Floor Statements

Mr. President, it has been nearly 4 years since the collapse of Corinthian Colleges and almost 2 years since the collapse of ITT Tech, two of the largest college collapses in U.S. history.

These infamous companies left tens of thousands of students in the lurch, interrupting their education and leaving them with worthless credits and tons of debt.

Rather than being anomalies, these companies embodied the for-profit college industry, an industry that enrolls only 9 percent of all postsecondary students but accounts for 33 percent of all Federal student loan defaults. The same predatory practices that took down Corinthian and ITT Tech are commonplace throughout the for-profit college industry, even today.

So this notion that some would have you believe--that, with Corinthian and ITT Tech gone, this industry is magically cleaned up and purged of bad actors--is nothing more than an attempt by the industry to justify rolling back important consumer protections like the Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense rules.

Case in point: Ashford University is owned by Bridgepoint Education. This is a company that, from its very inception, has shown a determination to work the system in order to profit.

It all began in 2005, when a group of investors bought a tiny Catholic college in Iowa, which at the time had an enrollment of 312 students, but what came along with that small campus was the gold for Ashford: regional accreditation. That accreditation opened the company's coffers to millions in Federal student aid funds.

Since that time, Ashford has closed the Iowa campus and become an online giant, enrolling more than 40,000 students across the country and taking in almost $390 million in Federal title IV funds.

Boy, have Ashford executives and owners gotten rich. From 2014 to 2016, Bridgepoint's CEO, Andrew Clark, made more than $10 million in total compensation.

Meanwhile, its students have been left buried in debt with worthless diplomas that employers often don't recognize. According to a recent Brookings study, as of 2014, Ashford student cumulatively owed almost $6 billion in Federal student loan debt, making it one of eight for- profit schools in the top 10 schools whose students owe the most cumulative debt. Of the Ashford students who left in 2009, nearly half had defaulted on their debt 5 years later.

Just like Corinthian and ITT Tech, Ashford has been the subject of numerous Federal and State investigations and lawsuits.

Ashford is currently being investigated by State attorneys general in Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina, as well as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. The California Attorney General is currently suing Ashford for ``defrauding and deceiving students.''

In addition, in 2014, Ashford was forced to pay $7.25 million in a settlement with the Iowa Attorney General for consumer fraud. Once again, Ashford used false and misleading statements, as well as unfair and high-pressure sales tactics to lure students into enrolling and taking on debt.

Just last year, Ashford agreed to pay $30 million to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for deceptive acts and practices, including misleading students about their student loan payments.

Also like Corinthian and ITT Tech, Ashford uses mandatory predispute arbitration clauses to hide its misconduct and prevent students from holding them accountable in court.

These clauses, often buried in stacks of enrollment documents that students must sign in order to take classes, force students to give up their right to sue the school of misconduct either as individuals or part of a class. The practice is almost unheard of at public and legitimate not-for-profit institutions, but is a hallmark of the for- profit college industry.

Not only does the practice steer disputes into arbitration proceeding where the deck is often stacked against the student, nondisclosure agreements often prevent the alleged misconduct or the outcome of the arbitration proceeding from becoming public. This hides misconduct from regulators and accreditors, often allowing for-profit colleges like Ashford to continue illegal practices for years without detection.

In addition to receiving millions of dollars in Department of Education title IV funds, Ashford also heavily recruits veterans and servicemembers who qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs G.I. bill funds.

You see, for-profit colleges see veterans and servicemembers as gold.

Federal law prohibits for-profit colleges from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from Federal sources, but rather than counting all taxpayer-funded education assistance programs, including VA G.I. bill and Department of Defense tuition assistance, current law only counts title IV funds as Federal revenue.

This means that by aggressively targeting and recruiting veterans and servicemembers, for-profit colleges like Ashford can receive an unlimited amount of their revenue straight from the Federal Treasury.

Marine veteran James Long found himself on the receiving end of that aggressive recruiting. A few years ago, Bloomberg told his story:

His Humvee was struck by artillery shells in Iraq. He

suffered a severe brain injury. While recovering at Camp

Lejeune, he was visited by an Ashford recruiter who signed

him up for classes. But despite knowing he was enrolled, his

brain injury was so severe that he couldn't remember what

courses he was enrolled in.

The California Attorney General's complaint against Ashford includes the stories of two other veterans.

First, an Army Reserve veteran referred to as P.M. was encouraged by Ashford representatives to attend courses at a local community college while taking classes at Ashford.

P.M. was told that, by attending a ground-based campus rather than just Ashford's online classes, he would qualify for a higher monthly housing allowance under the G.I. bill, and he could transfer his community college credits toward his Ashford program. He was later ``alarmed'' to find that Ashford limited the number of credits he could transfer and refused to recognize some of the courses he had previously completed.

As a result, P.M. had to take additional courses at Ashford, receiving the lower housing allowance rate, to make up for the lost credits. He then ``fell behind on his rent, had to take on another job to keep up with his bills, and his credit score suffered.'' In addition, he wasted part of his limited G.I. bill education benefits on courses that he could not put toward a degree.

