Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

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

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the floor for no more than 15 minutes.

Mr. President, there is an issue coming up before the Senate this week which really goes to the heart of this institution and why it exists. The Constitution spells out responsibilities for Congress and specific responsibilities when it comes to this Chamber. The 100 men and women who serve today, among other things, have a responsibility to advise and consent on nominations that have been sent by the President for our consideration. The Constitution assigns the Senate the role of questioning these nominees, of checking into their backgrounds, and then of deciding whether to approve or disapprove their nominations.

Over the past 2 years, we have seen many of the guardrails in this process disappear. For example, the Republican majority has stopped respecting blue slips on circuit court nominations. Blue slips, which are a Senate tradition, say that if a person is nominated to serve on the circuit court, which is the second highest court in the land, the Senators from the State within which that person would serve would decide with a thumbs up or a thumbs down as to whether the nomination will go forward--the so-called blue slip. For a number of years now, that has been the U.S. Senate's standard practice, its tradition. The Republican majority has decided to stop the blue-slip process when it comes to circuit court nominations.

It also has stopped moving bipartisan board and commission nominations in pairs. We used to say: We have a more trusting relationship if you get your Republican nominee and if we get our Democratic nominee. Let's do it together. That used to ensure that both parties would be equally represented on important Agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to name a few.

Now we have a rules change before us that is being proposed

by the Republican side of the aisle--again changing the

rights of Senators by limiting the debate time on

nominations. This would further tilt the balance of power

away from the Senate, away from Congress, and back towards

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Executive. It runs the risk, of

course, of diminishing our constitutional responsibility.

When it comes to executive branch nominations, this administration has had a different approach than what we have seen before. We have a President who says he likes to have administration officials serve in an acting capacity.

In January, President Trump said:

I sort of like acting. It gives me more flexibility. Do you

understand that? I like acting.

Given that approach, perhaps it is no surprise that we have seen long delays in filling leadership positions in important Agencies and ambassadorial posts. We have also seen the highest rate of turnover in modern time with these administration positions. People aren't placed in these positions, and if they are, they are looking for the exit way too soon.

We also have suffered from a lack of proper vetting and examination of a person's background before a nomination is approved, and we have seen a lack of bipartisan cooperation in moving board nominations when there is supposed to be an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. Despite that, we are trying to do the work we were assigned by the Constitution to advise and consent.

If the majority wants to move Executive nominations faster, it can do what all administrations have done in the past and start working with the minority to negotiate packages of nominees. As long as I have been here, that has been done by the leaders of both political parties-- fair, bipartisan packages of Executive nominees who have been well vetted. None of us wants the embarrassment of putting a person in the position for which one is not qualified or when there is any question of one's ethical standards. That bipartisan

work can lead to less debate time on the floor if we agree at the outset to work together.

I am particularly opposed to the Republican proposal before us to shorten the time for debate on President Trump's nominees who will serve lifetime appointments in Federal district court. Imagine serving a lifetime appointment on a court--beyond this administration--and making day-to-day decisions, some fundamental to the criminal justice system and some to the civil justice system.

We understand what is really going on here. We understand when the other side says we are obstructing it from confirming judges. The facts don't tell the same story. In fact, my Republican colleagues have been bragging for months about what Senator McConnell called the ``record number'' of judges the Senate has confirmed under this new President Trump.

In President Trump's first 2 years in office, the Senate confirmed 85 article III judges. During the first 2 years of President Obama's Presidency, it was 62. Eighty-five to sixty-two. The number of judges confirmed in the last Congress was nearly four times as many as the number confirmed under President Obama in the previous Congress.

The pace of judicial nominations and confirmations has been extremely fast. So why are the Republicans now pushing for a change to the Senate rules to make it even faster? It is not like the Senate has been busy with legislation here on the floor.

Senator McConnell had a moment of candor last November after the election.

He said:

I think we'll have probably more time for nominations in

the next Congress than we've had in this one. . . . I don't

think we'll have any trouble finding time to do nominations.

Senator McConnell, McClatchy News, November 7, 2018.

Of course, Senator McConnell was frustrated that one Senator put a blanket hold on judicial nominees at the end of last year, and he expressed his frustration publicly. That Senator, incidentally, was not a Democrat; he was Republican Senator Flake of Arizona.

It seems the real reason the Republicans want to change the rules now on district court nominations is so, in the words of Senator McConnell, they can ``plow right through'' with confirming nominees whose records and views are incomplete or extreme.

The reality is that all too often, these judicial nominees just don't stand up to scrutiny. Already, under President Trump, we have had six judicial nominations in which the American Bar Association's peer- review process found these nominees sent by President Trump to be ``not qualified.'' I might add that there were no--zero, none--``not qualified'' nominees under President Obama.

Last year, two nominees, Thomas Farr and Ryan Bounds, were withdrawn on the floor by the Republicans after the Senate had voted to move forward on their nominations. Disclosures about their backgrounds led Members even on the Republican side of the aisle to say they wouldn't vote for them. They were withdrawn because information came to light that caused these Senators to change their minds about confirming them to lifetime appointments. That shows the importance of having some time--30 hours currently--to debate these nominations and to make sure that a lifetime appointment is not going to someone who is unqualified or who shouldn't be in that position.

So who are the district court nominees for whom Senator McConnell wants to change the rules so as to move them through more quickly? Let me tell you about a few of them.

There is Texas district court nominee Michael Truncale, who called President Obama an ``un-American impostor'' and described the Shelby County case, when it came to voting rights, a ``victory.''

