percent lower than for the native-born population.

Additionally, many immigrants are actually legally seeking asylum through the process already in place. There are often families with young

children fleeing persecution and violence in Central America who have a legal right to petition our government for asylum.

Under current law, they can apply for asylum by presenting themselves at a U.S. port of entry. Unfortunately, by focusing on a border wall instead of investing in modernizing entry points, President Trump's policies force many of these families to turn themselves into Border Patrol in between ports and ask for asylum or wait for long periods in Mexico in dangerous conditions.

The timing of the President's declaration also undercuts his claim that this is an emergency.

President Trump kicked off his Presidential campaign nearly 4 years ago by claiming that immigrants were bringing drugs and crime to the United States. Despite this, he decided to wait until more than halfway through his term to declare his emergency and only then after Congress refused to give him the money he wanted.

If there were truly an emergency, the President should have declared it on day 1. He did not.

Trump also emphatically rejected a bill that would have given him $25 billion for a border wall in exchange for providing Dreamers a path to citizenship. Clearly, there was no emergency then either.

But the most clear statement that there is no emergency came from President Trump himself, who after declaring the emergency, said this in a Rose Garden speech: ``I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster.''

We shouldn't judge the President's attempt to divert appropriated funds to his border wall through a partisan lens, but rather view it as a radical departure from our constitutional separation of powers.

Through its appropriations clause, the Constitution provides Congress, not the President, with the power of the purse. Congress decides how to spend taxpayer dollars.

By providing Congress with this power, our Founding Fathers imposed a key check on the President, a check that President Trump is trying to do away with.

Congress exercised its power of the purse last month in a spending bill to keep the government open by including $1.35 billion for border barriers, rather than the $6 billion the President sought for a border wall.

The Constitution gave the President two options at that point: sign the bill or veto it. President Trump tried to create a third path, saying he would sign the bill but still divert additional Federal dollars to the wall, his so-called emergency.

In essence, the President decided to violate the Constitution so he could more quickly fulfill a campaign promise to build his border wall.

One of the ironies of President Trump's decision to divert funds to a border wall that won't stop drugs or crossings is the pots of money from which he is drawing.

First, the White House said it would pull $2.5 billion from a counternarcotics program that is used to support international law enforcement interdiction and apprehension efforts, as well as to fund National Guard support for State drug law enforcement operations, including in California.

Second, the White House said it would take another $3.5 billion from military construction projects.

These are programs that actually help improve our national security, and the President wants to take billions of dollars from them to build a wall--incredible.

The long-term danger here is that President Trump will set a precedent that a Commander in Chief can interpret the Nation's laws and the Constitution any way he wants. This can't be allowed to stand.

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 does allow the President to reprogram funds appropriated by Congress in case of a national emergency, like a hurricane or earthquake, but it is clear that the law was never intended to be used to explicitly overrule the will of Congress, which is how President Trump wants to use it.

During the Korean war, the Supreme Court struck down a similar attempt by President Truman to use emergency powers to seize privately owned steel mills, an action inconsistent with laws passed by Congress.

Even if there were an emergency--which there isn't--President Trump still wouldn't have the authority to reprogram Federal funds in this context.

Specifically, the statute that President Trump relies on, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2808, allows the President, in a national emergency that ``requires the use of the armed forces,'' to spend unobligated military construction funds for military construction projects ``that are necessary to support . . . use of the armed forces.''

The situation at the border does not ``require the use of the armed forces,'' and it is unclear how the wall would be ``necessary to support'' them.

If anything, the President's use of the military at the border to enforce the law raises additional questions under the Posse Comitatus Act, which has prohibited the use of the Armed Forces for domestic law enforcement for well over a century.

In sum, President Trump is relying on an incredibly frail legal argument to justify this blatant power grab. It is incumbent upon Congress to hold this President accountable as he attempts to seize one of our most important powers.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval and cancel President Trump's phony emergency.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Adilene Martinez, who is originally from Mexico but has been living in California for over 20 years. I believe she merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief.

Adilene, age 30, was brought to the United States by her parents Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno and Micaela Lopez Martinez. When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, California. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco.

Jose and his wife, Micaela, call San Francisco home. Micaela is a homemaker and part-time housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their oldest daughter, Adilene, is undocumented and is currently working at the San Francisco Opera House. Adilene attempted to legalize her status through several channels with her family, but the current green card backlog for relatives from Mexico is very long.

In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal. The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community.

The Martinez family truly exemplifies the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. With great dedication, Micaela has worked hard to raise three daughters who are advancing their education and look forward to continuing the pursuit of their goals.

I believe that Adilene's continued presence in the United States would allow them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez, a Mexican national who lives in the San Bruno area of California.