Another veteran, ``P.J.,'' was told that Ashford would accept most of the 140 credits he had earned at other institutions and could expect to graduate within 18 months. He was also assured that he would be able to transfer his Ashford credits to a community college.

After he had already enrolled and began taking classes at Ashford, P.J. discovered that Ashford had accepted none of his credits from other schools despite their promises. When he later tried to transfer his Ashford credits to two other schools, he found that neither would accept them.

This is how Ashford treats veterans.

In recent years, Ashford has taken in as much as $38 million in G.I. bill funds and is currently engaged in a fight to maintain eligibility to receive these funds in the future.

Here is what it boils down to: Ashford is not approved for G.I. bill benefits by the California State Approving Agency, a requirement for it to be eligible for G.I. bill funds nationwide. The company has spent months on dubious legal action and other schemes to skirt Federal G.I. bill eligibility requirements. The matter is now in court.

With its G.I. bill eligibility in doubt, Ashford announced in November it would voluntarily suspend new enrollments of veterans using G.I. bill funds. This would prevent new veterans from being put at risk and additional taxpayer dollars being wasted should the company lose eligibility.

As reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education, the company resumed new G.I. bill enrollments in February and acknowledged on a call with investors that the suspension had ``negatively impacted fourth-quarter performance.'' That is right; the company made the blatant decision that profits are more important than veterans.

Last week, Senator Hassan and I sent a letter to Bridgepoint's CEO, Andrew Clark, expressing our outrage and calling on him to immediately halt new enrollments until their G.I. bill eligibility is resolved with the VA. If the company fails to do so, it will lay bare the true disregard they have for the students, especially veterans, they claim to serve.

Also last week, Bridgepoint announced that it is up to even more shenanigans. It will attempt to separate from Ashford and another school it owns to become an Online Program Management company while Ashford seeks to become a not-for-profit college. If approved, this complicated maneuver would mean that Ashford would no longer have to abide by the Federal 90-10 rule or other accountability measures focused on for-profit colleges.

At the same time, other for-profit conversions have been structured in a way that their owners are still able to personally profit from the new not-for-profit entity. It is the best of both worlds for owners and investors; the school is able to shed Federal accountability requirements while still profiting off of students and taxpayers.

I call on the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education, and Ashford's accreditor--the WASC Senior College and University Commission--to carefully scrutinize this proposal in light of other dubious for-profit conversions and Bridgepoint's own long record of misconduct.

Despite the closure of Corinthian and ITT Tech, companies like Ashford continue to exploit students and veterans while raking in billions in Federal taxpayer dollars, using every possible scheme they can think of to do it.

Until Secretary DeVos stops siding with her friends in the for-profit college industry or Congress acts, students will continue to be harmed and taxpayer dollars will continue to line the pockets of cheats and crooks.

Mr. President, millions of men, women, and children across the world are victims of human trafficking. But it is not a problem that stops at our shores.

Eight years ago, I held a hearing in the Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law entitled, ``In Our Own Backyard: Child Prostitution and Sex Trafficking in the United States'' to raise awareness about this problem.

Sadly, not much has changed since then. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children receives about 9,000 to 10,000 reports of suspected child sex trafficking each year. It estimates that more than 80 percent of the trafficking incidents have occurred online. The worst offender is the website Backpage.com, which the National Association of Attorneys General has called a ``hub'' of human trafficking.

The U.S. Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations spent 2 years looking into sex trafficking and its facilitation online. After a thorough inquiry, the subcommittee found that more than 93 percent of Backpage's ad revenue in 2011 came from its so-called ``adult'' section, with projected revenue reaching nearly $250 million by 2019. However, ``adult section'' is really a misnomer--many of Backpage's ads were designed to sell children for sex.

One of those children was Desiree Robinson of Chicago. When she was 16, Desiree ran away from home. A pimp soon found her and sold her repeatedly on Backpage. On Christmas Eve, Desiree was taken to a garage to meet a john. Hours later, she was found dead in that garage. She had been raped and beaten, and her throat had been slashed.

Last year, Desiree's mother, Yvonne Ambrose, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee about her daughter's tragic murder. She described how her daughter was, quote, ``preyed on and sold online by pimps who took advantage of her.'' She went on to say:

On . . . December 24th, 2016, Desiree, my baby, was

brutally murdered and now my life is changed forever. . . .

If there were stricter rules in place for posting on these

websites, then my child would still be alive with me today.

The truth is [that] Backpage.com and other sites are making

millions of dollars by exploiting our children and allowing

them to be taken advantage of by predators. If we don't speak

up now, these websites will continue to profit off

trafficking our babies. It could be your child, your niece,

your nephew, your cousins, your friend's children next if you

don't stop this.

Yvonne went on to urge the Senate to pass the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, or SESTA.

SESTA is a narrowly crafted bill that would ensure that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not provide legal immunity to websites like Backpage that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. For years, Backpage and others have successfully exploited this loophole and avoided legal liability, despite hosting advertisements for the sale of sex acts with young victims of trafficking. Their ability to hide behind this reprehensible defense will come to an end with the passage of this bill.