There is Nebraska nominee Brian Buescher, who ran for elected office in 2014 and said: ``I will focus on fighting ObamaCare.''

There is Texas district court nominee Matthew Kacsmaryk, who has repeatedly written in his personal capacity about his opposition to LGBTQ rights and the Obergefell case.

There is Oklahoma district court nominee Patrick Wyrick, who is a protege of disgraced former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's. He allowed an energy company to ghost-write a letter from Pruitt's office when he was Oklahoma's attorney general.

These are just a few. There are many other Trump judicial nominees whose views are far outside the legal mainstream, and Republicans are determined, with these rule changes, to speed up the process so we don't ask questions.

I have to say it is stunning to listen to Republicans complain about obstruction of judicial nominees after watching the unprecedented Republican obstruction of nominees under President Obama.

Under Senator McConnell, Republicans would not even give an appointment for an interview, let alone a hearing, to a well-qualified Supreme Court nominee--Merrick Garland.

In 2013 Republicans pledged they would filibuster anyone who President Obama nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land. No matter how qualified the nominee, they pledged to block him or her because President Obama was making the choice.

Republicans filibustered President Obama's judicial nominees 82 times in the first 5 years. Under all Presidents before President Obama, there had been a total of 86 judicial filibusters combined with all Presidents. Under President Obama, in the first 5 years, there were 82, and throughout history leading up to that, 86.

Now that the Republicans control the White House and the Senate, they want to rip up the rules and change the traditions and guardrails on the judicial nomination process on a regular basis.

They are pushing through nominees who have not been found qualified by the American Bar Association. They are pushing through nominees over the objection of home State Senators. They are pushing these nominees without making sure that they have seen their complete records.

In the case of a North Carolina district court nominee, Thomas Farr, his nomination was pulled when critical documents were finally disclosed while his nomination was pending on the floor of the Senate.

It is no secret what is happening here. There is no emergency that justifies changing the Senate rules. Senator McConnell himself admitted the Senate has plenty of time to consider nominees. This is all about avoiding close scrutiny for extreme ideological nominees that Republicans want to pack onto the Federal courts for lifetime appointments.

I oppose the rules change. Let's do our job when it comes to conducting due diligence and providing informed advice and consent for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. It can be done.

I will tell you that in the first years of the Trump administration, we have been able, by and large, to work out bipartisan agreement on filling judicial vacancies in the State of Illinois, even at the circuit court level, to the point where Senator Duckworth and I gave blue-slip approval to circuit court nominees based out of our own State, and to the point where we have reached a basic agreement when it comes to filling the district court vacancies to this point. It has been bipartisan all the way, and I believe we have found qualified people. It took some time and some bipartisan cooperation, but we did. It can be done. We didn't ask to have the rules changed in the Senate. We used the existing rules to do our job under the Constitution.

All the issues we care about are impacted by these nominees in my State and others. The Senate deserves to take the time to make sure we get this right. We should not be putting men and women into lifetime appointments without close scrutiny as required by our Constitution.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from New Hampshire for being my ally in showing real leadership on this issue.

As a member of the HELP Committee, you will be sitting there in those key hearings when we discuss the reauthorization of higher education. That will be our opportunity to bring in some of these reforms that make a difference in terms of this industry of for-profit colleges and universities. I thank you for that, and I join you in this PROTECT Students Act, as I have come to the floor so many times to talk about this sector.

Most Americans don't know what we mean by for-profit colleges and universities. Who are they? Well, some of the familiar names are the University of Phoenix, DeVry University and others like it, which portray themselves as institutes of higher education, and in

some respects, they bear similarity. Yet when it comes to the actual performance of these schools, it is much different. Many families don't know the difference.

I find in the city of Chicago, IL, that students--particularly when they reach their junior and senior years--are inundated with all this advertising on social media about for-profit colleges and universities.

I would say to Senator Hassan, there was a time in Washington before she arrived where you could find television ads that showed a young lady who appeared to be about 20 years old, in her pajamas, saying: I am here in my pajamas going to college at a for-profit college and university.

They tended to make it sound like it was a pretty easy formula. All you needed to do was log on, and the next thing you knew, you had a diploma, a certificate, and you were off for employment. That is not the real-world of for-profit colleges and universities. The real world is a much starker place.

I have often said that you can define this issue between for-profit colleges and universities and non-profit and public universities and colleges in America with two very simple numbers. This will be on the final. The numbers are 9 and 34. For-profit colleges enroll 9 percent of all postsecondary students. Nine percent go to for-profit schools. Thirty-four percent of all Federal student loan defaults are students from for-profit colleges and universities.

Nine percent of the students and 34 percent of the loan defaults. What is going on here? The answer is very obvious, and it really tells the story about for-profit colleges and universities.

They charge too much. All the surveys we looked at say their tuition is higher than you might run into at a local community college or a public university or a not-for-profit school. They charge too much tuition.

Secondly, too many students drop out before they finish. They are in so much debt, they can't continue.

Third, those who do finish and get a diploma find out it isn't worth much. They don't really end up in a job where they can pay off their student loans, so they stumble and fall despite their best efforts, deep in debt from these for-profit colleges and universities. Along the way, they learn something interesting: These credits they are supposedly earning at the for-profit colleges and universities often can't be transferred anywhere. No one recognizes them.

These students have been lured into something called a ``college'' or ``university,'' lured into deep debt, and if they finish, they find they have something that isn't worth a job in the future. Senator Hassan and I are trying to protect these families and these students from this type of exploitation.

