Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to express my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 66. This resolution would overturn a rule issued by the Department of Labor that is essential to providing increased access to retirement savings programs.

Among all working families in America ages 32 to 61, the median family in America had only $5,000 saved in 2013. This indicates to me that we are clearly facing a retirement savings crisis.

In California, 7.5 million workers don't have access to a retirement savings plan through their jobs, including 3.4 million women. Of those without a workplace retirement savings plan, almost 5 million are individuals of Color and over 3.5 million are Latino.

The good news is that, when a person has access to a retirement savings program through their workplace, they are 15 times more likely to save for retirement.

In California, legislators have been working for more than 4 years to create the Secure Choice program as a way of addressing the retirement crisis we face. This program allows workers to easily save for retirement through a deduction made directly from their paycheck.

Those who need access to a workplace retirement program the most, individuals with lower incomes, are far less likely to have that access. These are the people who stand to gain the most from the Secure Choice program and lose the most by Congress halting its progress.

Let me share some examples of the people who would be impacted. Most eligible employees work for small businesses that might not be able to offer retirement savings plans on their own. Nearly half of eligible workers work in the retail, hospitality, healthcare, and manufacturing industries.

This program supports lower and middle-class workers by providing access to the tools they need to control their financial future. The average wage of workers eligible for this program is $35,000, and 80 percent of eligible workers earn less than $50,000.

We are in a time of deep income inequality and must stand up for programs that support the middle class, like Secure Choice. Nationwide, the bottom 90 percent of households have seen their income drop compared to what it was in 1970. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent has seen their household income triple.

As workers struggle to make ends meet, it is appalling to me that Congress would actively take away a key resource for financial planning.

Californians want to ensure that all employees have access to a retirement savings program. The Department of Labor's rule clears the way for California to set up programs like Secure Choice by clarifying employers' obligations to the accounts.

This rule would also help small businesses compete for qualified workers who expect and deserve access to a workplace retirement savings program. Small Business California supports the Department of Labor's rule paving the way for these programs, and opposes this resolution.

Finally, in California, our State chapter of the Chamber of Commerce specifically asked for an opinion from the Department of Labor on employer obligations. Once the Department of Labor's rule was issued, CalChamber no longer opposed the California bill.

In fact, the legislation that passed in California requires the State board to report a finalized rule from the Department of Labor. Overturning the Department of Labor's rule ignores the effort and care taken in California to craft a program that works for both employees and employers.

Nationally, almost half of working-age households do not have retirement savings accounts, and 55 million people don't have access to a workplace retirement plan. This is shocking.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the median retirement account savings for families ages 56 to 61 was only $17,000 in 2013. This is only slightly higher than the 2016 poverty threshold for a household of two people aged 65 and older. It is inconceivable that a family could afford to finance their retirement with only $17,000 in savings.

Supporting retirement savings is not a partisan issue. In fact a bipartisan group of State treasurers oppose this resolution, as does the National Conference of State Legislatures.

We are facing a retirement savings crisis in our country, and the Department of Labor's rule is a commonsense guideline that makes it easier for individuals to save for retirement.

I strongly urge my colleagues to stand up for American workers and support their access to retirement savings programs by opposing this resolution.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I wish to introduce a Senate resolution to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest.

On March 3, 1991, an African American named Rodney King was driving on a Los Angeles interstate when officers attempted to pull him over for allegedly speeding. By the time he pulled over and exited his car following a high-speed chase spanning 8 miles, there were multiple LA police department units on the scene.

King was tasered two times, and camcorder video footage recorded by a civilian witness--George Holliday--from his nearby apartment balcony depicted the brutal beating of King by four officers who surrounded him. The officers struck King repeatedly until he was bloodied and disfigured with a fractured cheekbone, 11 broken bones at the base of the skull, and a broken ankle. The video footage shows King being struck by batons over 50 times,

Holliday's video was sent to news outlets and aired around the world. It shook the Nation and raised outcries about excessive force by police officers. But even before the videotape had become public, community leaders in Los Angeles had highlighted on numerous occasions the use of excessive force by LAPD officers.

In fact, in the immediate aftermath of the Rodney King beating, then- Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley formed

the Christopher Commission to thoroughly examine thousands of excessive force complaints made against LAPD officers in the late 1980s. So when--a year later on April 29, 1992--the four LAPD officers caught on tape were acquitted after standing trial for using excessive force against Rodney King, the entire Nation was in shock. The verdict appeared completely incompatible with the brutal videotape footage that flooded our TV screens at the time.

When the verdict became public, hundreds gathered at the Los Angeles County Courthouse to protest, and a national debate immediately began over racial injustice and excessive use of force by police against racial minorities. Shortly thereafter, at the intersection of Florence and Normandie in South Central Los Angeles, the public's frustration boiled over and violence erupted, setting off a flash point that the police simply could not quell. Looting, vandalism, and physical attacks became rampant, and I will never forget the image of Reginald Denny being dragged out of his semi-trailer truck to be severely beaten in the middle of the street.

From then on, the unrest overtook the city, including neighborhoods like Koreatown, Hawthorne, Compton and Long Beach. The city, quite literally, was on fire. For 6 days, the city was in a state of emergency.

All told, there were more than 60 individuals who lost their lives amid the looting and fires, and thousands of individuals were injured or arrested, while countless more lost their businesses and places of employment. Over 3,600 fires were set and over 1,100 buildings in Los Angeles were damaged or destroyed.

Images of the smoke clouds over the city evoked the devastation felt by so many Angelenos. The 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest was felt so deeply and so personally by so many communities throughout the city.

The African American community decried not only the verdict returned against Rodney King but also mourned the death of high-schooler Latasha Harlins and so many other victims of violence and excessive use of force. The civil unrest was symptomatic of the deep frustrations felt by the African-American community against a criminal justice system that continually failed to protect them.

Similarly, the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest was sharply felt by the Latino community in Los Angeles.

According to one report following the unrest, one-third of those killed and half of those arrested were Latino, and countless Latino businesses were looted or destroyed.

The Korean-American community in Los Angeles was also deeply impacted, referring to the unrest as ``Sa-I-Gu,'' to commemorate the date ``April 29'' in Korean to mark it as a significant date in Korean history. Amidst the torched and decimated businesses, 35 to 40 percent of the property damage was suffered by those businesses owned by Korean-Americans--with estimates of up to 1,600 Korean-American-owned stores completely destroyed.

There is no question that those fateful 6 days have impacted generations of Angelenos. We must resolve to never forget the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest and what emerged from those fires.

We must offer our condolences for the families who lost their loved ones or who bear the scars, both mental and physical, from that time and commend those who have worked so hard to come together to heal community rifts, rebuild a stronger Los Angeles, and continue to promote ongoing dialogue, civility, and unity among all communities.

That is the purpose of this resolution we are introducing today.

I want to thank Senator Harris for working with me on the resolution to commemorate the 25th Anniversary of this historic event in California.

I yield the Floor.

Mr. President, I wish to oppose the nomination of Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor.

I did not come to this decision lightly, but, after closely examining Mr. Acosta's record, I cannot in good conscience vote for his confirmation to be Labor Secretary on behalf of the American people.

The most troubling part of Mr. Acosta's record is how he handled a 2007 sex trafficking case that he oversaw while serving as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. In that case, which left many vulnerable victims devastated when it concluded, Mr. Acosta failed to protect underage crime victims who looked to his office to vindicate their rights against billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

The case, led by Mr. Acosta's office and the FBI, involved an investigation

of Mr. Epstein for his sexual abuse and exploitation of more than 30 underage girls.

It ended with an agreement, negotiated by Mr. Acosta's office, in which Mr. Acosta agreed not to bring Federal charges, including sex trafficking charges, against Mr. Epstein in exchange for his guilty plea to State charges and registration as a sex offender. Thanks to this agreement, Mr. Epstein served a mere 13 months of jail time and avoided serious Federal charges that would have exposed him to lengthy prison sentences.