SESTA was incorporated into House companion legislation called the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, or FOSTA. The House overwhelmingly passed this bipartisan, compromise legislation last month, in a 388 to 25 vote.

The combined legislation will ensure that victims and survivors of sex trafficking can seek justice against websites that knowingly facilitated the crimes against them. It would also enable state law enforcement officials--not just the Federal Department of Justice--to take action against individuals or businesses that violate federal sex trafficking laws.

The bill has been endorsed by major anti-trafficking groups, law enforcement organizations, and numerous technology companies.

We need to protect victims of trafficking, and we need to hold websites like Backpage accountable for their exploitative, criminal actions. As we prepare to vote on this bill, consider Yvonne Ambrose's plea:

I would not wish this pain and hurt on my worst enemy. And

I pray that Desiree's life can make a difference, so no one

else has to ever endure this pain again. I'm asking you, the

U.S. Senate, to amend Section 230 and be the change you want

to see in this world--not only for justice for Desiree, but

for all of the countless Jane Does out here and the other

little girls to come who don't have a voice.

I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.

Mr. President, during Women's History Month, as we celebrate the mothers, daughters, sisters, and, for some of us, the granddaughters in our lives, I would like to take a minute and honor a few women from my home State of Illinois.

During the nearly 170-year history of the New York Times, only about 15 to 20 percent of its obituaries have been written for women. Earlier this month, the New York Times announced a new feature called ``Overlooked,'' celebrating the lives of people from underrepresented communities. March, being Women's History Month, the New York Times started by publishing obituaries for 15 women who never received them. The first on the list: Ida B. Wells. Now, Ida is not from Illinois, but her incredible life's journey brought her to Chicago near the end of the 19th century, where she lived until her death in 1931.

Born into slavery, less than a year before the Emancipation Proclamation, Ida B. Wells was an intrepid journalist and a trailblazing activist in the Civil Rights and woman's suffrage movements. Ida was recognized worldwide for her writings exposing the truth behind why Black men were being lynched in the South. Ida B. Wells' work forced her from her home in the South, and after traveling to New York and England, Ida settled in Chicago.

Among her many accomplishments, including helping launch the National Association of Colored Women and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Ida B. Wells became an early pioneer in social work, fighting for justice and equality. Following her death, the Chicago Housing Authority, recognizing the need for affordable housing for African Americans in the late 1930s, began a project to provide 1,662 apartments, two and three story row houses, sitting on 47 acres of land in the Bronzeville and Oakland neighborhoods of Chicago. They were named the Ida B. Wells Homes. She certainly left her mark in Chicago.

Not far from my Chicago office, Ida B. Wells is among the 65 women honored in the Chicago Women's Park & Gardens. The park also includes a beautifully moving monument called ``Helping Hands,'' recognizing the contributions and legacy of Jane Addams, one of the world's most influential social reformers.

In 1888, Jane Addams and her friend Ellen Starr visited a settlement house called Toynbee Hall in the slums of London, which provided a variety of services to poor industrial workers. It sparked what would become their lifelong mission helping the poor and championing the rights of all, including immigrants, women, and children. Jane Addams and Ellen Starr were determined to bring that model to the United States, which was emerging as an industrial giant and in the early years of an immigration boom.

In 1889, Jane Addams and Ellen Starr returned to Chicago and started Hull House, the first settlement house in the United States. Its humble beginnings started by simply inviting people from the community to hear readings from books or look at slides of paintings. They listened to those who came, and it became clear that many of the neighborhood's women were in desperate need for a place to bring their children. So they started a kindergarten and daycare for working mothers. As it expanded, Hull House helped prevent the exploitation of immigrants living on the West Side of Chicago by providing services such as housing, child, medical aid, educational, and vocational classes.

In addition to her contributions in the field of social work, Jane Addams was known as one of the leading antiwar activists in the country. During World War I, she became the chair of the Women's Peace Party and president of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Jane Addams' efforts to end the war earned her the 1931 Nobel Peace, becoming the first American woman to receive the honor.

In the spirit of these remarkable women, I would like to fast forward to today and mention the work of two of my heroes who belong to the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas religious order: Sister JoAnn Persch and Sister Pat Murphy. Between the two of them, they have nearly 200 years of doing God's work here on Earth. As was true in Jane Addams' day, immigrants, refugees, and individuals seeking asylum so often arrive in our country and communities with urgent needs: food, clothing, shelter. For years, they have supported immigration reform, marching at rallies, speaking at news conferences, and lobbying Illinois State senators and representatives in Springfield. They have become so well known in immigration circles, they are simply known as ``the Sisters.''