We know and I think most Americans know that going to college can be an expensive experience, but it can be a life-changing experience for the better. If you pick the right school and get yourself a college education, you will be in a better position, in most cases, when it comes to your future life. Right now, we are finding that when it comes to these schools, there is a much different outcome.

Throughout this higher education debate, you are going to hear a common refrain from this industry. They often say that different types of institutions of higher education shouldn't be treated differently under the law, that everybody should play by the same rules. They go on to say that any regulations or requirements that apply only to for- profit colleges discriminate on the basis of tax status.

Last week, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos accused me of discriminating based on tax status, for-profit versus nonprofit. I couldn't care less, from my point of view, whether it is for-profit or nonprofit; the question is, What are they giving to these students? What are the students receiving for the money that is being paid?

In her final report to Congress, retired Department of Education Inspector General Kathleen Tighe wrote: ``The [for-profit college] sector continues to be a high-risk area for the department.'' She went on to say that the industry's own practices and performances ``provide a clear demonstration of the need for particular accountability.''

Let's start with the basics. As I said, 9 percent of the students; 34 percent of the student loan defaults. Students at for-profit colleges graduate with an average debt of nearly $40,000; students at nonprofit and public colleges and universities, $28,000. In 2014, more than half of the top 25 schools whose students held the most cumulative student loan debt were for-profit colleges. Eight of the top 10 students with the most debt were for-profit colleges. The average cohort default rate over 5 years at these eight colleges was 33 percent. Over 5 years, a third of the students were going to default on their student loans.

The average, incidentally, for the two not-for-profit institutions in the top ten was 6 percent. So, at the end of 5 years, one-third of the students who graduated from for-profit schools in the top ten for cumulative student debt had defaulted. For the students from the nonprofit schools in the top ten for cumulative student debt, it was only 6 percent. These for-profit schools are notorious for luring these students and sometimes their families into debt, and then the students can't find the jobs to pay off the debt.

A basic reminder: Of all of the debt you can incur in the United States of America--think about it--that being for your home, your car, your boat, whatever it happens to be--there is one category of debt you can never discharge in bankruptcy: a student loan. You are going to carry student loan debt with you for the rest of your life.

We have a case in which a grandmother literally cosigned a note so her granddaughter could go to college, and the granddaughter defaulted on the student loan. Guess what happened to the grandmother's Social Security payment. The government came and took part of it in order to pay off that student loan.

It never, ever goes away. It is a loan--a debt--for life. That is why it is different. We can make a mistake on a home; we can lose a job or have an illness in the family and default on a mortgage and have the debt we owe discharged in bankruptcy, but it is not so when it comes to student loans.

In a 2017 letter to Secretary DeVos and congressional leadership, 19 State attorneys general, led by then-Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, wrote: ``Over the past 15 years, millions of students have been defrauded by unscrupulous for-profit postsecondary schools.''

These chief State law enforcement officers noted the specific risks to students from the for-profit college sector.

The recent closures of so many of these schools have left these students stranded. Imagine if your son or daughter were going to one of these for-profit colleges or universities, and then it went out of business. Would that mean you would have to pay off your student loan? Technically, yes. In order to be relieved from your student loan, you would have to submit a borrower defense claim to the U.S. Department of Education.

How often do these schools fail? Let me read to you a list of some of these for-profit colleges and universities that have gone failed: Corinthian, ITT Tech, Education Corporation of America, Vatterott, and Dream Center.

How many students who attended these schools were left high and dry when the schools went out of business? There were 140,000 students. Of the more than 218,000 borrowers who have sought discharges from the Department of Education as a result of being defrauded by their institutions, the vast majority have been students from for-profit colleges.

The for-profit colleges promised them jobs that never materialized. The for-profit colleges said: If you take the following course, you can become a computer technician of some kind. It never happened. They were defrauded by these schools. They signed up for the loans, and then the schools went out of business. So here they are with the loans and no jobs.

We have this borrower defense process by which the students can go through the Federal Government to try to be relieved of their student debt. Yet I can't understand this. The U.S. Department of Education is not processing these students' borrower defense applications. When we said to Secretary DeVos, ``Come on. Give these young kids a break. Their lives are on hold until they figure out what has happened to their student loan debt

from their for-profit schools,'' she hasn't gotten around to it, and we have been waiting patiently for that to happen. I thank Senator Hassan for putting a finger on it.

The people who are running this Department of Education are former executives of these for-profit schools. So, it's no surprise.

So, no, Madam Secretary. Meeting our obligation as lawmakers to focus accountability and protections where there is the greatest risk to students and taxpayers is not discriminating based on tax status; it is acknowledging reality.

The bill we are talking about today doesn't target for-profit colleges, and it doesn't seek to put an end to for-profit education. It is not a witch hunt or a liberal conspiracy; it is a response to the objective risks to students and taxpayers that the for-profit college industry represents today.

The PROTECT Students Act would close the 90/10 loophole. Incidentally, can you imagine that these are so-called for-profit colleges and universities and that they are the most heavily federally subsidized businesses in America? We took a look around. We looked at defense contractors and everything we could think of. The highest level of Federal subsidy goes to this industry.

Imagine, a student signs up. The student may first qualify for a Pell grant of $6,000. The for-profit college takes that Federal money in. Then the student still owes some debt. They say: Well, you need a government loan. So the student borrows from the government. At that point, all we have seen across the table are Federal dollars that are directly out of the Treasury. The student still carries the debt, but the money to this so-called private business is all straight out of the Federal Treasury--hardly a hearty example of capitalism at work.

