Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Lee, Sullivan, and Gillibrand.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, 36 years ago, President Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate that separated East from West Berlin. He said to the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

Only a few years after his historic speech, the Soviet Union collapsed,

bringing in decades--decades--of freedom and prosperity in Eastern Europe and a welcome end to the Cold War.

Now there comes a man named ``Vladimir Putin'' who is clumsily and dangerously trying to regain that dystopian Soviet glory with a bloody war in Ukraine.

So I can only wonder what President Reagan would be thinking now, with so many of his Republican Party Members refusing to support critical military assistance to keep Ukraine from falling to Russian tyranny.

Yes, we have other legislative needs in Congress, but refusing to support the forces of freedom in Ukraine in a war against a resurgent evil empire in the name of partisanship is nothing short of reckless.

It is not hard to understand how we got here. Putin gambled and lost a botched attempt to quickly overthrow Ukraine. Now he has to juggle a formidable Ukrainian resistance, huge losses of Russian conscript, isolation on the global stage, a struggling economy, domestic opposition, and an upcoming election in Russia that he needs to rig again to stay in power. Meanwhile, he has been branded a war criminal and has to carefully choose the nations that he visits so he isn't arrested on the spot.

So, given his tenuous position, what is one of his greatest opportunities for clinging to power? It is hope that the partisan chaos in the U.S. Congress will stall or end support for Ukraine. And make no mistake--the President of Ukraine told us point-blank when he visited here several months ago, in a private meeting in the Old Senate Chamber, that if the United States cuts off military assistance to Ukraine, his country will lose the war with Vladimir Putin.

That is what is at stake. The White House was clear. We know that Putin is watching this activity by Congress; so is China and so is Iran.

The White House was clear in warning that the United States is ``out of money to support Ukraine in this fight.''

And President Zelenskyy told us the obvious: Ukraine will lose without American support.

So this is not an abstract political theater; what we do has consequences--global and historic consequences. As such, I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, think long and hard about what President Reagan would say today about showing weakness to Vladimir Putin. Let's not flinch when it comes to standing up to such obvious threats to freedom.

It is time to pass President Biden's national security supplemental request. It is hard to imagine that we would actually let history record that we walked away from Ukraine at this moment. And it isn't over a debate of the merits of his defense of his country; it is over an unrelated issue: our border security.

It is obvious that we need to do something on our border. The number of people presenting themselves for refugee status is at a record high. The system that was designed 60 years ago to deal with refugees never envisioned the volume of demands that we are facing on the border every single day, week, and month.

This is not unique to the United States. Refugees all around the world are mushrooming in size for a variety of reasons: conflicts, the war in the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, environmental changes. All of these have the world in flux. And many people are looking for safety, safety in countries like the United States.

I support the refugee system. I think it was designed at a time when we realized that turning away Jewish people in World War II was a stain on our reputation. We decided after World War II to enter into a pact with other countries around the world to accept refugees under certain circumstances, and we have lived by that ever since through Presidents--Republican and Democratic.

Now, we are being tested. We can meet that test. We can adjust our refugee system to the reality of today, and we can stop the abuse of the system that is taking place on the border. But we don't want to walk away from the very fundamental values of our country. It is trying to find that delicate balance between those values and the disorder that we face on the border that leads us to the point we are today.

I have been involved in immigration issues for as long as I have served in this Chamber, and I know how hard they are to negotiate. And to put this stark choice before the Senate of either finding a solution to a decades-old problem in a matter of days and hours or cutting off aid to Ukraine is a terrible choice.

It is a deadly choice for the people of Ukraine, and, sadly, it is a deadly choice for the dominance of the United States and shaping world opinion. I hope we find our senses and do it soon.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor many times to voice my frustration with the timid, ineffective job by the Food and Drug Administration in protecting American children and consumers from Big Tobacco. With new threats like vaping, the FDA has failed--utterly failed--to use its authority under the law to clear the market in the United States of unauthorized e-cigarettes. These addictive products are targeting children with sweet and fruity flavors. Yet the Food and Drug Administration has largely neglected its public health responsibility to regulate these products.