In 2007, when ``the Sisters'' were told they couldn't provide pastoral counseling to immigrant detainees in jails and in the Federal Immigration Detention Center on Broadview, they said: ``We'll see about that.'' So they founded the Interfaith Committee for Detained Immigrants, or ICDI. The next year, the ICDI persuaded the Illinois General Assembly to change the law and allow immigrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers in detention in my home State to receive pastoral counseling, if they choose, and they didn't stop there. ICDI has since grown to provide a broad range of services to immigrants who are detained and those who are awaiting action on their cases, from legal assistance and help learning English, to healthcare, and more. ICDI also runs two hospitality houses in the Chicago area, one for men and the other for women and children in Hyde Park. I have seen the good work being done in Hyde Park, and let me tell you, Jane Addams would be proud.

I will close with a story about one of the many families that ICDI has helped: the Saffaf family. Four years ago, Marwan Saffaf was a banker, living with his wife and their four children in Hama, Syria, a town about 85 miles from Aleppo. This was 2 years into Assad's bloody assault on the Syrian people. Marwan knew that he and his family had to leave Syria after he was kidnapped and threatened by gunmen who mistook him for a government official. The family fled to the United Arab Emirates.

After 2 years, Marwan received permission for most of his family to come to America. But for some reason, his eldest child--his only daughter--was denied permission to join her younger siblings. So Marwan and his wife made one of the hardest decisions of their lives. Marwan and the boys would come to America. His wife and daughter would wait in the UAE for permission to join them. With help from ICDI, Marwan and the boys found a new home, an apartment in Des Plaines, IL, and landed a new job.

Two years after Marwan and his boys arrived in Chicagoland, Marwan's wife and daughter finally received permission to come to America. Then came President Trump's first Executive order--banning immigrants from seven majority-Muslim nations--including Syria--from entering the United States. Marwan's wife and daughter's future in this country was unclear. Fortunately, the President's order was blocked, and after 2 years of living apart and in fear, the Saffaf family was finally reunited. Thank goodness for ``the Sisters'' and ICDI.

We could use more strong, courageous women like Sister JoAnn Persch and Sister Pat Murphy who fearlessly follow in the footsteps of trailblazing women like Ida B. Wells and Jane Addams. This March, as we once again honor the women who have moved this country forward and inspired each of us, let's renew the challenge to build on their legacies and fight for the country they envisioned.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, back in 1985, I was a second-term Member of the House of Representatives and a member, I was proud to say, of the House Appropriations Committee. The Committee chairman was a man by the name of Jamie Whitten. He was from the State of Mississippi. He was a Mississippi Democrat. Yes, there used to be Mississippi Democrats.

Jamie Whitten had been a witness to a great deal of American history. He was on the floor of the House as a newly minted Congressman from Mississippi on December 8, 1941, when Franklin Roosevelt delivered his ``Day of Infamy'' speech.

There I was speaking to this same man 44 years later, and I was a junior member of his Appropriations Committee. I knew that Appropriations, under the House rules, had several members who were also represented on the Budget Committee. So one day I went to Chairman Whitten from Mississippi and suggested to him that I wanted to be on the Budget Committee in the slot reserved for Appropriations members. Chairman Whitten looked down at me and he asked: Why do you want to be on the Budget Committee?

I said: I think it is good because the Budget Committee makes the spending decisions and blueprints that Appropriations and other committees follow.

He kind of sat back in his chair and Chairman Whitten said to me: Well, if you want to be on that committee, you can be on that committee, but I want you to remember one thing, the Budget Committee deals in hallucinations and the Appropriations Committee deals in facts.

I will never forget that exchange. I served on the Budget Committee and again in the Senate on the same Budget Committee, and I have come to believe that Chairman Whitten was not that wrong in his conclusion. I call that ``Whitten's Law.'' It remains one of the most important lessons I have learned about the Federal budget.

I have learned other lessons from Mississippi politicians, and one of them is a man by the name of Thad Cochran, my colleague from the State of Mississippi and one of my friends who cochairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee with me. I shouldn't say cochairs; I am the ranking member on that committee and he, of course, is the chairman. Thad Cochran taught me and others many important lessons about the Federal budget and about public service in general.

Thad Cochran is a man of humility and integrity, and he is a man of his word. He is a conservative Republican who values principle and cooperation over pointless confrontation. He prefers common ground to scorched Earth because he knows it is better to build on.

Senator Cochran and I have served together in the Senate for more than two decades. For much of that time, we have both been on the Senate Appropriations Committee. He has been the committee's ranking member and chairman twice. In all of those years, I can only think of a time or two when he and I disagreed so completely on an issue that we found ourselves unable to find that principled compromise. Some may call that ``old school.'' I call it leadership in a representative democracy.

As a member and two-time chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran's skill as a negotiator has served Mississippi and the United States exceedingly well. He has helped keep his State and our Nation strong and safe and economically sound.

In a time that increasingly prizes the quick profits and short-term vision, Thad Cochran has helped to protect and increase America's investments in scientific, technological, and medical research. That is a proud part of the legacy he leaves.

His voice is common and quiet, but don't be fooled. When it comes to protecting the interests of his State or this Nation, he is tenacious.

That was never more apparent than in the weeks and months after Hurricane Katrina pummeled the Mississippi gulf coast and other States in 2005. Senator Cochran helped secure appropriations that enabled thousands of homeowners in Mississippi to rebuild after their insurance companies turned them down.