I offer legislation on his behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking man, wife who is a lawful permanent resident, and children would face extreme hardship. His children would either face separation from their father or be forced to leave the only country they know and give up the education they are pursuing in the United States.

Alfredo and his wife, Maria, have been in the United States for over 20 years. They worked for years to adjust their status through appropriate legal channels, but poor legal representation ruined their opportunities.

The Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents. Because of the poor representation they received, Alfredo only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the United States 15 days prior to his scheduled deportation.

Alfredo was shocked to learn of his attorney's malfeasance, but he acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and filed the appropriate paperwork to delay his deportation and determine if any other legal action could be taken.

Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes, with the assistance of private bills, to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They have worked hard, and saved up to buy their home.

Their oldest child, Christina, is 28 years old and is currently a paralegal. Erika, age 24, serves in the United States Air Force and hopes to one day become a police officer. Danny, age 24, currently attends the University of California and volunteers at his local homeless shelter in the soup kitchen. Daisy, age 17, and Juan Pablo, age 13, are all in school and plan on attending college.

Allowing Alfredo to remain in the United States is necessary to enable his family to continue thriving in the United States. His children are dedicated to pursuing their education and being productive members of their community. I do not believe that Alfredo should be separated from his family. I am reintroducing this legislation to protect the best interest of Alfredo's U.S. citizen children and his wife, who is a lawful permanent resident. I believe that Alfredo will continue to make positive contributions to his community in California and this country. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief legislation in the 116th Congress on behalf of Ruben Mkoian and Asmik Karapetian. The Mkoian family has been living in Fresno, California, for over 20 years. I continue to believe this family deserves Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Mkoian family is originally from Armenia. They decided to leave Armenia for the United States in the early 1990s, following several incidents in which the family experienced harassment, vandalism and threats to their well-being.

In Armenia, Ruben worked as a police sergeant on vehicle licensing. At one point, he was offered a bribe to register stolen vehicles, which he refused and reported to his superior, the police chief. He later learned that a co-worker had registered the vehicles at the request of the same chief.

After Ruben reported the bribe offer to illegally register vehicles and said he'd call the police, his family store was vandalized and he received threatening phone calls telling him to keep quiet. A bottle of gasoline was thrown into his family's residence, burning it to the ground. In April 1992, several men entered the family store and assaulted Ruben, hospitalizing him for 22 days.

Ruben, Asmik, and their son Arthur, who was 3 years old at the time, left Armenia and entered the United States on visitor visas. They applied for political asylum that same year on the

grounds that they would be subject to physical attacks if returned to Armenia. It took 16 years for their case to be finalized, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying their asylum case in January 2008.

At this time, Ruben and Asmik have exhausted every option to obtain immigration relief in the United States. It would be a terrible shame to remove this family from the United States and to separate them from their son Arsen, who is 20 years old and a U.S. citizen. The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family in California and are an integral part of their community.

The family attends St. Paul Armenian Apostolic Church in Fresno. They do charity work to send medical equipment to Armenia. Ruben works as a driver for Uber. He previously worked as a manager at a car wash in Fresno and as a truck driver for a California trucking company that described him as ``trustworthy,'' ``knowledgeable,'' and an asset to the company. Asmik has worked as a medical assistant the past 6 years at the Fresno Shield Medical Center.

Reflecting their contributions to their community, Representatives George Radanovich (R-CA) and Jim Costa (D-CA) strongly supported this family's ability to remain in the United States. When I first introduced a private bill for the Mkoian family, I received more than 200 letters of support and dozens of calls of support from friends and community members, attesting to the positive impact that this family has had in Fresno, California.

I believe that this case warrants our compassion. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private legislation on behalf of the Mkoian family.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the proud mother of 20- year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joriene, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief because her removal from the United States would cause undue hardship for her and her family. She faces deportation to the Philippines, which would separate her from her family and jeopardize her safety.

Ms. Tan experienced horrific violence in the Philippines before she left to come to the United States. When she was only 14 years old, her cousin murdered her mother and her sister and shot Shirley in the head. While the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short jail sentence. Fearing for her safety, Ms. Tan fled the Philippines just before her cousin was due to be released from jail. She entered the United States legally on a visitor's visa in 1989.

Ms. Tan's current deportation order is the result of negligent counsel. She applied for asylum in 1995. While her case appeal was pending at the Board of Immigration Appeals, her attorney failed to submit a brief to support her case. As a result, the case was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals granted Shirley voluntary departure from the United States.

Ms. Tan never received notice that the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her voluntary departure. Her attorney moved offices, did not receive the order, and ultimately never informed her of the order. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the United States and the grant of voluntary departure automatically led to a removal order. She learned about the deportation order for the first time on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took her into immigration custody.