But, today, I want to discuss an area where the FDA can make progress that has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives. Last month, the FDA submitted a regulation to the White House for final review. This proposed regulation would ban the sale of menthol cigarettes and prohibit the use of flavorings in cigars.

Scientists have known for years that flavors play a powerful role in addicting people to tobacco by masking the harsh taste of their product, but when Congress banned the use of most flavors of tobacco in 2009, Big Tobacco secured a loophole for menthol. Why? Addiction is profitable.

For decades, menthol cigarettes, in particular, have been marketed aggressively to the African-American community in the United States, through free samples, sponsorship of cultural events, and heavy advertising. As a result, today--today--85 percent of Black smokers use menthol cigarettes, compared to 30 percent of White smokers.

It is part of the reason why Black adults are 30 percent more likely to die from heart disease and 50 percent more likely to die from stroke, compared to White Americans.

Right before Thanksgiving, I met in my office with Marsha Hike, who lives in Chicago. She was in Washington because November is Lung Cancer Awareness Month. She shared the fact that lung cancer is the No. 1 cause of cancer death in America. The No. 1 cause of cancer death in America: lung cancer, killing more Americans than breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colorectal cancer combined.

She met with me because six of her dearest family members have died from lung cancer due to smoking. I am glad there is greater attention today on topics like health disparities, equity, and the underlying factors for why Black people live sicker and die younger in America.

FDA's proposal would eliminate the racial disparity among cancer deaths between Black and White Americans, saving 650,000 lives.

I take this issue very personally. When I was a sophomore in high school, my father died of lung cancer. He was 53 years old. He spent 90 days--almost 100 days--in the hospital before he died, and I was by his bedside regularly. It made a profound impact on me as a high school kid, and little did I know that I would be able to follow up on this issue when I came to the House of Representatives by passing legislation to ban smoking on airplanes and taking Big Tobacco on ever since. The battle continues.

I know what the reaction is that the decision to ban menthol in cigarettes would be unpopular among the African-American population and may be reflected in the next vote. I think that is greatly exaggerated.

The majority of the Members of the Black caucus in Congress support this ban on menthol. And I want to make it clear, they are peddling stories--Big Tobacco is--that we are going to go out and arrest African Americans if they use menthol cigarettes, but that is not the case at all. The FDA proposal would take all of the action against the producers of the cigarettes, not the consumers. The consumers are not drawn into this in terms of any legal liability nor should they be.

The question is, do we care enough about these African Americans, their families, and their future to make an unpopular--to some-- decision to move forward to make America a healthier, safer place to live? I hope we do.

I don't want any more families to experience the suffering that I went through and families do every day.

The Biden administration has an incredible track record of taking on big challenges and delivering. It has launched the Cancer Moonshot, created a new Federal research Agency, ARPA-H, to accelerate cures for patients. President Biden has taken on the gun lobby and Big Pharma and secured important victories with the passage last year of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.

Now is the time to do the same against Big Tobacco, which is responsible for nearly half a million deaths per year. I urge the Biden administration to look carefully at the proposal from the FDA and swiftly finalize its rules on menthol and flavored cigars, which will save lives and reduce suffering, especially for communities of color.

This is an issue that is personal to many Americans. We didn't choose it. Addiction led our family members to face illness and sometimes death. Are we going to do something for the next generation of African Americans who are being harassed in the advertising and marketing of this product to the detriment of their future?

I hope that President Biden will do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Schumer for his remarks.

Imagine, if you will a family event that you look forward to each year. That was the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, IL.

Highland Park, a leafy suburb of Chicago, is a wonderful community, truly a community. And every year on the Fourth of July, families ask their sons and daughters to put on that patriotic T-shirt, carry the little flag, stand out and enjoy this commemoration of the birth of the United States of America.

Well, a little over a year ago, that Fourth of July parade became a terrible day for so many families.

Last year, in Highland Park, IL, a shooter on a rooftop, with an assault rifle, was able to fire 83 rounds in 60 seconds--83 rounds in 60 seconds--killing 7 and wounding dozens before law enforcement could even identify where he was. One of those was a little 8-year-old boy, a twin, who will be unfortunately disabled for the rest of his life because of the injuries that he sustained.