The 90/10 rule was designed to prevent for-profit colleges from depending on more than 90 percent of their revenue coming straight from the Federal Treasury. It didn't work. Unfortunately, a loophole in the law only counts the Department of Education's title IV funds as Federal revenue while counting billions from the Department of Veterans Affairs' GI bill and the Department of Defense tuition assistance as non-Federal funds.

Here is what it means: If you are serving in our military and are entitled to GI bill education benefits that are going to help pay for your education, for-profit colleges have a financial incentive to aggressively target and recruit you. It turns out they can take virtually 100 percent of their revenue directly from the Treasury by enrolling large numbers of students eligible for Federal benefits that are not included in the 90/10 rule. We think that is wrong. We think the 90/10 rule should count these veterans' benefits and other Federal education benefits as Federal funds.

I see there are others on the floor, and I am not going to make this any longer. I will bring it to a close because Senator Hassan has covered the elements of this bill that I think are very important.

To my friends who serve with me in the U.S. Senate, here is what it boils down to: Do we care about these students and their families? Are we worried about the fact that 9 percent of the postsecondary students end up at for-profit schools and account for over one-third of all student loan defaults? Are we willing to hold these schools accountable and every school accountable so they treat students fairly?

Are we willing to say, for example, the University of Illinois has a relationship with its students who enroll? The University of Illinois does not have a mandatory arbitration clause, but many for-profit schools do. What does it mean? If you feel you have been mistreated by the school, those at the school will sit down and decide your fate through an arbitration process, which students virtually always lose. Most schools don't do that to their students, but these schools look at them as cash-paying customers, and that is how they treat them when it comes to arbitration.

There are a lot of things we can do in this bill to protect the students who are currently being exploited. What is more important than making sure these students don't get off to a bad start in life but are treated fairly and honestly and not exploited at the expense of their families and the expense of American taxpayers?

I thank Senator Hassan for being the lead sponsor of this legislation.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

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

Madam President, if you had to pick a country--anywhere in the world--where you faced a serious illness, you are likely to pick the United States. Here we have some of the greatest hospitals, doctors, and some of the greatest research institutions in the world. In some other countries, they certainly have good medical care, but if you could only pick one, I certainly would pick this country, the United States of America. That is why it is kind of surprising to learn that when it comes to some basic indicators of how well we are doing in the United States compared to other countries, there are some surprising answers.

We are facing a public health crisis in this country today that is often overlooked and ignored, and it is one I am sure will touch each and every one of us. It is the issue of maternal and infant health.

Too often in our country, new mothers and their babies--especially women and babies of color--are dying from completely preventable health complications. Take this statistic to heart: The United States is only 1 of 13 countries in the world where the death rate of new mothers is worse today than it was 25 years ago. How can it be possible that in the United States of America, mothers are dying at a rate worse than it was 25 years ago? Nationwide, more than 700 women die every year as a result of pregnancy. More than 70,000 others experience severe, near- fatal complications. In my State of Illinois, 73 women die every year due to pregnancy-related complications, and 70 percent of those deaths are preventable.

Not only are we losing these new moms, we are losing their babies. Every year, more than 23,000 infants die in the United States largely due to factors that could be prevented. Some of them are birth defects which could be detected in utero, preterm birth, low birth rate, and maternal complications. Here is a startling statistic. The United States of America--our home; this great Nation of plenty--ranks 32 out of 35 wealthy Nations when it comes to infant mortality. Is it possible? If so, what are we going to do about it?

The tragedy of maternal and infant mortality is even more pronounced when you look at mothers of babies of color. Black infants in America are twice as likely to die as White infants. That racial disparity is greater today than it was in the year 1850. Nationwide, women of color are three to four times more likely than White women to die as a result of their pregnancy. In Illinois, African-American women are six times more likely than White women to die of pregnancy-related complications.

Something has to be done. That is why, this week, I joined with Congresswoman Robin Kelly, Senator Duckworth, and others introducing what we call the MOMMA's Act. First and foremost, our bill would expand the length of time a new mom can keep her Medicaid healthcare coverage. More than half of the babies born my State of Illinois are to mothers who are covered by Medicaid--health insurance for those who are not wealthy and don't have access to private health insurance. The Medicaid Program covers more than half of the babies and mothers as they go through the birthing process.

Do you know what happens to Medicaid under the current law? Two months after the baby is born, the

mothers are cut off. Our bill would expand that to a year. Given that 60 percent of maternal deaths occur in the weeks and months after delivery, it is imperative that these new moms have the protection of Medicaid longer than 60 days.

We understand that many States' Medicaid Programs, including my own, are strapped for cash. Our bill will pay for itself by increasing Federal tobacco taxes. That is right. This Senator just called for an increase in taxes. You bet I did. The last time we dramatically increased the Federal tobacco tax was to create the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Is it worth it for kids to be born healthy and live to their full terms in life? Of course.

Given that Big Tobacco and its vaping interest have made billions of dollars at the expense of children and, I might add, of the African- American community, we believe they should help pay for this undertaking. As I said, in 2009 that is exactly what we did to create the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Next, the MOMMA Act would improve access to doulas. Too often, Black women are not listened to or taken seriously by healthcare providers. Doulas can help to provide education, advocacy, and support for women whose voices are often ignored.

To this point, our bill would also improve implicit bias and cultural competency training among healthcare providers. Sadly, the United States is still struggling with racial bias in healthcare.

Finally, our bill would improve hospital coordination and the reporting on maternal health outcomes, and it would ensure the widespread adoption and implementation of services to improve care.