Because of her attorney's negligent actions, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to present her case in immigration proceedings. She later filed a complaint with the State Bar of California against her former attorney. She is not the first person to file such a complaint against this attorney.

On February 4, 2015, Ms. Tan's spouse, Jay, a U.S. Citizen, filed an approved spousal petition on her behalf. On August 20, 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied her application due to the fact that she still had a final order or removal. Ms. Tan must go back to the immigration court and ask for the court to terminate her case and then reapply for her green card. Ms. Tan is now again facing the threat of deportation while she seeks to close her case before an immigration court.

In addition to the hardship that would come to Ms. Tan if she is deported, her deportation would cause serious hardship to her two United States citizen children, Jashley and Joriene.

Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is pre-Med, majoring in Human Biology. In addition to his studies, Joriene is involved in Stanford's Pilipino-American Student Union. Jashley is a junior at Chapman University, majoring in Business Administration. Ms. Tan no longer runs her in-home daycare and is a homemaker.

If Ms. Tan were forced to leave the United States, her family has expressed that they would go with her to the Philippines or try to find a third country where the entire family could relocate. This would mean that Jashley and Joriene would have to leave behind their education and the only home they know in the United States.

I do not believe it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family, with two United States citizen children, to make the choice between being separated and relocating to a country where they may face safety concerns or other serious hardships.

Ms. Tan and her family are involved in their community in Pacifica and own their own home. The family attends Good Shepherd Catholic Church, volunteering at the church and the Mother Theresa of Calcutta's Daughters of Charity. Ms. Tan has the support of dozens of members of her community who have shared with me the family's spirit of commitment to their community.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to continue their lives in California and make positive contributions to their community. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I offer private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Arreola Carlos, and Cindy Jael Arreola. The Arreolas are Mexican nationals living in the Fresno area of California.

Esidronio and Maria Elena have lived in the United States for over 20 years. Two of their 5 children, Nayely and Cindy also stand to benefit from this legislation. The other 3 Arreola children, Robert, age 27, Daniel, age 22, and Saray, age 22, are United States citizens. The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Arreolas are facing deportation in part because of grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it compelled an immigration judge to write to the Executive Office of Immigration Review seeking the attorney's disbarment for his actions in his clients' immigration cases.

Esidronio came to the United States in 1986 and was an agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several years. As a migrant worker at that time, he would have been eligible for permanent residence through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, had he known about it.

Maria Elena was living in the United States at the time she became pregnant with her daughter Cindy. She returned to Mexico to give birth because she wanted to avoid any immigration issues.

Because of the length of time that the Arreolas were in the United States, it is likely that they would have qualified for suspension of deportation, which would have allowed them to remain in the United States legally. However, the poor legal representation they received foreclosed this opportunity.

One of the most compelling reasons for my introduction of this private bill is the devastating impact the deportation of Esidronio and Maria Elena would have on their children-3 of whom are American citizens--and the other 2 who have lived in the United States since they were toddlers. America is the only country the Arreola children have ever known.

Nayely, the oldest, was the first in her family to graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She recently received her Masters in Business Administration from Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, and now works in the admissions office. Nayely is married and has a young son named Elijah Ace Carlos.

At a young age, Nayely demonstrated a strong commitment to the ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She worked hard to achieve her full potential both through her academic endeavors and community service. As the Associate Dean of Enrollment Services at Fresno Pacific University States in a letter of support, ``[T]he leaders of Fresno Pacific University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of all that is good in the American dream.''

In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual Determination, AVID, college preparatory program in which students commit to determining their own futures through attaining a college degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service organization. Perhaps the greatest hardship to Nayely's U.S. citizen husband and child, if she were forced to return to Mexico, would be her lost opportunity to realize her dreams and contribute further to her community and to this country.

Nayely's sister, Cindy, is also married and has a 7-year-old daughter and a 5-year-old son. Neither Nayely nor Cindy is eligible to automatically adjust their status based on their marriages because of their initial unlawful entry.

The Arreolas also have other family who are United States citizens or lawful permanent residents of this country. Maria Elena has 3 brothers who are American citizens, and Esidronio has a sister who is an American citizen. They have no immediate family in Mexico.

According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked hard to support themselves.

As I mentioned, Esidronio was previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business in California repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to enable him to purchase a home for his family. He and his wife are active in their church community and in their children's education.

It is clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make significant contributions to their community as well as the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Adilene Martinez, who is originally from Mexico but has been living in California for over 20 years. I believe she merits Congress' special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief.

Adilene, age 30, was brought to the United States by her parents Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno and Micaela Lopez Martinez. When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, California. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco.