As the former chairman and now ranking member of the Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, I worked closely with Chairman Cochran to protect critical national security priorities in my State of Illinois, and he has worked hard for his State.

Behind every Senator, of course, there are hard-working staff members without whom we could not do our jobs. Senator Cochran's personal staff and his committee staff are first-rate public servants. I want to thank them too. They have been part of a winning team with Senator Cochran. Their hard work and loyalty on his behalf and on behalf of the Senate has served this Nation well.

I wasn't surprised the other day when I learned that Senator Cochran had been an Eagle Scout. I was surprised to learn, however, that he once failed in pursuit of a Boy Scout merit badge as a young man. He learned a lesson from that experience that he said has stayed with him all his life: Always be prepared.

Thad Cochran's adherence to that lesson, his remarkable skill as a negotiator, and his deep integrity and honesty are qualities we could all do well to emulate.

I thank Senator Thad Cochran and wish him all the best as he departs the Senate, and I thank him for his great service to Mississippi and to America.

Mr. President, last week Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York passed away after representing the Rochester area of that State for more than three decades. She was tough, unfailingly gracious, and wonderfully effective in helping people throughout her life.

Louise carried titles you don't see often around here. She was the Congress's only microbiologist. She was also a blues and jazz singer as well. She was a fighter, first and foremost, earning the respect of her colleagues and even those who disagreed with her. I have counted her as a friend and an ally in many causes.

She hailed from Harlan, KY, the daughter of a blacksmith in a coal

mine. Louise can trace her lineage to the legendary Daniel Boone, and you can hear it in her voice.

She went to college and graduate school at the University of Kentucky to study microbiology and public health to honor her sister who passed away due to pneumonia at a young age.

She went on to serve in both the Monroe County legislature and the New York State Assembly before joining Congress in 1986 to represent the Rochester New York area, which includes the area around the historic Seneca Falls Convention.

She was one of only 29 women in Congress when she first arrived and quickly became a champion and a trailblazer for the American worker and the American women.

Louise coauthored the landmark Violence Against Women's Act in 1994, curbing domestic violence and aiding its victims.

She also helped shepherd the Affordable Care Act through Congress as the very first woman to chair the House of Representatives Rules Committee.

Louise's storied career has included defending her constituents against Big Business and bringing national attention to pressing medical issues. She introduced the first legislation barring genetic discrimination in 1995. It finally became law in 2008.

She introduced a bill every Congress to fight drug-resistant bacteria.

In 2015, President Obama incorporated parts of Louise Slaughter's plan to identify superbugs and increased funding for new antibiotics and vaccines into the administration's initiative to encourage the responsible use of antibiotics in livestock.

Louise also introduced the first bill to ban insider training by Members of Congress.

She did all of this, and some of it controversial, and still won the respect of her colleagues.

I worked with her on many projects, from the Bicameral High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Caucus, to demanding the Supreme Court adopt an ethics code.

It was not a coincidence that on the day when news of her passing broke, the words ``nicest'' and ``Rochester'' were trending on Twitter in Washington, DC.

Through all of her hard work, she was smart and kind and always funny. She will be missed by her colleagues and friends and family, including her three daughters, Megan, Amy, and Emily Robin; seven grandchildren, Lauren, Daniel, Emma, Jackson, Mason, Linus, and Ione; and one great-grandchild, Henry.

Louise was a great Congresswoman. I am going to miss her as a colleague and a friend.

Mr. President, this crisis we face in this country involving DACA is a crisis that was created when President Trump announced the end of the program on September 5 of last year and gave us a deadline of March 5 of this year to come up with an alternative. Many of us, including the Presiding Officer, battled mightily to do that--a bipartisan effort with compromise on both sides--but we never could come up with a proposal the President accepted. As a consequence, the destiny of the DACA recipients is uncertain.

They are now temporarily protected by an injunction from two different Federal lawsuits--an injunction which could end in a matter of weeks or months. In the meantime, their status is so uncertain that it is difficult for them to make plans for their lives. That is where we are today.

DACA has been a huge success. It is a program designed to give those who were brought here as children, toddlers, and infants an opportunity to become part of America--a legal part of America--and an opportunity to one day become citizens.

DACA was an Executive order of President Obama's which President Trump has now abolished. There is no protection, other than the court injunction for those who are facing the end of DACA.

Yesterday, I convened a meeting with some of my Senate colleagues with the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen. Here is what we learned: As of yesterday, more than 35,000 DACA renewal applications are pending because of these court orders. Of these pending renewal applications, 10,000 were from recipients whose DACA protection had already expired. Tens of thousands more Dreamers have DACA protection due to expire soon. Around 13,000 DACA permits could expire in March, another 5,300 in April, and nearly 14,000 more in May.

Understand what happens: When a person is protected by DACA and loses that protection, technically, they can be deported. In addition, they cannot legally continue to work in the United States.

There is some good news, though. Secretary Nielsen promised me that the Department of Homeland Security will not deport any DACA recipient with a pending DACA application, even if their DACA status has expired. I thank her for that commitment, and I intend to hold her to that commitment. Many lives are at stake.