What troubles me about this case is not just the leniency with which Mr. Epstein was treated, but how the victims themselves were treated.

In 2004, I authored the Crime Victims' Rights Act with then-Senator Kyl because we both saw that victims and their families were too frequently ``ignored, cast aside, and treated as nonparticipants in a critical event in their lives.'' I strongly believe victims have a right to be heard throughout criminal case proceedings.

My concern with how Mr. Acosta handled this case stems from his office's obligations under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The victims have asserted that Mr. Acosta's office did not provide them with notice of the agreement before it was finalized, nor were they provided with timely notice of Mr. Epstein's guilty plea and sentencing hearings. Worse, throughout the process, the victims were denied the reasonable right to confer with the prosecutors; this flies in the face of the Crime Victims' Rights Act we authored.

I am very concerned that Mr. Acosta's office did not treat the victims ``with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy'' as required by law. Rather, according to the victims, Mr. Acosta's office ``deliberately kept [them] `in the dark' so that it could enter the deal'' without hearing objections. These allegations raise serious concerns.

From his position of immense power and responsibility, Mr. Acosta failed, and the consequences were devastating.

Another deeply troubling aspect of Mr. Acosta's record comes from his tenure when he led the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division from August 2003 to June 2005. According to the Justice Department's inspector general, that office repeatedly used political or ideological tests to hire career civil servants in violation of federal law.

During his confirmation hearing before the HELP Committee, Mr. Acosta himself admitted that discriminatory actions were taken under his supervision and that they should not have happened.

At a time when the public's faith in government institutions is eroding on a daily basis, Mr. Acosta's handling of these high-profile incidents lead me to question his ability to carry out the duties of Labor Secretary with fairness and impartiality.

This doubt is further compounded by statements that Mr. Acosta made during his hearing regarding whether he will exercise independence in upholding and enforcing certain rules and regulations, such as the fiduciary rule and overtime rule to protect workers.

In response to such questions, Mr. Acosta avoided making a commitment to uphold these rules as Secretary of Labor, and I am greatly concerned that he may not look out for the best interests of workers.

All of the issues I have outlined here simply do not allow me, in good faith, to vote in favor of Mr. Acosta's nomination.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Leahy, Brown, Cardin, Durbin, Franken, Klobuchar, Murphy, Murray, Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Udall, and Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2017.

First and foremost, the legislation would limit the use of cluster munitions by the U.S. Armed Forces. In June 2008, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates signed a memo stating that after 2018 the United States will not use cluster munitions with a greater than 1 percent unexploded ordnance rate. The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would codify the Gates policy by immediately prohibiting the use of cluster munitions with a greater than 1 percent failure rate.

Second, this bill would make it clear that the export of U.S.-made cluster munitions must be contingent upon the receiving country not using these weapons inappropriately. Since 2008, the Congress has required that U.S.-made cluster munitions can only be used by the recipient country against clearly defined military targets and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

During the 114th Congress, the Defense Department discovered that several export agreements for U.S. cluster munitions--known as letters of offer and acceptance--failed to mirror congressional restrictions on their use. Specifically, the Pentagon found that letters of offer and acceptance with South Korea and Saudi Arabia were either incomplete or missing. While the Pentagon is attempting to amend the mistake, it is imperative that the Congress make clear that U.S.-made cluster munitions must not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. As a result, the legislation requires export policies and licenses to restrict cluster munition use against clearly defined military targets and not in civilian areas.

Today 119 countries have signed or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In fact, four of our closest allies--Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and France--are states parties, legally bound by all of the convention's provisions.

The convention prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. The convention also requires the destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years, clearance of cluster munition remnants within 10 years, and assistance to victims, including those injured by submunitions.

I am disappointed that the United States has not signed the convention but believe we can move toward doing so. This legislation states that it is the sense of Congress that No. 1, the U.S. Government should phase out the use of all cluster munitions as soon as possible; No. 2, any alternatives that the United States develops to replace cluster munitions should be compliant with the Convention on Cluster Munitions; and No. 3, the United States should accede to the convention as soon as possible.

The United States has not widely used cluster munitions since the first weeks of the 2003 Iraq war. Unfortunately, cluster munitions have been used by others around the world with devastating effect on civilians in the past year.

According to the Cluster Munition Monitor, since 2012, Syrian government forces have used at least 13 different types of cluster munitions in 360 recorded attacks. Additionally, the United States and the United Kingdom have publicly accused Russia of using these weapons in Syria, including against the moderate opposition.

In Yemen, the Saudi-backed coalition has employed cluster munitions against the Houthis. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented at least 19 instances of cluster munitions use in Yemen, including with U.S.-made weapons. The U.S. Defense Department has acknowledged that U.S.-made weapons were employed in Yemen, though the Pentagon has said their use didn't violate export restrictions.

Finally, there is evidence that cluster munitions were also used in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and by Kenya in Somalia.

According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past 50 years, there have been 20,300 documented cluster munitions deaths in 33 nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties, however, is an astonishing 55,000 people.

While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in actuality civilians accounted for 97 percent of cluster munition casualties in 2015.

Worldwide casualties caused by cluster munitions demonstrate that they are indiscriminate weapons. While U.S.-made cluster munitions reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties when they are used correctly, U.S. ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions would help move the world toward a global ban.

This legislation moves the United States toward accession by codifying the Gates policy and encouraging the Pentagon to develop alternatives to cluster munitions that are compliant with the convention.

Mr. President, the Congress cannot compel the administration to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions. But, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the ``Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act'' would do exactly that.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Leahy, Brown, Cardin, Durbin, Franken, Klobuchar, Murphy, Murray, Markey, Merkley, Sanders, Udall, and Whitehouse to introduce the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2017.

First and foremost, the legislation would limit the use of cluster munitions by the U.S. Armed Forces. In June 2008, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates signed a memo stating that after 2018 the United States will not use cluster munitions with a greater than 1 percent unexploded ordnance rate. The Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act would codify the Gates policy by immediately prohibiting the use of cluster munitions with a greater than 1 percent failure rate.

Second, this bill would make it clear that the export of U.S.-made cluster munitions must be contingent upon the receiving country not using these weapons inappropriately. Since 2008, the Congress has required that U.S.-made cluster munitions can only be used by the recipient country against clearly defined military targets and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.

During the 114th Congress, the Defense Department discovered that several export agreements for U.S. cluster munitions--known as letters of offer and acceptance--failed to mirror congressional restrictions on their use. Specifically, the Pentagon found that letters of offer and acceptance with South Korea and Saudi Arabia were either incomplete or missing. While the Pentagon is attempting to amend the mistake, it is imperative that the Congress make clear that U.S.-made cluster munitions must not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. As a result, the legislation requires export policies and licenses to restrict cluster munition use against clearly defined military targets and not in civilian areas.

Today 119 countries have signed or acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. In fact, four of our closest allies--Canada, Great Britain, Germany, and France--are states parties, legally bound by all of the convention's provisions.

The convention prohibits the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster munitions. The convention also requires the destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions within eight years, clearance of cluster munition remnants within 10 years, and assistance to victims, including those injured by submunitions.

I am disappointed that the United States has not signed the convention but believe we can move toward doing so. This legislation states that it is the sense of Congress that No. 1, the U.S. Government should phase out the use of all cluster munitions as soon as possible; No. 2, any alternatives that the United States develops to replace cluster munitions should be compliant with the Convention on Cluster Munitions; and No. 3, the United States should accede to the convention as soon as possible.

The United States has not widely used cluster munitions since the first weeks of the 2003 Iraq war. Unfortunately, cluster munitions have been used by others around the world with devastating effect on civilians in the past year.

According to the Cluster Munition Monitor, since 2012, Syrian government forces have used at least 13 different types of cluster munitions in 360 recorded attacks. Additionally, the United States and the United Kingdom have publicly accused Russia of using these weapons in Syria, including against the moderate opposition.