This mass shooting in my home State of Illinois was one of hundreds across America last year. Since 2020, the United States has suffered from over 600 mass shootings every year, almost 2 a day.

I ask those who are listening to my remarks to reflect on one fact: There is no other country on Earth not engaged in active war where this type of killing occurs on a daily basis.

In Highland Park and in communities across America, shooters have used military-style assault weapons to cause irreversible harm in just a matter of minutes.

I listened to my friend from Wyoming object to the effort to bring this legislation to the floor and cite the fact that we were being disrespectful to gun owners. He made reference to ranchers and farmers in his State and how it is important for them to have firearms. I don't quarrel with that, but I do have to ask, in all seriousness: 83 rounds in 60 seconds? That is what a farmer needs? That is what a rancher needs? I think not. This is a military weapon designed to kill people. That is it. It is designed to kill massive numbers of people. I don't think that is part of farming or ranching in modern America.

Already this year, there have been 627 mass shootings, including the October 25 attack in Lewiston, ME, where a gunman opened fire and killed 18 people. Literally, the entire State of Maine was on alert, wondering if this shooter would have another victim.

Americans are rightfully afraid when they see their friends and neighbors killed in schools, in places of worship, in bowling alleys, at work, at the mall, at grocery stores. People are asking: What is safe? Mothers and fathers are asking: Is it safe to send our children to school?

Is it safe to send their children to school?

What can we do to stop this madness? It is madness. Firearms are now the leading cause of death of children in the United States. Firearms-- the leading cause of death of children in the United States of America.

Mass shootings with assault weapons are a uniquely American phenomenon. Continuing to allow firearms meant for war to be used on the streets is disgraceful.

Last year, Congress took critical steps on gun safety reform with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, but we must do more. When a shooter is armed with an assault weapon, the number of deaths in a mass shooting is, on average, twice as high. If we can prevent that many deaths when these tragedies strike by passing an assault weapons ban, what are we waiting for?

Finally, I would like to take a moment to talk about my former colleague and true trailblazer, the late Senator Dianne Feinstein, whose voice and leadership in this fight is an inspiration to us all.

Senator Feinstein experienced the devastation of gun violence firsthand the day that George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk were gunned down in the San Francisco City Hall. That was carved into her memory and inspired her response.

In 1994, an assault weapons ban was passed and considered a major step forward. Senator Feinstein's work in the Senate and then Congressman Chuck Schumer's work in the House made it a reality. Congress failed to reauthorize this critical legislation--a big mistake.

Today, we can honor Senator Feinstein's legacy with the lives we will save by bringing forward this bill. After Highland Park, I said that I hope, for our children's sake, we don't run away from the problem. That community and so many others are counting on us to stand up and face this issue head on. I urge my colleagues to unite and do what is right for the safety of the American people. Let's pass the assault weapons ban.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Shaheen.

In reserving the right to object, in 1978, before I was elected to Congress, I had the opportunity to take a trip to the Soviet Union and spend 3 weeks there. I saw a lot. In addition to the visits to Russia and Moscow, we visited countries like Lithuania, where my mother was born, and I witnessed firsthand the vision of Vladimir Putin and the Soviet Union.

Make no mistake, his goal is to restore the Soviet Union, to take vulnerable countries and to subsume them with his own ego and his own view of the world. To visit Lithuania and see what they had done to the freedoms that we just take for granted in America was an eye opener to me: to see the cathedral in Vilnius, with its beautiful frescos whitewashed by the Soviets because they didn't want people to practice religion; to realize that they controlled everything--radio stations, newspapers--and to realize that they dictated who would win an election. There was no freedom in that country.

That is the communist view. That is the Soviet view. That is the Vladimir Putin view. Are we in favor of that, Senator? I don't think so. I know you aren't personally, and you don't want to see that lifestyle imposed on people around the world any more than I do.

In Ukraine, they had the courage to stand up and say to Putin: We will fight you to the death to stop this from happening.

They have surprised a lot of people. I remember the briefing--the Senator from Kansas might have attended it--where we asked the intelligence experts: How long can Ukraine hold out when the Russian military machine comes marching in?

They said: A matter of days--days--maybe weeks, but not much more.