However, for DACA recipients whose status has expired, that same Department will not authorize them to work unless and until DACA is renewed, so there can be a gap in their employment. Understand that the people we are talking about are not folks, by and large, with part-time jobs. They are teachers. They are medical professionals. Some of them are serving in our military.

What we now know about the expiration of this work permit is that tens of thousands of DACA-eligible individuals could be forced to leave their jobs while their applications for renewal are pending and before those applications are approved.

Then consider the fate of Dreamers who are eligible for DACA but never reached the necessary age to attain that status. They can no longer apply for DACA because President Trump's decision prohibits them after September 5. If a child turns 15, the youngest age at which they can apply for DACA, they are now blocked from applying because of the President's decision.

The nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute estimates that in addition to 800,000 DACA recipients, there are an additional 1 million Dreamers eligible for DACA. Because of President Trump's decision to end DACA, 1.8 million Dreamers are at risk of deportation and cannot work to support themselves and contribute to the only country they know and the country they love.

President Trump called on Congress to legalize DACA, but he has, unfortunately, refused to accept six different bipartisan offers to achieve that. One of those offers also included $25 billion for his wall. Yet he wouldn't accept it.

Let me tell my colleagues the story of one of these young people, as I have done before. I have come to the floor of the Senate more than 110 times to tell these stories. I just think when you hear the stories of an individual, it helps us understand what the real issue is.

This is a photo of Irving Calderon. He is the 112th Dreamer I have talked about on the Senate floor. When he was 7 months old, Irving was brought to the United States from Mexico by his parents. He lived in California for 10 years and then moved to Texas where he currently lives. His childhood memories include Disneyland, going to the beach, and celebrating Christmas and the Fourth of July with his family.

Irving found out he was undocumented when he was 12 years old. At first he didn't believe it because he said there is nothing about him that wasn't American. Then, as he got older, he realized he couldn't get a driver's license, he couldn't work, he couldn't save money for college, but he didn't give up.

In high school, Irving maintained a 4.0 grade point average. He was a member of the Honor Society and the student council. He served as president of the school's chapter of the Future Business Leaders of America, played varsity basketball and tennis.

Because of his accomplishments, Irving was accepted into the University of Texas at Austin. In college, he served as director of the Hispanic Business Students Association, and under his leadership, the group adopted a street to clean. Irving organized events for underrepresented high school students and middle school students and volunteered at an orphanage every Thanksgiving.

He graduated from the University of Texas with a bachelor's degree in business administration. Thanks to DACA--created by President Obama and then eliminated by President Trump later--Irving was able to put his degree to work. For the last 3 years, he has worked as an information technology business analyst at General Motors. He creates software systems for one of the largest automakers in the United States.

He wrote me a letter, and here is what he said:

I've always felt completely American. I've been here since

I was 7 months old. It's the only place I know and the only

place I've ever considered home. Being an American is not

something that is just given to you; it's about the work you

put in. . . . I feel that I have contributed to America.

I do too. It would be an American tragedy to deport someone like Irving, who has overcome so many obstacles and has so much to contribute to our country. People like Irving Calderon are the reason more than 400 business leaders signed a letter to Congress urging us to pass a bipartisan Dream Act. The letter and these business leaders say:

Dreamers are vital to the future of our companies and our

economy. With them, we grow and create jobs. They are part of

why we will continue to have a global competitive advantage.

President Trump created this crisis, but instead of working toward a solution, he has sabotaged every effort we have tried to make on behalf of Dreamers. Now it is up to Republican leaders in Congress to take yes for an answer and accept any one of the six bipartisan solutions we put on the table to save these young people.

Congress should do our job and make the Dream Act the law of the land, or we will be responsible for forcing hundreds of thousands of talented young immigrants out of the workforce and putting them at risk of immediate deportation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this afternoon there is going to be a vote on the Senate floor which is of historic importance. It is rare that I use those words to describe what is going on in the Senate Chamber. It is equally rare for us to actually take up an issue and debate it in this Chamber, but this afternoon we will face a critical vote.

I can recall, as can most Members, many votes we have cast in the course of service in Congress, both in the House and the Senate, but the votes that cause loss of sleep and worry, time and again, are votes involving war. You see, part of my responsibility in the Senate, shared by my colleagues, under article I, section 8, is to actually vote to decide whether the United States of America shall go to war.

The Founding Fathers were explicit. They wanted to give to Congress that responsibility so Members of Congress could represent their constituents--House districts and States--whom we all represent. That created an opportunity--in effect, an obligation--for us to really measure this grievous, important, historic decision against the feelings of the families who would be asked to support a war with their tax dollars or with the lives of people they love.

I can recall, back in 2001, what occurred on 9/11. Those of us alive on that date will never forget it, but I also recall that a year later we faced a decision right here in the Senate Chamber about whether, as a result of 9/11, we would go to war against Iraq and Afghanistan.