In Yemen, the Saudi-backed coalition has employed cluster munitions against the Houthis. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented at least 19 instances of cluster munitions use in Yemen, including with U.S.-made weapons. The U.S. Defense Department has acknowledged that U.S.-made weapons were employed in Yemen, though the Pentagon has said their use didn't violate export restrictions.

Finally, there is evidence that cluster munitions were also used in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and by Kenya in Somalia.

According to the Cluster Munitions Monitor, over the past 50 years, there have been 20,300 documented cluster munitions deaths in 33 nations. The estimated number of total cluster munitions casualties, however, is an astonishing 55,000 people.

While cluster munitions are intended for military targets, in actuality civilians accounted for 97 percent of cluster munition casualties in 2015.

Worldwide casualties caused by cluster munitions demonstrate that they are indiscriminate weapons. While U.S.-made cluster munitions reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties when they are used correctly, U.S. ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions would help move the world toward a global ban.

This legislation moves the United States toward accession by codifying the Gates policy and encouraging the Pentagon to develop alternatives to cluster munitions that are compliant with the convention.

Mr. President, the Congress cannot compel the administration to sign the Convention on Cluster Munitions. But, we can surely take steps to abide by its spirit. Passing the ``Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act'' would do exactly that.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I rise today as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee to speak about the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In committee, at the outset of the hearings, I remarked that our job was not to evaluate legal doctrines and theories or to review Judge Gorsuch's record in a vacuum. Our job is to assess how this nominee's decisions will affect the American people and whether he will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all Americans.

I have had this in mind throughout the entire process. Let me begin with an aside. I represent a large State, and I do pay close attention to constituent letters, calls, and emails. A weekly report lets me know on what issues people are focused and what they think. I take this feedback very seriously.

In general, my barometer has been that when I receive over 30,000 calls, emails, or letters, that is when I know an issue is reasonably meaningful to many people in the State. To be clear, I don't base my final judgment on any issue or nominee solely on the numbers of calls and letters I receive. However, this is a representative democracy. I find this to be an important measure of what California constituents are thinking.

When it comes to this nomination so far, my office has received a total of 112,309 calls, emails, and letters from California constituents; and 92,799, or 83, percent, oppose this nominee and 19,510, or 17 percent, support this nominee.

Let me read a few of the emails. One constituent from Silverado, CA, wrote:

``In 1971, when abortion was illegal, I was forced to have

a child at age 16. That was 46 years ago. With Gorsuch, we

would step back into that world where women and girls have NO

choice but an illegal and unsafe abortion OR become a mother.

It is wrong. The choice is untenable and dangerous.

Filibuster Gorsuch and do whatever it takes.''

I was a college student in the 1950s, and I remember very much what life was like before a woman had the right to privacy, to control her reproductive system according to Roe v. Wade.

Another constituent from San Diego emailed:

``As a beneficiary of the right to marry 3\1/2\ years ago,

I personally understand how important Supreme Court decisions

are. I also attended a segregated elementary school when I

was a little boy. I do not trust that Neil Gorsuch would

advocate for the best interests of women & minorities. Please

do not confirm him.''

A woman from Richmond, CA, wrote:

``I believe that we, the people, will have a difficult time

getting fair and equal treatment with Gorsuch being on the

Supreme Court. He will help the rich corporations, and the

poor and middle-class will suffer irreparably.''

I don't comment on any of these because none of these are sacrosanct, but they are opinions.

Brandon Gregg from Burlingame wrote:

``The republicans did not give Merrick Garland a hearing,

instead waiting until Trump could propose a young right-

leaning judge who will take our country backwards. Gorsuch

will not advance the agenda of human rights within our

Constitution, but will plunge us back into the past where

minorities had little protection, women did not have equal

rights, people of color were denied the right to vote, and

protections for all people that we take for granted, did not

exist. This is not the world I want for myself, my children,

or my grandchildren. Filibuster Gorsuch's confirmation.

Please.''

The bottom line is that Californians are letting me know loud and clear that who sits on the Supreme Court matters. Unfortunately, up to now, much of the press coverage on this nomination has been about politics and process.

In contrast, little has been said about how the Supreme Court affects the lives of Americans, their families, and their communities. So, let me say, in the past 24 years that I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have seen that the Supreme Court is, in fact, the last word in so many areas: the personal rights of all Americans, including whom they can marry, and whether women have the right to privacy that allows them to control their own bodies.

The Supreme Court determines whether decisions about healthcare will be determined by families or businesses. The Supreme Court has the final say on whether States and localities will be able to pass laws that make it harder for low-income people, people of color, seniors and students to vote. The Supreme Court will decide whether corporations are able to pollute our air and water with impunity.

It is the Supreme Court that will be the final world on Executive authority, whether it is used to waterboard, detain individuals indefinitely, or overreach in other ways.

Each year, more than 350,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in Federal courts. The Supreme Court hears arguments for only about 80 cases a session and makes decisions on approximately 50 more cases without hearing arguments.

Now, this means the Supreme Court only hears a very small percentage of cases--less than 0.02 percent.

Before the current vacancy, the most significant questions were closely decided by 5-to-4 decisions, with five votes coming from Republican-appointed Justices.

These include important decisions that affect our elections, like Shelby County and Citizens United, decisions that weakened the power of average voters by expanding the role of dark money and gutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. We also saw a 5-to-4 decision in Heller that overturned 70 years of precedent on the Second Amendment and blocked the District of Columbia's commonsense gun regulations.

As my colleague Senator Whitehouse outlined in the Judiciary Committee, in the last several years, this Supreme Court has issued an additional 11 5-to-4 decisions that promote the rights of corporations over the rights of everyday people, on topics as wide-ranging as age discrimination and harassment to limiting access to courts and juries.

So who sits on the Supreme Court matters. Just look at some of the key cases that have come down since this vacancy arose last year. For example, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-to-4 on a case to determine whether unions are able to fight for fair pay and benefits for all workers by requiring them to contribute to a union's action on their behalf.

We know this issue will go back to the Supreme Court. If, next time the Court rules against unions like the California Teachers Association, it will be overturning a 40-year precedent known as ``agency shop,'' and it will permit an assault on worker's rights.

Also last year, the Supreme Court considered the case on North Carolina's law that reduced early voting days, eliminated same-day registration, and established new restrictive photo ID requirements to vote. The Fourth Circuit struck down North Carolina's law concluding it had ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' Yet, when the Supreme Court considered it, they deadlocked 4 to 4. Who sits on that court matters.

After 4 days of hearings and reviewing Judge Gorsuch's record, we have learned that he, indeed, has strong views of what the law should be and how it should be interpreted. While Judge Gorsuch was not responsive to many questions, he did tell us that he is happy to be called an originalist, and that he embraced the term. He also stated that he believes judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what one of its provision mean.

According to him, ``the Constitution isn't some ink blot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams. . . . but a carefully crafted text judges are charged with applying according to its original public meaning.''

Original public meaning--that takes us back to 13 colonies, 4 million Americans, and 1789. I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be deeply troubling. It essentially means that judges and courts should evaluate all of our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789. To freeze our understanding of the Constitution in 1789, I think, ignores the Framer's intent. But more importantly, it would ignore the vibrancy and growth of our Nation.

We are no longer a society that condones slavery. We no longer permit segregation. We do not allow child labor. We recognize that women not only deserve an education but can be leaders in business, government, and their homes.

We cannot turn the clock back 230 years.

As Justice Brennan said, asking judges to resolve legal questions by looking only to what people believed when our country was founded was ``little more than arrogance cloaked as humility'' that ``while proponents of this facile historicism justify it as the depoliticization of the judiciary, the political underpinnings of such a choice should not escape notice.'' After all, ``[t]hose who would restrict [legal claims] to the values of 1789 specifically articulated in the Constitution turn a blind eye to social pro- gress. . . .''

This is Justice Brennan's speech in 1985 at Georgetown University. This is an important point that I think bears repeating. A judge's decision to adopt an originalist philosophy is inherently political because it discounts the expansion of constitutional protections beyond White men who owned property. Yes, that is the way it was back then.