They were wrong. And do you know why they were wrong? Because they underestimated the Ukrainian people and what they were willing to do to protect their country.

I have a special, as they say, selfish interest in this because I know that if Putin is successful in Ukraine, if this war criminal has his way and takes over the Ukrainian country for his Soviet Union--his new Soviet Union--the next country on the list is probably Lithuania and the Baltics: Poland, Latvia, Estonia. They are obvious targets because they are small and vulnerable, but they do have the NATO alliance standing behind them.

So not only do I support the Ukrainian effort because of the courage of the people and their success and how much I abhor Vladimir Putin and his agenda, I also realize it is in America's best interest that Ukrainians prevail. It is in our best interest to stop Putin in Ukraine so that we don't have to use the NATO alliance to stop him in a country where we would be sending American troops to fight the battle. We should stand foursquare behind Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, and it is the right thing for America.

Today, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament came to my office, Mr. Stefanchuk, and he had a very simple message for me and the Senators who had gathered there: Without U.S. assistance, Ukraine will struggle and probably lose this war.

Oh, he reminded us that they would fight to the death, and I am sure they will if it comes down to that dire situation. It also reminded me that this is not just another political debate. What we are talking about is assistance to a country where people today are fighting and dying for their freedom, a country for which we promised support for over 2 years, a country we need to stand by.

Now you have asked us to support Israel. I will tell you this as well. Last week, many of us, on a bipartisan basis, watched videos from the October 7 invasion of the Hamas terrorists into Israel. It was horrifying. It was a terrible 40 minutes. I had to avert my eyes several times because I couldn't stand to look at the scenes of systemic rape, of attacks, murder. I will never forget those two little boys whose parents had just been killed outside the living room, sitting in their living room, saying: Are we going to die? It was these two little boys, and it was on tape. That was the reality of the atrocity of October 7.

Israel has the right to exist. Israel has the right to defend itself, and I stand behind Israel as most Americans do. I want to see their support. But please don't give us this ``Sophie's Choice'' of picking our favorite child to die. I don't want either Israel or Ukraine to die. I want them to have bright futures, and to have that, they need the United States now more than ever. Don't separate our loyalty. Our loyalty should be common and unified for both countries, Ukraine and Israel.

There are things we can say about humanitarian issues in the Gaza territories and what is happening there, but I am going to spare that for another day.

I will just say this: I stand behind Ukraine. I stand behind Israel. Don't separate them. Let's stand behind both of them because they are both consistent with the values of the United States.

I yield to the Senator from Washington.

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

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

Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Loren L. AliKhan to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Born in Baltimore, MD, Judge AliKhan earned her J.D., magna cum laude, at the Georgetown University Law Center. She also received her B.A., summa cum laude, and A.A., with distinction, from Bard College at Simon's Rock. After law school, Judge AliKhan completed clerkships on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. She then served as a Bristow Fellow in the Solicitor General's Office at the U.S. Department of Justice. Judge AliKhan then worked as an associate and later counsel at O'Melveny & Myers LLP. There, she represented companies in matters involving contract interpretation, statutory interpretation, class certification, antitrust, patent infringement, and products liability.

From 2018 to 2022, Judge AliKhan served as solicitor general in the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia after previously serving as acting solicitor general and deputy solicitor general. In that role, she was responsible for the District's litigation in local and Federal trial and appellate courts on issues including constitutional law, criminal law, employment discrimination, tax, and torts. In 2022, Judge AliKhan was confirmed to the DC Court of Appeals, where she has heard approximately 100

appeals as a member of a merits panel and has issued 200 decisions as a member of a motions panel.

The American Bar Association rated Judge AliKhan as ``well qualified,'' and her nomination is strongly supported by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also received several letters of support for Judge AliKhan's nomination to the Federal bench, including from a bipartisan group of current and former State solicitors general across the country.

Judge AliKhan's qualifications, including her judicial and litigation experience, make her exceptionally qualified to serve on the Federal bench. I am proud to support her nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Madam President, in the depths of World War II raging in Europe, a group of people decided to charter a ship and come to the United States. They were Jewish people from European countries. The ship was known as the USS St. Louis. It went to the port in Havana, Cuba, and was turned away. It tried to land in the United States and was turned away again. It eventually returned to Europe, a boatload of Jewish people. Hundreds of them died in the Holocaust.