There was a long debate about whether we should invade Iraq. If you will remember, the leaders of the government told us there were weapons of mass destruction which threatened the region and the world, including the United States, and if we didn't move into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein in his capacity, we would leave the United States in danger.

The debate went on for a long period of time, and the final vote was cast in the early morning hours in October of 2002. I remember it well and, for reasons I can't explain, I stayed on the floor after the vote. There were only two or three Members of the Senate still here. It was one of those moments where we had voted to go to war and weren't certain about what the next step would be. There were 23 of us--1 Republican and 22 Democrats--who voted against the invasion of Iraq. I think it was one of the most important votes I ever cast.

The representations about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be false. We had no intelligence to back up that assertion. Yet that was the reason we were off to war. Well, here we are, some 16 years later, still engaged in a war in Iraq. I don't believe there is a single Member of the Senate who that night cast a vote for the invasion of that country who believed that 16 years later we would still be engaged in a war in Iraq.

Subsequently, there was a vote on the invasion of Afghanistan. It was a different circumstance. We believed Afghanistan had literally been the sourcing point for the terrorists who struck us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 innocent Americans. The argument made by the administration was, no one can do that to the United States of America without paying a price. I joined the overwhelming bipartisan majority supporting the invasion of Afghanistan to go after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

I voted against invading Iraq. I voted for the invasion of Afghanistan. I can tell you, I would never ever have been able to stand here and say, with any certainty, that 16 years later, we would still be engaged in a war in Afghanistan, but we are.

The obvious question to ask is, In 16 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places in the world, how many other times has the United States and the House of Representatives come together to debate the wisdom of a decision about continuing a war or declaring a war? The answer is none--not once.

For 16 years, we have been observers and bystanders, through Presidents of both political parties, and the Congress has stood by and observed military action being taken all over the world.

Brown University did a survey called the Costs of War Project and recently published data saying that the United States fought terror in 76 countries, between October 2015 and October 2017, using its own troops and bases, through training of host country counterterrorism forces or through drone and air strikes.

In 76 different countries, we are engaged in military operations. How often has the Senate or the House come together to debate the wisdom or to even question whether those military actions were authorized? I think none. Perhaps someone could point to one, but I can't think of one time we have done it.

This afternoon is going to be different because we are being asked, as Members of the Senate, whether we are going to exercise our constitutional authority and responsibility when it comes to an ongoing war in a country most Americans couldn't find on a map--the country of Yemen.

Yemen now is embroiled in a civil war and an invasion by Saudi Arabia, and we are part of that military operation. There has been no vote in the U.S. Senate on those military activities. There is a loose connection to al-Qaida, which was referenced in the invasion of Afghanistan, as a rationalization for going after this terrorist operation now being found in Yemen, but there is more to that war in Yemen than just the presence of al-Qaida. There is an ongoing surrogate battle between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the United States is engaged. I believe we are engaged because of our friendship with Saudi Arabia; some have argued because we sold them the planes we are now refueling.

At the very least, we ought to bring this case to the American people. That is our constitutional responsibility, and that is why this vote is important: Because we took an oath--each of us--when we became Senators, to uphold the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. That Constitution says the people of the United States--the ones I represent in Illinois, the ones who are represented in Oregon or in Texas--are going to have a voice in this decision through us, through our debate, through our decision.

I thank the Senators who have brought this matter to the floor today: Mr. Lee, a Republican Senator from the State of Utah; Mr. Sanders, a Democratic Senator from Vermont; and Mr. Murphy, another Democratic Senator, from Connecticut. I have joined in cosponsoring this effort. It really is going to put us to a test to justify what we are doing in Yemen today.

What is happening in Yemen has been characterized by the United Nations as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world--and that is saying something. Some 8 million people are dying of famine in Yemen because of this war. Some 16 million are in desperate need of humanitarian assistance immediately.

This is no skirmish. This is not just an exchange of fire. This is carnage and destruction the likes of which the world has never seen, and we are part of it. If we are part of it and should be part of it, then we should make that decision as a Senate and a House of Representatives, as the Constitution requires, but going to the bleachers, standing by the sidelines, and watching more and more military operations take place around the world without asserting our constitutional responsibility is a mistake. That is why I have cosponsored this measure this afternoon and look forwarding to voting for it to move forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to join with Members of Congress and congressional staff in celebrating Mark Peterson's 30 years of service and retirement from the town of Normal. Mark has honorably served the people of Normal, IL, since 1988 and as its city manager since 1998.

He has served on the governing boards for a variety of public and community organizations, including the MetCom Emergency Communications Center, the Bloomington-Normal Economic Development Council, the Central Illinois Regional Broadband Network, the McLean County Regional Planning Commission Executive Committee, the Community Development Corporation, the BN Advantage Leadership Council, and Connect Transit.

Mark was instrumental in the planning and successful redevelopment of Uptown Normal, including the Children's Discovery Museum, as well as Uptown Station and its new rail platform, waiting area, bus bays, and related development at the Marriott Hotel and Conference Center and the Hyatt Place Bloomington-Normal Hotel.