The U.S. Constitution, I deeply believe, is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves. We are not supposed to ignore social progress, and I don't believe the Founders of our country ever intended us to do so.

Another concern with Judge Gorsuch's record is his extreme, conservative view of the Federal Government. For example, he has indicated he believes the longstanding legal doctrine that allows agencies to write rules to effectively implement laws should be overturned. That doctrine, as the Presiding Officer well knows, is the Chevron doctrine. It was discussed in committee.

Chevron was itself a unanimous opinion authored by the liberal Justice Stevens and joined by conservatives, including Chief Justice Burger. This legal doctrine has been in place for decades and has been cited more than 15,000 times. If Chevron is overturned, as Judge Gorsuch has advocated, many important laws that Congress has passed would become ineffective.

I want to give a personal example.

In 2007, Senator Olympia Snowe and I finally passed legislation, thanks to Senator Ted Stevens and Dan Inouye, to increase the mileage efficiency of cars. This was critical to address because pollution was clouding up our cities, and it was important to improve the functioning of our automobiles.

Our legislation required the Department of Transportation to set standards so that fuel economy would increase at least 10 miles per gallon over 10 years--that is the time we could foresee--and continue to rise after that. We instructed the agency to achieve the ``maximum feasible average fuel economy'' and directed the Secretary of Transportation to consider ``technological feasibility, economic practicality, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.'' That is directly from the bill.

Here is the result. It has just been announced that this program will raise fuel economy to more than 50-miles per

gallon by 2025. I think the specifics were 54 miles to the gallon.

This would have been impossible in 2007 when we were trying to pass the bill. We could not possibly understand, 10 years hence, technical details of specific automobile efficiency technologies and how they would develop in the decades to come.

Federal agencies simply must play a role. We need their technical expertise and ongoing involvement to ensure the legislation we pass is implemented effectively--as intended by Congress.

In committee, I discussed Judge Gorsuch's textualist view. This means that he believes statutes should be interpreted only by ``the plain meaning of the language.''

Combined, this judicial philosophy includes: One, limiting laws and statues to a dictionary definition that he selected. Two, reversing precedent to say that agencies can't interpret ambiguous laws. Three, reinstating a legal doctrine to further limit agency experts. Taken together, these three points would require Congress to pass bills so that they are either so specific that they would be very limited in effect or so broad they would actually be meaningless.

For example, Senator Collins and I have been working on legislation that would require the FDA to ensure the safety of personal care products such as we all use--shampoo, deodorant, cosmetics, shaving creams, lotions. The FDA does not do it in this country, but they do it in Europe. Our bill asks the FDA to evaluate the safety of the chemicals that are put in these products.

In committee, we had testimony about a shampoo that once used, hair fell out of the individual's head and many thousands of complaints had been registered.

Congress does not have the expertise to do the chemical evaluations, and without deference to the FDA, the bill would have to be thousands of pages long to cover every contingency for every product made by hundreds of companies, and that simply is not workable.

If Congress can no longer rely on Federal agencies, and if all laws can only be interpreted by limited dictionary definitions, then government would have no ability to regulate markets, defend against a financial crisis, protect workers, build safe roads, or safeguard our environment.

We depend on the scientists, the biologists, the economists, the engineers, and other experts to help ensure that our laws are effectively implemented. So this is really a dastardly controlling mechanism.

Under the arguments proposed by Judge Gorsuch, this would no longer occur.

Instead, only congressional action would be able to address these important issues. These rules that agencies would bring would have to be written by Congress. And even that would be severely limited. Such a radical change in law would hurt ordinary Americans, certainly their safety, and certainly our communities.

Let me say once again that who sits on the Supreme Court matters.

The issues facing our country are consequential, and they have a real-world impact on all of us. Justices on the Supreme Court must understand that the Court's decisions have real-world consequences for men, women, and children across our Nation.

Unfortunately, based on Judge Gorsuch's record at the Department of Justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the Senate, and his written questions for the record, I cannot support this nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my disappointment in today's vote on H.J. Res. 67 and my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 66. These resolutions overturn rules issued by the Department of Labor that are essential to providing increased access to retirement savings programs at the city and State levels.

Among all working families in America ages 32 to 61, the median family in America had only $5,000 saved in 2013. This indicates to me that we are clearly facing a retirement savings crisis.

In California, 7.5 million workers don't have access to a retirement savings plan through their jobs, including 3.4 million women. Of those without a workplace retirement savings plan, almost 5 million are individuals of Color, and over 3.5 million are Latino.

The good news is that, when a person has access to a retirement savings program through their workplace, they are 15 times more likely to save for retirement.

In California, legislators have been working for more than 4 years to create the Secure Choice program as a way of addressing the retirement crisis we face. This program allows workers to easily save for retirement through a deduction made directly from their paycheck.

Those who need access to a workplace retirement program the most, individuals with lower incomes, are far less likely to have that access. These are the people who stand to gain the most from the Secure Choice program and lose the most by Congress halting its progress.

Let me share some examples of the people who would be impacted. Most eligible employees work for small businesses that might not be able to offer retirement savings plans on their own, and nearly half of eligible workers work in the retail, hospitality, healthcare, and manufacturing industries.

This program supports lower- and middle-class workers by providing access to the tools they need to control their financial future. The average wage of workers eligible for this program is $35,000, and 80 percent of eligible workers earn less than $50,000.

We are facing a time of deep income inequality and must stand up for programs that support the middle class, like Secure Choice. Nationwide, the bottom 90 percent of households have seen their income drop compared to what it was in 1970. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent has seen their household income triple.

As workers struggle to make ends meet, it is appalling to me that Congress would actively take away a key resource for financial planning.

Californians want to ensure that all employees have access to a retirement savings program. The Department of Labor's State rule clears the way for California to set up programs like Secure Choice by clarifying employers' obligations to the accounts.

This rule would also help small businesses compete for qualified workers who expect and deserve access to a workplace retirement savings program. Small Business California supports the Department of Labor's rule paving the way for these programs and opposes this resolution.

Finally, in California, our State chapter of the Chamber of Commerce specifically asked for an opinion from

the Department of Labor on employer obligations. Once the Department of Labor's rule was issued, CalChamber no longer opposed the California bill.

In fact, the legislation that passed in California requires the State board to report a finalized rule from the Department of Labor. Overturning the Department of Labor's rule completely ignores the effort and care taken in California to craft a program that works for both employees and employers.

Nationally, almost half of working-age households do not have retirement savings accounts, and 55 million people don't have access to a workplace retirement plan. This is shocking.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, the median retirement account savings for families ages 56 to 61 was only $17,000 in 2013. This is only slightly higher than the 2016 poverty threshold for a household of two people aged 65 and older. It is inconceivable that a family could afford to finance their retirement with only $17,000 in savings.

Supporting retirement savings is not a partisan issue. In fact a bipartisan group of State treasurers oppose this resolution, as does the National Conference of State Legislatures.

We are facing a retirement savings crisis in our country, and the Department of Labor's rule is a simple, commonsense guideline that make it easier for individuals to save for retirement.

While today's vote is a disappointing development for city programs, I will keep fighting to support California's Secure Choice program. I strongly urge my colleagues to stand up for American workers and support their access to retirement savings programs by opposing H.J. Res. 66, should it come up for a vote on the Senate floor.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I speak on behalf of myself and Senator Harris to reintroduce legislation to establish the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area, California's first National Heritage Area. I am very pleased to work with Senator Harris, Congressman John Garamendi, and our colleagues in the State on this much needed legislation. Our legislation will establish a new national heritage area in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, and economic development across five delta counties.

The Delta Protection Commission will manage the heritage area in accordance with California law and in partnership with delta communities. The management planning process provided by this legislation will be open to the public and collaborative. Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, private property owners, and all stakeholders will have a voice in the management planning for the heritage area.

The goal is to conserve and protect the delta, its communities, its natural resources, and its rich history.