Jose and his wife, Micaela, call San Francisco home. Micaela is a homemaker and part-time housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are United States citizens. Their oldest daughter, Adilene, is undocumented and is currently working at the San Francisco Opera House. Adilene attempted to legalize her status through several channels with her family, but the current green card backlog for relatives from Mexico is very long.

In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal. The Martinez family has become an integral part of their community in California. They are active in their faith community. They volunteer with community-based organizations and are, in turn, supported by their community. When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters of support from their fellow parishioners, teachers, and members of their community.

The Martinez family truly exemplifies the American dream. Jose worked his way through the restaurant industry to become a chef and an indispensable employee at a renowned restaurant. With great dedication, Micaela has worked hard to raise three daughters who are advancing their education and look forward to continuing the pursuit of their goals.

I believe that Adilene's continued presence in the United States would allow them to continue making significant contributions to their community in California. I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez, a Mexican national who lives in the San Bruno area of California.

I offer legislation on his behalf because I believe that, without it, this hardworking man, wife who is a lawful permanent resident, and children would face extreme hardship. His children would either face separation from their father or be forced to leave the only country they know and give up the education they are pursuing in the United States.

Alfredo and his wife, Maria, have been in the United States for over 20 years. They worked for years to adjust their status through appropriate legal channels, but poor legal representation ruined their opportunities.

The Plascencias' lawyer refused to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in any way. He also failed to forward crucial immigration documents. Because of the poor representation they received, Alfredo only became aware that they had been ordered to leave the United States 15 days prior to his scheduled deportation.

Alfredo was shocked to learn of his attorney's malfeasance, but he acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and filed the appropriate paperwork to delay his deportation and determine if any other legal action could be taken.

Together, Alfredo and Maria have used their professional successes, with the assistance of private bills, to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. They have worked hard, and saved up to buy their home.

Their oldest child, Christina, is 28 years old and is currently a paralegal. Erika, age 24, serves in the United States Air Force and hopes to one day become a police officer. Danny, age 24, currently attends the University of California and volunteers at his local homeless shelter in the soup kitchen. Daisy, age 17, and Juan Pablo, age 13, are all in school and plan on attending college.

Allowing Alfredo to remain in the United States is necessary to enable his family to continue thriving in the United States. His children are dedicated to pursuing their education and being productive members of their community. I do not believe that Alfredo should be separated from his family. I am reintroducing this legislation to protect the best interest of Alfredo's U.S. citizen children and his wife, who is a lawful permanent resident. I believe that Alfredo will continue to make positive contributions to his community in California and this country. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce private relief legislation in the 116th Congress on behalf of Ruben Mkoian and Asmik Karapetian. The Mkoian family has been living in Fresno, California, for over 20 years. I continue to believe this family deserves Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

The Mkoian family is originally from Armenia. They decided to leave Armenia for the United States in the early 1990s, following several incidents in which the family experienced harassment, vandalism and threats to their well-being.

In Armenia, Ruben worked as a police sergeant on vehicle licensing. At one point, he was offered a bribe to register stolen vehicles, which he refused and reported to his superior, the police chief. He later learned that a co-worker had registered the vehicles at the request of the same chief.

After Ruben reported the bribe offer to illegally register vehicles and said he'd call the police, his family store was vandalized and he received threatening phone calls telling him to keep quiet. A bottle of gasoline was thrown into his family's residence, burning it to the ground. In April 1992, several men entered the family store and assaulted Ruben, hospitalizing him for 22 days.

Ruben, Asmik, and their son Arthur, who was 3 years old at the time, left Armenia and entered the United States on visitor visas. They applied for political asylum that same year on the

grounds that they would be subject to physical attacks if returned to Armenia. It took 16 years for their case to be finalized, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying their asylum case in January 2008.

At this time, Ruben and Asmik have exhausted every option to obtain immigration relief in the United States. It would be a terrible shame to remove this family from the United States and to separate them from their son Arsen, who is 20 years old and a U.S. citizen. The Mkoians have worked hard to build a place for their family in California and are an integral part of their community.

The family attends St. Paul Armenian Apostolic Church in Fresno. They do charity work to send medical equipment to Armenia. Ruben works as a driver for Uber. He previously worked as a manager at a car wash in Fresno and as a truck driver for a California trucking company that described him as ``trustworthy,'' ``knowledgeable,'' and an asset to the company. Asmik has worked as a medical assistant the past 6 years at the Fresno Shield Medical Center.

Reflecting their contributions to their community, Representatives George Radanovich (R-CA) and Jim Costa (D-CA) strongly supported this family's ability to remain in the United States. When I first introduced a private bill for the Mkoian family, I received more than 200 letters of support and dozens of calls of support from friends and community members, attesting to the positive impact that this family has had in Fresno, California.

I believe that this case warrants our compassion. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private legislation on behalf of the Mkoian family.

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