If you have listened to the speech so far, you are probably thinking there is one thing he didn't mention--that many of those African- American women are in poverty, that they are low-income women. That probably explains why they don't have adequate care during their pregnancies or adequate care for their new children.

That is what I had concluded, but it is wrong. The statistics I have given you about racial disparity do not link up with one's economic status. Even African-American mothers who have high incomes and high educations are facing the same threats of maternal mortality. It is not driven by income or poverty. There is something more to the story. Don't we owe it to ourselves to look at it?

There are issues that divide this Chamber, and one of the issues, of course, is abortion. There are people with differing views on both sides of the aisle. It is always a contentious debate, but can't we all agree--pro-choice and pro-life--that we ought to focus on this, on the mothers who are delivering babies, to make sure that the mom survives and that the baby survives? That is what this act is all about, the MOMMA Act.

There are 23,000 infants and 700 new moms who die each year in the United States--some of the worst statistics in the world. We could prevent them with screenings, interventions, and the right healthcare. On a bipartisan basis, I can think of no better way to help babies and moms than to keep them alive and healthy, and that is what the MOMMA Act would do.

women's history month

Mr. President, on June 26, 1913, on a beautiful day in Springfield, IL, Governor Edward Dunne signed into law a bill making Illinois the first State east of the Mississippi where women could vote.

It was not equal voting rights, to be sure.

The new law gave Illinois women the right to vote only for Presidential electors and most local offices--but not for Governor, State representatives or Members of Congress. Still, it was historic.

Word of the milestone sped around the world.

When the legendary Chicago humanitarian Jane Addams--the first American woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize--announced the news at an international suffragette conference in Budapest, delegates roared with approval.

The suffragettes' battle to achieve even limited voting rights was long--it took nearly 60 years--and bitterly fought.

The first time the suffragettes took their campaign to Chicago's street corners, in 1910, they were ignored by some and derided by many--including many women.

When Illinois suffragettes traveled by train to Washington in 1913 to lobby President Woodrow Wilson for voting rights for all American women, their train stopped at Harper's Ferry, WV--this same place where fiery abolitionist John Brown made his stand against slavery.

As they spoke publicly for voting rights, the women were pelted with snowballs by men and boys, but they didn't back down.

In Washington, D.C., suffragettes from Illinois and other States encountered angry mobs and police who refused to intervene.

More than 100 women ended up in hospitals. Still, the women didn't retreat.

In 1914, 200,000 women registered to vote in Chicago, and eight women ran for aldermanic seats.

Five years later, on June 10, 1919, Illinois became the first State in the Nation to ratify the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, giving all American women the right to vote in all elections.

That is a distinction we are proud of. By 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified by the necessary two-thirds of States.

Next year, we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the women's right to vote in America.

As this Women's History Month draws to a close, I want to take a few moments to recall the courageous women who have helped advance the cause of freedom in my State and in our Nation and the women who continue to shape our Nation's shared destiny.

This Congress--the 116th Congress--includes more women than any Congress in our Nation's history. In the House, America's first woman Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, returned to her leadership post with 102 women as her colleagues.

Here in the Senate, we now have 25 women Senators--the most in our Nation's history.

The congressional delegation from my home State of Illinois also has more women members than ever before--including the youngest African- American woman ever elected to Congress: Representative Lauren Underwood, but we still have a long way to go to reach true gender equality in America.

This Congress may include record numbers of women, but women still make up only 25 percent of the Senate and less than that--a little over 23 percent--in the House. Those numbers ought to be higher.

The number of women serving in State legislatures has quintupled since 1971. Women now make up nearly 29 percent of State legislatures today.

In Illinois, women make up one-third of the General Assembly. That's progress, but all States--including Illinois--can and must do a better job of recruiting, supporting, and electing women leaders.

Women are making history in other professions and other ways, too.

More than 200,000 women serve in the U.S. military today, and America has 1.6 million women veterans. My friend and fellow Senator from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth, is one of those veterans. She is amazing. She lost both legs when a Blackhawk helicopter she was co-piloting was shot down in Iraq. As soon as she healed from her injuries, she asked: ``What else can I do to help other veterans and help my country?''

I encourage the Department of Defense to do more to harness the patriotism and talent of American women by opening more combat roles to women.

It has been said before, and I agree: You can measure a nation's character and its hopes for a better future by how it treats women and girls.

While America has made great progress, in gender equality, especially in the last two generations, we still have far to go.

It has been nearly 60 years since President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963. Yet American women in general still earn only 80 cents for every dollar earned by men. For women of color, the gap is even greater; African American women earn only 61 cents, and Latina women earn only 53 cents for every dollar a White

man makes. These disparities persist even among women and men who do the same or comparable work. That is wrong, and we need to close the pay fairness gap.

Many women across the country still lack access to affordable healthcare, including reproductive health care services.

Roe v. Wade was decided more than 40 years ago, but attacks on access have limited a woman's right to choose in many States, and too many women, especially women of color, are dying during or shortly after childbirth.

Here is a sobering fact: The United States is one of only 13 countries in the world where the maternal mortality rate is worse now than it was 25 years ago. Every year, more than 700 women in our Nation--most of them women of color--die as a result of their pregnancies, with more than 60 percent of these deaths being completely preventable.

This is unacceptable. Having a baby anywhere, especially in the United States, should not be a death sentence. We must do better.

The Equal Rights Amendment has been waiting for passage since the 1920s. My home State of Illinois finally ratified it last year.

Here is an idea. Let us work together to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in this Congress.

For the 100th anniversary of women's voting rights in America let's pass the ERA. If we truly believe in gender equality, let's put it in writing in the U.S. Constitution.