In short, this legislation does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it is impose any additional responsibilities on local governments or private landowners. Instead, this legislation authorizes federal assistance to support local projects as part of an inclusive process required by State law.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary in the Western United States and perhaps the most productive and ecologically important watershed in North America. This extensive inland delta is a natural marvel and national treasure that must be protected. The delta offers recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions of Californians and out-of-State visitors alike, who come each year for boating, fishing, hunting, and sightseeing.

The delta provides critical habitat for more than 750 wildlife species, including sandhill cranes and other migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. It also provides habitat for iconic native fish like the chinook salmon, some as large as 60 pounds, which return each year to travel through the delta to spawn in tributaries upstream.

These same waterways provide freshwater to millions of California households and irrigated farmland south of the delta and elsewhere in the State.

Before being converted for farmland starting in the 19th century, the delta flooded regularly following the springtime snowmelt and once supported the continent's largest Native American communities.

Later, the delta served as the gateway for the California Gold Rush, after which Chinese immigrant workers built hundreds of miles of levees to make the delta's rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding.

Japanese, Chinese, Italian, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greek, South Asian, and other immigrants began the area's farming legacy and established proud communities that continue today.

Over the years, the vibrant ``river culture'' endemic to delta communities has attracted the attention of celebrated authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion.

A national heritage area designation would help to preserve this uniquely American story by providing supportive local governments across the delta with a needed management framework, technical assistance, and modest Federal funding.

Today, the delta faces crisis due to proliferate invasive species, urban and agricultural runoff, wastewater overloads, channelization, dredging, formidable water exports, and other stressors.

Many delta islands are now 10 to 20 feet below sea level due to subsidence, and the present levee system is inadequate in providing reliable flood protection for historic communities, agricultural enterprises, and infrastructure. Alarmingly, many existing levees were simply not engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail,

a rush of saltwater into the interior delta would damage this already fragile ecosystem, disrupt drinking water supplies, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, powerlines, and water infrastructure.

Establishing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area will secure much needed Federal resources for delta communities. Our legislation recognizes the delta as a working landscape central to California life and seeks to further local projects already underway that promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, community revitalization, and economic development throughout the delta.

This legislation also seeks to fulfill the broadly supported 2009 California State law that called for a heritage area designation for the delta and the Delta Protection Commission's own feasibility report in 2012.

Our legislation is a small part of the commitment the Federal Government must make to the California delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore the delta and its native species, upgrade California's water supply, safeguard against flood risk, improve water quality, and preserve delta communities' rich heritage and continued vibrancy.

Mr. President, I speak on behalf of myself and Senator Harris to reintroduce legislation to establish the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area, California's first National Heritage Area. I am very pleased to work with Senator Harris, Congressman John Garamendi, and our colleagues in the State on this much needed legislation. Our legislation will establish a new national heritage area in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, and economic development across five delta counties.

The Delta Protection Commission will manage the heritage area in accordance with California law and in partnership with delta communities. The management planning process provided by this legislation will be open to the public and collaborative. Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, private property owners, and all stakeholders will have a voice in the management planning for the heritage area.

The goal is to conserve and protect the delta, its communities, its natural resources, and its rich history.

In short, this legislation does not affect water rights or water contracts, nor does it is impose any additional responsibilities on local governments or private landowners. Instead, this legislation authorizes federal assistance to support local projects as part of an inclusive process required by State law.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary in the Western United States and perhaps the most productive and ecologically important watershed in North America. This extensive inland delta is a natural marvel and national treasure that must be protected. The delta offers recreational opportunities enjoyed by millions of Californians and out-of-State visitors alike, who come each year for boating, fishing, hunting, and sightseeing.

The delta provides critical habitat for more than 750 wildlife species, including sandhill cranes and other migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway. It also provides habitat for iconic native fish like the chinook salmon, some as large as 60 pounds, which return each year to travel through the delta to spawn in tributaries upstream.

These same waterways provide freshwater to millions of California households and irrigated farmland south of the delta and elsewhere in the State.

Before being converted for farmland starting in the 19th century, the delta flooded regularly following the springtime snowmelt and once supported the continent's largest Native American communities.

Later, the delta served as the gateway for the California Gold Rush, after which Chinese immigrant workers built hundreds of miles of levees to make the delta's rich peat soils available for farming and to control flooding.

Japanese, Chinese, Italian, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greek, South Asian, and other immigrants began the area's farming legacy and established proud communities that continue today.

Over the years, the vibrant ``river culture'' endemic to delta communities has attracted the attention of celebrated authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion.

A national heritage area designation would help to preserve this uniquely American story by providing supportive local governments across the delta with a needed management framework, technical assistance, and modest Federal funding.

Today, the delta faces crisis due to proliferate invasive species, urban and agricultural runoff, wastewater overloads, channelization, dredging, formidable water exports, and other stressors.

Many delta islands are now 10 to 20 feet below sea level due to subsidence, and the present levee system is inadequate in providing reliable flood protection for historic communities, agricultural enterprises, and infrastructure. Alarmingly, many existing levees were simply not engineered to withstand earthquakes. Should levees fail,

a rush of saltwater into the interior delta would damage this already fragile ecosystem, disrupt drinking water supplies, flood agricultural land, inundate towns, and damage roads, powerlines, and water infrastructure.

Establishing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area will secure much needed Federal resources for delta communities. Our legislation recognizes the delta as a working landscape central to California life and seeks to further local projects already underway that promote environmental stewardship, heritage conservation, community revitalization, and economic development throughout the delta.

This legislation also seeks to fulfill the broadly supported 2009 California State law that called for a heritage area designation for the delta and the Delta Protection Commission's own feasibility report in 2012.

Our legislation is a small part of the commitment the Federal Government must make to the California delta. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of government to restore the delta and its native species, upgrade California's water supply, safeguard against flood risk, improve water quality, and preserve delta communities' rich heritage and continued vibrancy.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Judge Charles Breyer's reappointment to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Judge Breyer earned his bachelor's degree cum laude from Harvard University in 1963 and his law degree from the University of California, Berkeley Law School in 1966.

In 1997, Judge Breyer was nominated by President Clinton to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Breyer was confirmed by the U.S. Senate that same year by voice vote.

On the bench, Judge Breyer has served with distinction. He has done the hard work of sentencing individuals to prison terms. He has also focused on sentencing issues outside the courtroom, testifying before the Sentencing Commission in 2009 and serving as chair of a Ninth Circuit Committee evaluating the impact of the Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington, 2004, and United States v. Booker, 2005, on sentencing.

In 2011, Judge Breyer took senior status, and the following year, he was nominated by President Obama to serve on the Sentencing Commission. Judge Breyer became the commission's vice chair in 2013.

The Sentencing Commission is an independent agency charged with establishing sentencing guidelines for the Federal court system. The commission's work is important. It is responsible for advising and assisting Congress and the Executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy. The commission also collects, analyzes, researches, and distributes a broad array of information on Federal crime and sentencing issues and serves as a resource for Congress, the Executive branch, the Judiciary, practitioners, academics, and the public.

Since the start of the 115th Congress, the Sentencing Commission has been unable to do its work because it has been with only two commissioners. By statute, the commission requires a quorum of at least four commissioners.

For this reason, it is vitally important that Judge Breyer is confirmed once again to serve on the commission. Judge Breyer is a man of distinction and integrity. He has a long history of dedicated service to this country and an impeccable record of fairness. The commission really needs his continued leadership.

Today I urge my colleagues to support Judge Breyer's nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague Senator Portman that would align HUD homeless assistance with existing Federal children and youth programs and provide flexibility to local communities to use available resources to meet the needs that they identify.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.2 million children were homeless during the 2014 to 2015 school year; this is a 34-percent increase from the 939,903 homeless students in the 2009 to 2010 school year.

In California, over 229,000 children experienced homelessness in 2015, nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children in the State in 2003.

Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD Point-in-Time count fail to reflect these increasing numbers.

According to the national 2015 HUD Point-in-Time count, there were only 206,286 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the true number.

This is important because only those children counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs and included in local planning efforts. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck.