We reflected on that after World War II and decided it was not a period in American history that we should take pride in but a lesson to us of what happens when people are in desperate situations and ask for help.

I believe it was in 1951 that we entered into the Geneva Convention, an agreement when it came to refugees who sought refuge at the shore. The United States, under Presidents of both political parties, wanted to establish once and for all that what happened to the USS St. Louis did not reflect the values of the United States of America. So in 1951, we established, with many nations around the world, a standard for what to do with refugees, people who sought refuge in your country because of fear of staying in their own country.

The system worked well for us for many decades, but now we are facing a new challenge we have never seen before. The number of refugees from around the world is at a recordbreaking pace--some refugees because of war, some because of fear, religious belief, state of the environment-- and they are moving in massive numbers all over the globe, particularly into Europe and the United States.

So we have seen recordbreaking numbers appearing at our border to the south of our country, and we have heard from the other party quite a bit about this--deservedly so.

I am a person who believes in immigration. My mother was an immigrant to this country, and I am proud to be in the Senate, a first-generation American, representing the great State of Illinois, as the Presiding Officer does. But I understand the overwhelming numbers we are facing at the border and President Biden is facing really argue for us to take a hard look at the way we approach this.

If you have ever been to an immigration court--and I have in the city of Chicago--it is an overwhelming experience. You see people standing three and four deep against the wall, waiting for their numbers to be called. Usually--in fact, almost without fail--their cases are postponed for another 6 months or another year.

It takes years for a person's refugee claim to be litigated. That is just plain wrong. Justice delayed in this situation is clearly justice denied. And the fact that half of them don't win in their litigation is an indication that if they were tried at an earlier date, the resolution of their future would be obvious.

So now we hear from our Republican friends that before we can provide any more military assistance to Ukraine in their war against Vladimir Putin, the war criminal from Moscow, if we are going to provide any assistance to Israel to fight off the Hamas terrorism

group, we have to resolve the problems at our southern border before we can go forward.

It troubles me because I have been working on immigration for at least 20 years, maybe more, and I know how difficult the issue is. It is hard to explain in the United States of America, a nation of immigrants, why immigration is such a hot, controversial topic. Virtually everyone in this country is only a generation or two removed from being an immigrant to this country, and yet there has been resistance throughout our history--unless we needed cheap labor to build the transcontinental railroad, when we invited Chinese workers to come in. We treated them, unfortunately, in an inhumane fashion and didn't give them, largely, the eligibility to become citizens. But we needed the labor. We needed the workers. It has happened many times before.

What troubles me about the debate now about the southern border is it is one-half of the immigration equation. Yes, we need order at the border. Yes, we need to have changes in the laws that reflect the reality of the overwhelming numbers from all over the world who are coming to our shores and our border. But there is also an incredible demand for legal immigration into this country even now.

The Presiding Officer, my colleague from the State of Illinois, has legislation which addresses one aspect of that. Her bill--and I hope I describe it accurately--says that if you are an undocumented person in this country and you can pass the physical and the required tests, background test and the like, you can serve in our military, and if you do it honorably, we will make you citizens of the United States.

Do we need that? Do you know what the recruiting numbers are at the Army and the Navy and the Air Force? They can't reach their quotas each month. They can't find enough people to join our military forces. There are those who are undocumented who want the chance to serve and risk their lives for this country. Should we give them the chance? I think we should.

Let me tell you about others that we need. In my State of Illinois, in the inner city in Chicago and the rural areas downstate, we are holding our breath, hoping that we can keep hospitals open. Do you know why? We don't have enough medical personnel. Yet there are people all around this world who have medical credentials as doctors and nurses and skilled technicians who want to come to the United States, but we don't give them the chance.

I think it is a reasonable thing to do. I think it would make us a better nation and a healthier nation to keep those hospitals open, and they are desperate to find new personnel. We need legal immigration for that.

The same holds true when it comes to agricultural workers. In our State of Illinois, we desperately need them for virtually every aspect of farming and agriculture. Are they available and ready to come? Yes. But we need a change in the immigration law to reach that.