Let's not just celebrate Women's History Month; let's build on women's historical successes and make this an even more perfect Union.

Mueller Report

Last Friday, Attorney General William Barr announced that Special Counsel Bob Mueller had submitted a lengthy report from his investigation to the Attorney General.

On Sunday, Attorney General Barr sent another letter to Congress summarizing Mr. Barr's view of the ``principal conclusions'' of the Mueller report.

This letter is very troubling, particularly because the Attorney General inserted his own judgment about potential obstruction of justice by the President rather than letting the Mueller report speak for itself.

I have said repeatedly that I trust Bob Mueller. I believed he could be trusted to do a thorough and fair investigation into what happened with Russian meddling in the 2016 election. I still feel that way.

We have now heard Attorney General Barr's description of what Special Counsel Mueller found, but, respectfully, that is not good enough.

The American people need to hear Special Counsel Mueller's description of what he found.

Attorney General Barr is a political appointee. The reason a special counsel was appointed in this case was to take politics out of the investigation.

The Mueller report needs to be made public without delay. That is what we need to have confidence in the outcome of this investigation. The House of Representatives voted 420 to 0 for making the report public. Even the President claims he wants the report to be public, but we are already seeing an effort by the White House and Republicans to walk back from transparency of the Mueller report.

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the White House will ``want to make sure we're protecting the office of the presidency; have to look at things like protecting executive privilege and sources and methods.''

Let us be clear--We need to see the full Mueller report, not just summaries and not just page after page of redacted text. The sooner this happens, the sooner we can reassure the American people about the integrity of the process. The American people deserve no less.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker) and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the Dream Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would give immigrant students who grew up in the United States a chance to earn their citizenship. This is not a new topic. It was 19 years ago that I introduced the Dream Act. It hasn't become law yet, but it has inspired a movement of thousands of young people across this country.

Back in the day when I introduced this bill and talked about the Dreamers, people thought you were talking about a British rock group. In this case, the Dreamers happened to be a group of people living in America who were desperately trying to become part of America's future. They came to the United States as children, infants, toddlers, and kids. They are American in every way except for a piece of paper on their immigration status. They have gone to our schools. They sit next to us in church. They are the kids whom you see on the playground with your own kids, but they are undocumented. Because they are undocumented, they are subject to deportation at any moment in their lives.

They end up going to school, but it is tougher for them. They don't qualify for Pell grants or Federal loans. They have to find a way to save the money or find a way to secure a scholarship that just might be available to them, but it is rare. Most of the time it means a longer period of time in college before they can finish, as they save up the money. Ultimately, they are trained to become our teachers, our nurses, our doctors, our engineers, and even our soldiers.

Yesterday I reintroduced the Dream Act. My cosponsor is Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I want to thank Lindsey Graham for joining me in this bipartisan effort. Bipartisanship is rare in this Chamber, and on an issue of controversy, it is even rarer.

Senator Graham and I have a long history of working together because we believe that Congress has an obligation to do the job we were elected to do and pass legislation that solves problems. Senator Graham and I were partners in the Gang of 8--four Democratic Senators and four Republican Senators. That was the gang with the great John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Bob Menendez, and Michael Bennet.

We wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill a few years back in 2013. We brought it to the floor of the Senate. We covered virtually every aspect of immigration law. Believe me, immigration law is a mess, and it needed that kind of comprehensive approach. We brought it up to a vote on the floor, and the vote was 68 to 32. It was a bipartisan vote. After months of working on this bill, we couldn't have been happier. We finally had a bipartisan bill to address the immigration challenge in America.

The bill left here and went to the House of Representatives under a Republican leadership, and it died. They wouldn't even consider it, wouldn't debate it, and, certainly, wouldn't vote on it. Look at the mess we have today in the United States because of our immigration laws, and consider the possibility that 6 years ago we had finally found a path that could lead us to a bipartisan solution. That path is still there.

Part of that immigration law was the Dream Act, which we are reintroducing. In 2010 I joined with Republican Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana. We called on President Obama to use his authority as President to protect these Dreamers from deportation. In other words, if we couldn't pass the law, could the President do something to help protect them?

President Barack Obama responded. He created a program called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. Here is what DACA said: We will give you, 2 years at a time, temporary legal status to stay in the United States and not be deported and be able to work in this country. If you want the temporary status that is renewable every 2 years, you have to report to the government, go through a comprehensive background investigation, pay a fee, and, then, we will give you a chance to stay here, go to school and work, and not be afraid of that knock on the door.

More than 800,000 Dreamers stepped forward. They came forward in an extraordinary way. I can remember the first day when then-Congressman Luis Gutierrez and I decided at Navy Pier in Chicago, which is a huge gathering place, that we would have a sit-down for these young people so they could fill out the forms and apply for DACA status. Initially, we thought we were going to have 1,000. We didn't know what we would do with it. Then, there were 2,000, and then 3,000, and it turned out that families literally stood in line all night long for the chance to come across that threshold to sit down with a volunteer and fill out their form for DACA status. Mothers and fathers were in tears with their kids thinking: At least my son or my daughter will have a chance not to be deported and to be part of America. More than 800,000 of these Dreamers came forward, and they received DACA protection because of President Obama's Executive order. Forty-three thousand were in my State of Illinois.

DACA has unleashed the full potential of these Dreamers, who are contributing to our country in so many ways--teachers, soldiers, engineers, and small business owners.

Then came the day with a new President--President Donald Trump. On September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he would repeal DACA and the protections that it gave to these people. Hundreds of thousands of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and, even worse, being deported from the only country they had ever known and being sent back to places they couldn't even remember.