The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017 would allow HUD homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in motels or in doubled-up situations because they have nowhere else to go.

These families are especially susceptible to abuse and trafficking because they are often not served by a case manager and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers.

As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive Federal funding through the competitive application process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families.

This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use Federal funds to meet local priorities. The bill requires the Secretary to assess the extent to which Continuums of Care use separate, specific, age-appropriate criteria for determining the safety and needs of children and unaccompanied youth and divert people to safe, stable, age-appropriate accommodations.

And I would note that the bill does not impose any new mandates on service providers.

Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report the point in time PIT count and the Annual Homeless Assessment Report, AHAR to include data on all categories of homelessness.

Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Rob Portman has joined me as an original cosponsor on this bill. Homelessness continues to plague our Nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness.

It is our moral obligation to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague Senator Portman that would align HUD homeless assistance with existing Federal children and youth programs and provide flexibility to local communities to use available resources to meet the needs that they identify.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 1.2 million children were homeless during the 2014 to 2015 school year; this is a 34-percent increase from the 939,903 homeless students in the 2009 to 2010 school year.

In California, over 229,000 children experienced homelessness in 2015, nearly four times the 65,000 homeless children in the State in 2003.

Unfortunately, the numbers reported by the HUD Point-in-Time count fail to reflect these increasing numbers.

According to the national 2015 HUD Point-in-Time count, there were only 206,286 people counted as homeless in households that included children, a fraction of the true number.

This is important because only those children counted by HUD are eligible for vital homeless assistance programs and included in local planning efforts. The rest of these children and families are simply out of luck.

The Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017 would allow HUD homeless assistance programs to serve extremely vulnerable children and families, specifically those staying in motels or in doubled-up situations because they have nowhere else to go.

These families are especially susceptible to abuse and trafficking because they are often not served by a case manager and thus remain hidden from potential social service providers.

As a result of the current narrow HUD definition, communities that receive Federal funding through the competitive application process are unable to prioritize or direct resources to help these children and families.

This bill would provide communities with the flexibility to use Federal funds to meet local priorities. The bill requires the Secretary to assess the extent to which Continuums of Care use separate, specific, age-appropriate criteria for determining the safety and needs of children and unaccompanied youth and divert people to safe, stable, age-appropriate accommodations.

And I would note that the bill does not impose any new mandates on service providers.

Finally, this legislation improves data collection transparency by requiring HUD to report the point in time PIT count and the Annual Homeless Assessment Report, AHAR to include data on all categories of homelessness.

Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Rob Portman has joined me as an original cosponsor on this bill. Homelessness continues to plague our Nation. If we fail to address the needs of these children and families today, they will remain stuck in a cycle of poverty and chronic homelessness.

It is our moral obligation to ensure that we do not erect more barriers for these children and families to access services when they are experiencing extreme hardship. I believe this bill is a commonsense solution that will ensure that homeless families and children can receive the help they need.

Mr. President, yesterday I introduced the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, a bill to protect young athletes who participate in the U.S. amateur ranks from sexual abuse.

Before last summer's Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, the Indianapolis Star published an investigative piece that revealed that amateur gymnasts were sexually abused in gyms all across the country. No one knew how widespread the problem was in that sport.

But throughout the investigation, the Indianapolis Star tallied-- after reviewing police files and court cases across the country--368 gymnasts who alleged they were sexually abused over a 20-year time period.

Kids as young as 6 were secretly photographed in the nude by coaches. Young athletes were molested by coaches during ``therapy'' sessions. Sexual predators spent countless hours with children one-on-one and abused them for years before anything was done. These accounts were devastating. And they were just the tip of the iceberg.

After reviewing this report, I, along with my colleagues Senator Leahy, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Donnelly, wrote to USA Gymnastics to urge the organization to do more to protect their young athletes.

Specifically, we urged the organization to update its policies and require that all members--including coaches, athletes, and others-- immediately report to law enforcement when there is an incident of sexual abuse committed against an athlete.

After we sent the letter, several sexual abuse victims from California reached out to my staff. They revealed that they were abused by individuals affiliated with USA Gymnastics. I told my staff that I had to meet them.

Six brave women, who were each abused as young gymnasts at various points in their careers, then travelled across the country to share their testimonies with me. Two athletes from another sport who were sexually abused also joined us. I will never forget their faces that day. When I walked into the room, I could sense the overwhelming devastation wrought on their lives.

One by one, they shared their hopes and dreams as young athletes. The gymnasts talked about how, while pursuing future Olympic glory, they put their complete faith in the USA Gymnastics infrastructure. They fully trusted the coaches and doctors who had the USA Gymnastics seal of approval. And it was in this environment that they were sexually exploited by those whom they trusted.

Several of the women had been abused repeatedly--over the course of months and years--by a USA Gymnastics team doctor named Larry Nassar. Nassar is currently being prosecuted for a number of horrific crimes against children. One of those brave women was Jamie Dantzscher, a retired gymnast who won the bronze medal competing in the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Jamie told me how she trained as a young girl in California. When she was 13 years old, she was thrilled to be invited to train with the national USA Gymnastics team. It was with the national team that Nassar gained her trust. Nassar became her ``buddy,'' in the midst of an intense training environment. With USA Gymnastics backing him as a famous doctor and trainer, Jamie felt that there was absolutely no reason to believe Nassar was not trustworthy.

So when Jamie went to see Nassar for back pain, she was confused when Nassar began to touch her in inappropriate places. She was 13 and 14 years old. As she described the abuse to me in graphic detail, the other women around the room began to sob quietly. The tactics that Nassar used were too familiar to them.

And for the longest time, each of the victims believed that their horrific experiences were one-off events, that they were isolated in their own subjective memories. But the sharing of their stories-- together in that room with me and the others--affirmed to them that what they had experienced was wrong.

One of the other gymnasts who bravely shared her story with me was Jeanette Antolin, who competed on the national team in the late nineties. Hailing from southern California, Jeanette shared how she was incredibly fearful of ever saying anything about the abuse committed against her because she believed she was being treated by a world-class doctor with USA Gymnastics' approval. As an aspiring Olympian, she feared that if she complained about anything, it would affect her career.

The same fears had overcome Jessica Howard, a rhythmic gymnast who was 15 years old when Nassar began abusing her. She was sent to Nassar for hip problems, and he told her that she should not wear any underwear for her treatment. At the time, she was confused and afraid to say anything to anyone. She believed she would be prevented from pursuing her dreams if she said anything.

I also met Doe Yamashiro from southern California. Doe was sexually abused by a 1984 Olympic Coach named Don Peters. In the mid-1980s, Coach Peters began fondling Doe and then had sex with her. Doe told me and the group of the pain and anguish she still suffers from many years later. The same pain and devastation was felt by all of the young victims who were in the room.

One of the common themes I heard from their stories was not just the predatory behavior of the perpetrators, but also how the USA Gymnastics institution failed to protect them. One of the women told me how she heard USA Gymnastics officials say at one point that it was their top priority to obtain ``medals and money'' and that a ``reputation of a coach'' should not be tarnished by an allegation raised by a victim.

This shocked me, and as I dug deeper into the USA Gymnastics institution, which is considered a ``national governing body'' under Federal law and oversees over 3,000 gymnasiums nationwide, I saw that their policies made it harder for victims, rather than easier, to report incidents of abuse. Their bylaws stated, for example, that the only way for a member athlete to ``effectively'' make a complaint about a coach was through a signed, written complaint.

Furthermore, USA Gymnastics' policy indicated that the organization ``may'' report sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities if a child's safety was at risk, but it was not mandatory. It further stated that it complied with State mandatory reporting laws, but if a State law didn't require anything more, there was no other obligation to do anything else.

It is my strong belief that these arcane policies left children vulnerable to the advances of sexual predators and failed to protect them even when incidents came to light. For example, in reviewing USA Gymnastics' history in public accounts, there were multiple instances where gymnastics coaches were convicted of heinous child sex crimes, years after USA Gymnastics had received complaints about those coaches. In other words, USA Gymnastics appears to have sat on reports of sexual abuse for years, while predators continued to prey on children.