The point I am trying to make is there are many issues involving immigration. Enforcement and making certain that the people who come here are not a danger to our country are primary. The second to that is to make sure we have an orderly process, and third, that we recognize that legal immigration is needed now more than ever.

A few years back, I was part of an effort called the Gang of Eight-- John McCain, myself, Chuck Schumer. We came together and wrote a comprehensive immigration bill. It hadn't been done for over 25 years. We brought it to the floor of the Senate, and it passed.

You see, we have 11 million undocumented people in the United States. They are people who are raising families, going to work, attending churches and synagogues and temples that you attend. They are part of America, but legally they are not on the books.

If we had a system I think that is fair, that passed the U.S. Senate, which said once and for all they can step forward out of the shadows, register with the government, pay their fair share of taxes, pay into Social Security, help us deal with the financial challenges of our entitlement system, and work in this country legally, registered, and we know exactly where they live--that, to me, is a sensible approach. It is one that passed on the floor of the Senate. It is one which we should turn to again.

As we are giving work permits to those who are in temporary protected status, we should be giving work permits to those who have been here for years and years, raised a family, and proven that they can be a good neighbor to anyone in this country. Give them a chance to legally work. I think that is important, and we should do that.

I want to tell you a story about one person. She is a resident of the State of Illinois.

Twenty years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act said that if you were brought here as an infant, toddler, or small child, you should be given a chance to earn your way to citizenship in America.

When they test this proposition across the country, Democrats and Republicans agree that is only fair. Those little kids didn't have a vote when their family decided to come to the United States. They have grown up here. They have been educated in our schools here. They have advanced degrees. They want to be part of America's future, and they should be given that chance.

Well, unfortunately, the bill did not pass. But President Barack Obama, the former Senator from Illinois, created a program called DACA, which addressed that very serious gap in immigration law for these young people. Eight hundred thousand young people qualified for the DACA Program. Now it is under attack in the courts, and the question is, Will it survive even for those 800,000? I am not sure it will. But we do know that these Dreamers can offer a lot to this country. Let me tell you the story of one of them.

Her name is Mitchell Soto-Rodriguez. She first came to Blue Island, IL, from Mexico City as a 9-year-old with her family. When she was a sophomore in high school, Mitchell was in a car accident with her mom and sister. The police officer who came to the scene made an impression by being respectful, professional, and speaking Spanish to make her mother feel more comfortable. The experience prompted Mitchell to decide that she wanted to serve her community as a police officer.

Mitchell obtained an associate's degree from Moraine Valley Community College in Palos Hills, IL. Last year, she graduated magna cum laude from Governors State University with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice.

Understanding how immigrants contribute to our communities, Blue Island decided to permit DACA recipients like Mitchell to work as police officers. Today, Mitchell serves her community as a part-time police officer while she is attending the police academy and working as a security officer at the local high school.

But DACA was always intended to be a temporary solution for Dreamers like Mitchell. Since President Obama established the program, Republicans have waged a relentless campaign to overturn it and deport these Dreamers back to the countries they may not even remember. The permanent solution is enacting a piece of legislation that I did introduce 20 years ago, the DREAM Act. It would provide a path to citizenship for Dreamers all across the country.

Without permanent protections, these young people have been forced to live in limbo and fear that DACA will be overturned by the courts. They have to renew their status every 2 years, which means their lives are in 2-year increments.

In September, a Federal judge in Texas declared the DACA Program illegal, though the decision left in place protections for current recipients like Mitchell while her appeal is pending.

Until the DREAM Act is passed, Mitchell's service to her community and to our Nation is at risk, as is the service that so many Dreamers are providing in their communities as teachers, medical professionals, servicemembers, and so much more.

Immigrants have been a critical part of the American success story, and our Nation needs immigrants like Mitchell and her family more than ever today. If DACA is struck down, experts predict that our economy will lose billions of dollars, $11.7 billion in lost wages. And without continued legal immigration, the U.S. working-age population will

shrink by over 6 million by 2040. As more Americans retire, this could contribute to a 23-percent reduction in the monthly Social Security checks that beneficiaries have been promised.