When President Trump announced the repeal of DACA, he called on Congress to legalize DACA. Since then, President Trump has rejected every single bipartisan deal we offered him on the subject. I am not giving up on the Dream Act, and I am not giving up on the Dreamers. You would think that after all these years and all these young people, people would be coming to the floor who are against the Dream Act and against DACA, telling horrible stories about the young people who we are talking about today. Strangely, that has never happened. I am sure there is going to be somebody to disappoint me. That is human nature. Overwhelmingly, these young people are just nothing short of amazing.

I have come to the floor of the Senate more than 100 times to tell their stories because I think that is the best way for you to understand why this issue is so important.

This is an amazing young woman. Her name is Karla Robles. Karla Robles is the 116th Dreamer whose story I have told on the floor of the Senate. She was brought to the United States from Mexico when she was 8 years old. She grew up in Chicago, where her mom and dad worked long hours in a pizza restaurant. Karla's parents told her and her brothers and sisters: No matter what happens, make sure to stay out of trouble and study really hard. It will all pay off one day.

That is exactly what Karla did. When Karla started school in the third grade, she didn't speak English, but she worked hard and quickly became an excellent student. Karla wrote me a letter and she said: ``Education has been an important part of my life and the teachers who took the time to guide my family and me are a big reason I want to go into this field.''

In the seventh grade, Karla received the American Legion Award--this undocumented young girl--which was given to one boy and one girl in the class who ``are deemed most worthy of the high qualities of citizenship and of true Americanism.''

In high school, Karla Robles was a member of the National Honor Society and the President's Club, and she was active in student government.

She participated in a program called TRUST, where she agreed to volunteer her personal time to mentor younger students. She was captain and MVP of the varsity tennis team. She received her associate's degree from Harper College. She is now a senior at Loyola University in Chicago.

Here is a special word about Loyola University in Chicago. This is an amazing campus that is doing its best to give people just like Karla a chance in life. They have created something called Arrupe College, which is a low cost approach to higher education for some of the poorest families in Chicago, and they don't exclude kids who are protected by DACA or are Dreamers. The Loyola medical school is one of the few in the United States with open competition where DACA students can apply. There are 32 medical students at Loyola in Chicago who are undocumented. They are DACA Dreamers. They desperately want to be part of America. Part of the agreement is if they go to medical school at Loyola and borrow money to do it, they have to pay back a year of service in an underserved area in the State of Illinois for the money that they are receiving to go to school.

Back to Karla.

During college, she was on the National Honor Roll and the Dean's List. She also volunteers with an outreach program for at-risk kids and with AmeriCorps VISTA, and she founded a tutoring program for elementary school students.

I know Karla a little better than I know some of the Dreamers because she interned here in my Washington, DC, office last year. What does she want to do at the end of this journey if she can stay in America? She wants to be a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools. She wants to pursue her master's degree and become a high school guidance counselor.

There are some people who look at this picture and say: This is not an American citizen. Tell her to leave. I look at this picture and think that we are lucky to have her, that this Nation of immigrants is lucky to have this young woman who simply wants to give back to America. That is all she is asking for--nothing special--just to let her give back to this country.

So we have reintroduced the Dream Act. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come forward and join me and Senator Lindsey Graham, my Republican cosponsor.

We think there are about 1.8 million young people who are eligible for the Dream Act in the United States. They have never known another country. In the mornings, when they walk into the classrooms in their schools, they stand up and put their hands on their chests and pledge allegiance to the only flag they have ever known. They were just kids when they were brought here. Shouldn't we do the right thing in America--this Nation of immigrants, this country of opportunity, this bright city on the hill, this shining city on the hill?

Yes, we should.

For the Dreamers and for their moms and dads, we have to renew our commitment that the next generation of Americans who will come from all over the world will continue to make this one of the finest countries on Earth.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, you either believe it or you don't believe it.

Is there such a thing as climate change? Are we going through some change on our planet today? I think so, and 98 percent of the scientists who report on the subject believe the same thing. The evidence is everywhere, isn't it? The extreme weather events that we are seeing are, I think, an indication that something is happening on this Earth that we call home.

The obvious question is this: Do we have anything to do with it? Does the fact that we are alive, functioning, building things, and dealing with traveling by plane and other means have anything to do with what is happening to our planet? I think so.

Can we do something about it? Sure, we know we can. If we are dealing with greenhouse gas emissions that somehow in the atmosphere are raising the temperature of planet Earth, what can we do about those greenhouse gases? We know there are a lot of very simple and obvious things.

I can remember a debate on this floor when we talked about making cars and trucks more fuel efficient and when the folks in Detroit, who are the smartest people running the automobile companies, said: Impossible. You can't do it. Americans will never buy those cars. It just will not work.

Thank goodness we ignored them. We established standards and regulations. Do you know what? Like it or not, we drive more fuel- efficient cars and trucks today, and, frankly, I like it. It was a step in the right direction. It took governmental, congressional prodding to take place, and it made this a cleaner, safer place to live in the United States.

There are other things we can do as well, but, first, we need a basic agreement that there is a problem, that human conduct--the way we live, the way we work, and the way we produce things--has something to do with it, and that we are committed to changing it.

How many nations in the world have agreed with that conclusion? All of them. Wait. All of them except one--this country, this President, who decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. It is a universal, global decision by every nation on Earth except the United States that we do have a climate problem, that we are the cause of some part of it, at least, and that we should do something to change it. This President says he doesn't buy it and doesn't think the science proves it. He and he alone, on behalf of this country, stepped away from this agreement. I think that was a serious mistake.