At the end of my meeting with the survivors, I looked at each of them and told them that I would work on legislation to protect other kids and amateur athletes like them from sexual predators.

The legislation we have introduced does three main things to help child sex abuse survivors. It is a strong bipartisan bill, and I want to extend my deepest thanks to those Members who have worked with me on it, including Senators Collins, Grassley, Donnelly, Nelson, Blumenthal, Flake, McCaskill, Ernst, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Warren, Harris, Cortez- Masto, Rubio, and Young.

The first thing the bill does is to mandate that any person affiliated with USA Gymnastics or other national governing bodies immediately report child abuse, including sexual abuse, to local or Federal law enforcement. This requirement would apply not only to USA Gymnastics, but to each of the other 47 national governing bodies that oversee various Olympic sports, including USA Taekwondo, USA Speed Skating, USA Swimming, and USA Cycling. It is absolutely imperative that a bright line be drawn for all those working with national governing bodies that, once there are facts giving rise to suspect child or sex abuse, a report must be made as soon as possible to proper authorities. This bill mandates that.

Second, this bill strengthens Masha's law, which was named after a 5- year-old Russian orphan who was adopted by an American man only to be raped and sexually abused by him for 6 years until he was finally caught by the FBI in 2003. Her adoptive father had not only abused her, but he had also produced over 200 sexually explicit images of that abuse. Masha's law allows civil suits by minors against sex abuse perpetrators who violate a variety of crimes against children, including sex trafficking, sexual exploitation, and child pornography crimes.

This law is significant for victims to obtain justice because there are times when criminal cases against perpetrators are declined due to difficulties in proving a criminal case. Therefore, for many traumatized victims, the only avenue for them to ever seek justice against their perpetrators is through Masha's law or other civil remedies.

The bill, therefore, updates Masha's law to help victims. It clarifies, for example, that victims of child sex crimes are entitled to statutory damages of $150,000 and possible punitive damages, due to the particularly severe nature of the crimes.

The bill also extends the statute of limitations for Masha's law. The statute of limitations extension is part of legislation that Senator Cornyn and I have worked on over the past couple of years, called the Extending Justice for Sex Crime Victims Act.

Finally, the bill makes reforms to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which establishes ``national governing bodies'' like USA Gymnastics. The Stevens Act specifically lists the authorities and duties of national governing bodies.

When I first wrote to USA Gymnastics about its poor handling of sexual abuse allegations, they replied that the Stevens Act limits their abilities to fully protect athletes from sexual abuse, so this bill fixes that. It requires national governing bodies like USA Gymnastics to develop for each of its members: specific policies and procedures for the mandatory reporting of sex abuse to law enforcement, policies and procedures to keep track of coaches who leave one gym due to complaints and then go to another gym and repeat cycles of abuse, policies to ensure that minors and amateur athletes are not in one-on- one situations with adults, policies to facilitate reporting of sex abuse allegations to national governing bodies and other authorities, and stronger oversight and enforcement policies so that the national governing bodies take a greater role in making sure that the policies are actually being implemented and enforced throughout the country.

These provisions give national governing bodies like USA Gymnastics absolutely no excuse to make sure that all members are subjected to the strongest training and procedures to prevent sexual abuse.

It further forces organizations like USA Gymnastics to impact the culture of their sports, through various oversight mechanisms, to make sure that all members of such organizations adhere to the strictest standards when it comes to sexual abuse prevention.

Finally, I would like to close with this. All over the country, victims of sexual abuse are coming forward to disclose how they were abused and exploited at the height of their innocence when they were children. Multiple victims from California and throughout the country have, for example, contacted my office and described with great courage their pain and anguish. Rather than list statistics, I want you to know that each of these individual stories represents an untold amount of pain and suffering that reverberates throughout generations, leaving devastation in its path. I urge my colleagues in this body to work with me and the sponsors of this bill to pass this important legislation to protect victims.

I would also like to acknowledge the support for this bill from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, National Children's Alliance, Rights4Girls, University of Utah Law Professor Paul Cassell, Child Sex Crime Victims' Lawyer James Marsh, Crime Victims Expert Steve Twist, National Crime Victims Center, Child USA, National Association of VOCA Administrators, National Organization for Victim Assistance, ToPrevail, ChampionWomen, National Children's Advocacy Center, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Association to Protect Children, and the Rape Abuse & Incest National Network.

They are on the front lines of this work, and I greatly appreciate their support.

Thank you very much.

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, CA. She is the proud

mother of 20-year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Joriene and Jashley, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress's 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 of 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 Ms. Tan would endure if she is deported, her deportation would cause serious hardship to her two U.S. citizen children, Joriene and Jashley.

Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is premed, 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 Joriene and Jashley 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 U.S. 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 Teresa 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.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private relief legislation on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, a couple living with their four U.S. citizen children in Camarillo, CA.

Joseph and Sharon are nationals of Egypt who fled their home country over 19 years ago after being targeted for their religious membership in the Christian Coptic Church in Egypt. They became involved with this church during the 1990s, Joseph as an accountant and project coordinator helping to build community facilities and Sharon as the church's training director in human resources.

Unfortunately, Joseph and Sharon were also subjected to threats and abuse. Joseph was jailed repeatedly because of his involvement with the church. Sharon's family members were violently targeted, including her cousin who was murdered and her brother whose business was firebombed. When Sharon became pregnant with her first child, she was threatened by a member of a different religious organization for raising her child in a non-Muslim faith.

Joseph and Sharon came to the United States legally on visitor visas in November 1998. Due to their fears of persecution in Egypt based on their religious beliefs, they filed for asylum in the United States in May 1999.

However, Joseph, who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating why he was afraid to return to Egypt, and 1 year later their asylum application was denied. Considering that Sharon's brother, who also applied for asylum for similar reasons, was granted asylum in the United States, Joseph and Sharon appealed the denial of their asylum applications, to no avail.

While Sharon's brother, who is now a U.S. citizen, has filed a family-based immigrant petition on Sharon's behalf, it will be at least 4 years until she will even be eligible for a visa number due to visa backlogs.

If Sharon and Joseph are deported before then, they will not only be separated from their family but will be forced to return to a country where persecution of Coptic Christians continues.

Due to their fear of returning to Egypt, Joseph and Sharon have therefore tried to build a life for themselves here in the United States, working hard while building their beautiful family. With the protection of past private bills I filed on their behalf, Joseph was able to get his certified public accountant license and opened his own accounting firm, where Sharon works by his side.

Joseph and Sharon make sure that their four U.S. citizen children-- Jessica, age 18, Rebecca, age 17, Rafael, age 16, and Veronica, age 11--all attend school in California and maintain good grades.

Joseph and Sharon carry strong support from friends, members of their local church, and other Californians who attest to their good character and community contributions.

I am concerned that the entire family would face serious and unwarranted hardships if Joseph and Sharon were forced to return to Egypt. For Jessica, Rebecca, Rafael, and Veronica, the only home they know is in the United States. Separation of this family would be devastating and the alternative--relocating the family to Egypt--could be dire, as it is quite possible that these four American children would face discrimination or worse on account of their religion, as was the experience of many of their family members.

Joseph and Sharon have made a compelling plea to remain in the United States. These parents emphasize their commitment to supporting their children and creating a healthy and productive place for them to grow up in California. I believe this family deserves that opportunity.

I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and their daughter, Adilene Martinez. This family is originally from Mexico but has been living in California for over 20 years. I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for this extraordinary form of relief.

When Jose came to the United States from Mexico, he began working as a busboy in restaurants in San Francisco, CA. In 1990, he started working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an award-winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco.

Jose worked his way through the ranks, eventuall becoming Palio's sous chef. His colleagues describe him as a reliable and cool-headed coworker and as ``an exemplary employee'' who not only is ``good at his job but is also a great boss to his subordinates.''