These young people, these DACA recipients and many others, want to be part of our economy, pay their taxes, pay into Social Security, and we desperately need them to do it. With over 9\1/2\ million jobs open right now in America, our farmers, hospitals, and small business owners desperately need immigrants to meet their workforce needs.

To resolve these challenges, we should create additional lawful pathways for immigrants to work in the United States. We should also give our undocumented population--most of whom have been here for decades--legal status so they can fully contribute to our society.

I am ready to negotiate with my Republican colleagues in good faith to solve the problem at the border. And it needs a solution. I readily acknowledge that. But at the same time, I hope they will take a positive approach as well knowing that we desperately need legal immigration. And if people are clear to come to our country for that purpose, we will be better for it in so many different levels.

There are some on the other side--I am going to be very blunt about this--who believe in the theory of not one more immigrant in this country. They don't know the history of the United States. They don't know what these immigrants have meant to us. In my family and the families across the whole country, you can point to immigrants who have made a solid difference in building a family and in building an economy which we all prosper from today.

So let's get it right when it comes to enforcement at the border, but let's not tell half the story. Let's tell the other half of the story that legal immigration is critical to our future, and people like Mitchell Soto-Rodriguez, who is wanting to serve as a police officer in her community in Illinois, is an asset to this country, and we need her in our future.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Irma Carrillo Ramirez to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Born in Brownfield, TX, Judge Ramirez received her B.A. from West Texas State University and her J.D. from the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. She then entered private practice at a law firm in Dallas before going to work in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas. During her 11 years as a litigator, she tried nine cases to verdict, including four jury trials.

Since 2002, Judge Ramirez has served as a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Texas. As a magistrate judge, she has presided over 13 trials. She also served as the presiding judge in over 440 consent cases, and she has been assigned more than 2,400 cases for full case management. In addition to her service as a magistrate judge, Judge Ramirez currently presides over the reentry court in the Northern District of Texas and helps oversee the district court's civil pro bono panel.

Judge Ramirez is strongly supported by both of her home State Senators--Mr. Cornyn and Mr. Cruz--and the American Bar Association unanimously rated her as ``well qualified'' to serve on the Fifth Circuit. She has deep ties to Texas, and her significant experience as both an advocate and magistrate judge will serve her well on the Fifth Circuit.

If confirmed, Judge Ramirez will be the first Hispanic woman to serve on the Fifth Circuit and the only active Hispanic judge on the Fifth Circuit.

During Judge Ramirez's confirmation hearing, Senator Cornyn called her ``exceptionally qualified'' and said that ``[y]ou can tell that Texas is very proud of Judge Ramirez.'' I am proud to support her nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Shanlyn A.S. Park to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai'i.

Born in Honolulu, HI, Judge Park received her B.A., cum laude, from Chaminade University in 1991 and her J.D. from the University of Hawai'i William S. Richardson School of Law in 1995. After graduating from law school, Judge Park served as a law clerk to the Honorable Francis I. Yamashita, magistrate judge for the District of Hawai'i. From 1996 to 1997, Judge Park worked on civil matters as an associate attorney at Hisaka Stone & Goto.

For the next two decades, Judge Park served as an assistant federal public defender and later as senior litigator in the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Hawai'i. In these roles, Judge Park tried 10 felony jury trials and 10 misdemeanor bench trials to verdict. She also represented defendants through appeals and argued several cases before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Prior to joining the bench, Judge Park worked in private practice as of counsel at Gallagher Kane Amai & Reyes and as partner and of counsel at McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP. At both firms, her practice centered on a variety of civil matters including commercial disputes, contested probate matters, real property disputes, and third-party insurance defense.

Since joining the State of Hawai'i's First Circuit Court in 2021, Judge Park has issued more than 100 written opinions and presided over 21 jury trials--17 in the family court criminal division and four in the circuit court criminal division.

The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Park as ``qualified,'' and her nomination is strongly supported by her home State Senators, Mr. Schatz and Ms. Hirono.

Once confirmed, Judge Park will become the first Native Hawai'ian woman to serve on the Federal bench. I am proud to support this historic nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Vote on Park nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) is necessarily absent.