I am happy to report that Governors across the United States--at least the Democratic Governors--have said they are going to ignore the President when it comes to this, and they are going to set up their own policies. I salute my own Governor, J.B. Pritzker, in Illinois. He is not part of this denial camp that is trying to ignore the problem. He is trying to do in our State, as others are, something to make sure that this planet is more livable, more habitable.

Isn't it amazing that this has become such a partisan issue? There was a time on the floor of this Senate when it was not. I remember when the late Senator John McCain, whom I still honor to this day not only for his service in the Senate but for his service to this country, teamed up with Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman and started proposing ideas to deal with climate change--bipartisan proposals, bipartisan votes. Not anymore, no. We have a big wall down the middle of this Chamber--on that side, climate denial and, on this side, a belief that we should be doing something about it.

We could do something today, couldn't we? Couldn't we take the latest climate assessment from the Federal Government, which spells out the problem and spells out the challenge, and come up with at least a reasonable, bipartisan approach with which to deal with the clear scientific evidence that has been produced by this government as required by law? Of course, we could, but we are not going to. Instead, the Republican Senate leader has decided he wants to make a political move. He wants to put the Democrats on the spot, not to solve the problem but to have something he can talk about in the next campaign.

A group came together and proposed, as they call it, the Green New Deal. I have taken a look at it. I went to Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, who is one of the sponsors, and I asked him about it because he is one of the authors. I know Ed Markey. I served with him in the House, and I serve with him in the Senate. He has established credentials when it comes to this issue. He truly cares and has done many, many things to show that caring.

So I asked him: What is this Green New Deal? It is not a law. I mean, it is not a bill that will become a law. It is simply a resolution, which is kind of a statement of purpose, a statement of position. He said to me that it was aspirational--in other words, that the Green New Deal sets out aspirations, targets, and values.

I said to him: Ed, that is a good idea, but I want something that is not aspirational. I want something that is legislational. That is what we do here, right? I am sure he will come up with those specifics.

Yet Senator McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, has decided that we are going to put the Democrats on the spot. Take it or leave it in its entirety--the Green New Deal. Be on the record and vote this afternoon.

I will make it clear to you right now that I think there are parts of that Green New Deal that are excellent and some that I disagree with. At this point in time, I am going to be voting present this afternoon because I believe we should be legislational, and I believe we should be bipartisan.

I have said this on the floor many times, and I will say it again: The only major political party in the world today that denies climate change is the Republican Party of the United States of America. Now, I have waited for some Republican to come to the floor and say: Oh, no, that is not true, Senator Durbin. There are other major political parties that have the same position as we do. Yet no one has come to the floor.

A few months back, one Republican Senator in an elevator quietly said: I think there is a party in Australia that denies climate change.

Maybe that is true, but why in the world have we reached a point at which this is such a partisan issue? Don't we all see what is happening with the weather? Can't we see what is happening in terms of the temperature of this Earth that we live on as it is consistently, year after year, continuing to rise? Don't we realize that it has an impact on this Earth that we live on? Don't we realize that if it continues unabated, the Earth that I am leaving to my children and grandchildren will be a much different place and a much more challenging place? Can't we see the flooding in the streets down in Miami in Florida? Can't we see the melting of the glaciers? Isn't that proof positive that something is happening?

In my part of the world, the Midwest, I grew up with tornadoes. They are so common where I live, we even named sports teams after the tornadoes. When I was a kid--this happened half a dozen times, and I will never forget it--in the middle of the night, Mom and Dad would wake me up and say: The tornado sirens are blaring. Get in the basement right now. Grab your covers and pillow and get downstairs.

We would head down to the basement and wait for the all-clear signal.

Tornadoes were part of our lives, but they were usually confined to the spring and summer months. Just this last December, we had a tornado in Taylorville, IL, 30 miles away from where I live. It wasn't supposed to come this time of year.

Unusual things just like that are happening all over the place, and they are devastating. Don't take my word for it; talk to the people in the property and casualty insurance industry. They make a living trying to guess what the weather is going to be. If they see some horrible weather condition coming, they know it will not be good for their bottom line. I have talked to them. There are some States in which they are unwilling to write property and casualty insurance because of the vulnerability to hurricanes, tornadoes, and extreme weather events. They are making a conscious profit-and-loss business decision based on the evidence before them that something is happening to weather in the United States. They are not in denial. They embrace the concept every day when they decide whether to write insurance and what premiums to charge.

So if the people who do this for a living, who have to show a profit in their

company, have come to the conclusion that climate change is for real, why haven't we in the Senate? Why do we instead engage in this political theater we are going to have this afternoon? Why aren't we instead, on a bipartisan basis, sitting down and saying: What can we do? What can we do in terms of conserving energy, in terms of being more fuel efficient, and in terms of being more sensitive to this environment? What can we do?

There are a handful of Republican Senators who have stepped up and said ``We should. We can see climate change where we live,'' but I wish they would become a force to lead their leadership forward into taking this up on a serious basis. This afternoon's vote is just part of a political stunt. It is not a serious effort to deal with climate change. We better do that pretty soon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alaska to yield for 10 seconds.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. She was the person I was thinking of when I said there are exceptions when it comes to the partisan divide between us. I stayed for her presentation because I knew what it was going to be, and I wanted it to be part of the Record.

I think Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell--whom we recognize on our side of the aisle as one of the real leaders on the subject--can show us the way in the Senate to find a bipartisan approach to deal with this challenge.

Thank you.