He and his wife Micaela call San Francisco home. Micaela is a homemaker and part-time housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of whom are U.S. citizens. Their oldest daughter, Adilene, age 28, is undocumented. She currently works fulltime at a cinema and hopes to continue pursuing her studies in the future.

The Martinez's second daughter, Jazmin, age 24, is a U.S. citizen. She graduated from Leadership High School and is now studying at California State University, San Francisco. Jazmin has been diagnosed with asthma, which requires constant treatment. According to her doctor, if Jazmin were to return to Mexico with her family, the high altitude and air pollution in Mexico City could be fatal to her. The Martinez's other U.S. citizen daughter, Karla, is 19 years old and attends San Francisco City College.

The Martinez family attempted to legalize their status through several channels.

In 2001, Jose's sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Jose to get a green card. However, the current green card backlog for siblings from Mexico is very long, and it will be many years before Jose will be eligible to legalize his status though his sister.

In 2002, the Martinez family applied for political asylum. Their application was denied. An immigration judge denied their subsequent application for cancellation of removal.

Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio D'Asti, petitioned for an employment-based green card for Jose based upon his unique skills as a chef. Jose's petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. However, before he will be eligible for a green card, he must apply for a hardship waiver, which cannot be guaranteed.

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 the Martinez family'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, 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 five children--Nayely, age 30, and Cindy, age 28-- also stand to benefit from this legislation. The other three Arreola children--Robert, age 25, Daniel, age 22, and Saray, age 20--are U.S. citizens. The story of the Arreola family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress's 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, SWA, 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--three of whom are American citizens--and the other two 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 the 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 U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents of this country. Maria Elena has three 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 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 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 hard-working 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.

They have good health care benefits, and they each have begun saving for retirement. They are sending their children Christina, Erika, and Danny, to college and plan to send the rest of their children to college, as well.

Their oldest child, Christina, is 26 years old, and takes classes at Heald College to become a paralegal. Erika, age 22, graduated from high school and is currently taking classes at Skyline College. Her teachers have praised her abilities and have referred to her as a ``bright spot'' in the classroom. Danny, age 20, currently attends the University of California and volunteers at his local homeless shelter in the soup kitchen. Daisy, age 15, and Juan Pablo, age 10, are 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, today I am reintroducing a private relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez and his wife, Oliva Gonzalez. The Rojas family, originally from Mexico, is living in the San Jose area of California.

The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Jorge and Oliva originally came to the United States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr., was just 2 years old. In 1995, they left the country to attend a funeral and then reentered the United States on visitors' visas.

The family has grown to include three U.S. citizen children: Alexis, now 24 years old, Tanya, 22 years old, and Matias, now 7 years old. Jorge and Oliva are also the grandparents of Meena Rojas.

The Rojas family first attempted to legalize their status in the United States when an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who was not an attorney, advised them to apply for asylum. Unfortunately, without proper legal guidance, the family did not realize at the time that they lacked a valid basis for asylum. Their asylum claim was denied in 2008, leaving the Rojas family with no further options to legalize their status.

Since their arrival in the United States more than 20 years ago, the Rojas family has demonstrated a robust work ethic and a strong commitment to their community in California. They have paid their taxes and worked hard to contribute to this country.

Jorge is a hard-working individual who has been employed by BrightView Landscaping Services, formerly known as Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance, in San Jose, CA, for the past 20 years. Currently, he works on commercial landscaping projects. Jorge is well- respected by his supervisor and his peers.

In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time to provide modern green landscaping and building projects at his children's school in California. He is active in his neighborhood association, through which he worked with his neighbors to open a library and community center in their community.

Oliva, in addition to raising her three children, has also been very active in the local community. She volunteers with the People Acting in Community Together, PACT, organization, where she works to prevent crime, gangs, and drug dealing in San Jose neighborhoods and schools.

Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his parents, is now the father of 6-year-old Meena. He is 28 years old and working at a job that allows him to support his daughter. Jorge graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007. He has obtained temporary protection from deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program.

Alexis, age 24, graduated from West Valley College in Saratoga, CA, and is interested in continuing his linguistics studies at San Jose State University. Tanya, age 22, is now in her second semester at San Jose State University. Their teachers have described them as ``fantastic, wonderful and gifted'' students.

Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the Rojas family to remain in the United States is the impact that their deportation would have on their four children. Three of the Rojas children--Alexis, Tanya, and Matias--American citizens. Additionally, Jorge Rojas, Jr., has lived in the United States since he was a toddler. America is the only country these children have called home. It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American dream, and their continued presence in our country would do so much to promote the values we hold dear,

When I first introduced this bill, I received dozens of letters from the community in Northern California in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced today will keep this great family together and enable each of them to continue making significant contributions to their community as well as the United States.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing a private relief bill

on behalf of Alicia Buendia, a woman who has lived in the Fresno area of California for more than 20 years. I believe her situation merits Congress's special consideration.

She is married to Jose Buendia, and together they have raised two outstanding children, Ana Laura, age 28, and Alex, age 26, a U.S. citizen. Both children have excelled in school. Ana Laura graduated from University of California, Irvine, and Alex is currently attending the University of California, Merced.

I previously introduced bills for Alicia, her husband, and Ana Laura. Thankfully, Jose has successfully secured lawful permanent residency for himself through cancellation of removal. This followed 7 unfortunate years of delay in the immigration courts to determine his eligibility under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 for permanent residence. Ana Laura has obtained temporary protection from deportation through the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program.

However, Alicia, who is eligible to adjust status, is still awaiting a determination on a family-based immigration petition filed by her U.S. citizen son. Additionally, she would be required to file a waiver application, which could result in separation from her family

Alicia warrants private relief and a chance to start fresh in America. She goes to work season after season in California's labor- intensive agriculture industry in Reedley, CA, where she currently works for a fruit packing company.

In the more than 20 years of living in California, Alicia has dedicated herself to her family and community. She and Jose have worked hard to honestly feed their family and have raised two exceptional children who have both pursued and excelled in higher education.

Alicia has a strong connection to her local community, serving as an active member of her church. She and Jose pay their taxes every year, have successfully paid off their mortgage, and remain free of debt. They have shown that they are responsible, maintaining health insurance, savings accounts, and retirement accounts. Without this private bill, Alicia would be separated from her lawful permanent resident husband, two children who rely on her for love, support, and guidance.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I am reintroducing private relief legislation in the 115th Congress on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and their son, Arthur Mkoian. The Mkoian family has been living in Fresno, CA, for over 20 years. I continue to believe this family deserves Congress's 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 coworker had registered the vehicles at the request of the same chief.

After Ruben reported the bribe offer to illegally register vehicles and said he would 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, Asmik, and Arthur have exhausted every option to obtain immigration relief in the United States. While Ruben and Asmik's other son, Arsen, is a U.S. citizen, he is too young to file a green card petition on their behalf.

It would be a terrible shame to remove this family from the United States and to separate them from 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 truckdriver 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 Shields Medical Center.

Arthur has proven to be a hard-working, smart young man who applies himself. He was recognized nationally for his scholastic achievement, having maintained a 4.0 grade point average in high school and serving as his class valedictorian. After graduating on the Dean's Merit List from the University of California, Davis with a major in Chemistry, he is now a full-time analyst at a water testing company. He also teaches Armenian School on Saturdays at the church.

Arthur's brother, Arsen currently attends Fresno State University, is majoring in Computer Science, and maintains a 3.8 GPA. These two young men have already accomplished so much and clearly aspire to do great things here in the United States.

Reflecting their contributions to their community, Representatives George Radanovich and Jim Costa 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, today I am reintroducing a bill for the private relief of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, CA. She is the proud

mother of 20-year-old U.S. citizen twin boys, Joriene and Jashley, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress's 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 of 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 Ms. Tan would endure if she is deported, her deportation would cause serious hardship to her two U.S. citizen children, Joriene and Jashley.

Joriene is a junior at Stanford University and is premed, 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 Joriene and Jashley 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 U.S. 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 Teresa 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.