Under the administration of Mark Peterson, the Shoppes at College Hills grew into a thriving modern retail center. The Constitution Trail also grew to nearly 50 miles of recreational trail through the cities of Normal and Bloomington, providing the community with an outstanding linear park.

Mark oversaw a period of tremendous growth in the town of Normal, while maintaining an AAA bond rating and serving as independent confirmation of the town's fiscal health and stability. He also cultivated fruitful partnerships with members of the Illinois congressional delegation, but most importantly, Mark has been a loyal leader and community servant for the residents of Normal and will continue to be an admired citizen of the community.

Mark's commitment to the town of Normal can be seen in every corner of the city, and that work will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, most people cannot remember what happened in the first grade--I have vague memories of being a first grader--but there are certain things that may happen even at a young stage in your life that will be remembered.

My 6-year-old granddaughter, who attends first grade in Brooklyn, NY, a few weeks ago was told by her teacher what to do if a shooter, if a gunman came into the first grade classroom. My little granddaughter was told: Don't stand by the window; you could get shot. If they enter the classroom with a gun, get down on the floor.

Is there any sane person in America who believes that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights--the right to bear arms--that we would have reached a point in America where the prospects of gun violence in the first grade classrooms and all the way through school, through high school, and college would become a reality in America? I can't imagine anyone in their wildest dreams would have imagined that possibility.

Today is March 14. On February 14, a gunman went into a high school in Parkland, FL, and killed 17 people--14 students and 3 members of the faculty. It is not the first, by any means. Ten years before it, at Northern Illinois University, a gunman killed five there and injured many others. The list goes on and on and on.

This gunman who went into Parkland, FL, wasn't carrying a handgun. He was carrying an AR-15. It is a semiautomatic weapon that he was able to embellish with a high-capacity magazine that could kill 30 people at a time.

Why? Why on Earth would that man, 19 years of age, be allowed to buy a weapon that was created to be used by the military--a military assault weapon, a weapon that sometimes our police may need, but hardly ever an individual American could need or want to buy for a legitimate sporting or hunting purpose?

But he did, and 17 were dead after that rampage.

There has been a lot of reaction to that--more than I expected, I will be honest with you, because mass killings have become way too common in America. Something happened there--something we saw across America today. High school students in that high school came out and said: Enough, we are fed up with the laws of this land and the politicians who refuse to change them. We are fed up with the fear that comes with just going to school in America. We are fed up with those who say the Second Amendment requires us to live in fear.

They have marched in towns across America today. They have marched on Washington. They have come to my office and visited with me. I believe they have become a major force in the national debate. I commend them. I encourage them. I hope they will continue.

What can we do? You know, politics is tough. It ain't beanbag, as they used to say. There are forces like the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby that threaten the political existence of Members of Congress if they vote the wrong way. I know they came after me when I was a Member of the House. They almost got me. It was a tough election year. I managed to survive it, but they poured money in and tried to beat me. I have never had their support since, and that is OK with me. But for a lot of Members of Congress, they are just not willing to risk it, not willing to anger the National Rifle Association.

Do you remember when President Trump had the meeting 2 weeks ago? He called in the students and parents and others. He let the cameras roll, and they continued the meeting so America could witness it. He admonished the Members of Congress there: Don't be scared of the National Rifle Association. Don't be petrified by the NRA. We have to do something.

President Trump came out for universal background checks. In a way, it is not a very bold and courageous position because 97 percent of the American people agree with it. Even gun owners agree with the premise that we should do everything in our power to have a background check to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and mentally unstable people. The President came out for that 2 weeks ago, and he also said: Why in the world do we let someone 19 years of age buy a military assault weapon? We don't need these assault weapons.

I thought to myself: What a break; here is a Republican President who is finally standing up to the gun lobby and supporting positions that are overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

My fellow Senator who is now presiding over the Senate has shown that on a bipartisan fashion we can move forward on universal background checks. He came together with Senator Manchin of West Virginia on a measure that I supported and one that I think we should revisit. I felt so encouraged 2 weeks ago.

Well, what has happened since? That group left the White House and a couple of days later, the National Rifle Association came in for lunch and the President reversed his position. It is nothing new. I saw him do exactly the same thing on DACA and Dreamers. He reversed his position and now, instead of universal background checks that will keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them, they are supporting a bill that is good but is not all we need, called Fix NICS, which fills some of the information in the background checks for purchasing firearms.

The 17 lives in that high school in Parkland, FL, are worth more than this weak response by President Trump and by some in Congress. We must do better.

Let me tell you that the issue here is more than just the safety of high schools. A few weeks ago--in fact, a day before the shooting in Parkland, FL--an amazing member of the Chicago Police Department, Commander Paul Bauer, was downtown for a training session and heard on his radio an alert that there was a fugitive escaping. Being a man of duty, he responded to join in the pursuit and was cornered in a stairwell by a man who pulled out a gun with a high-capacity magazine, shot him six times, and killed him right in that stairwell. This was an amazing police officer with a great wife and daughter, from Bridgeport, in the city of Chicago. Our whole city was in grief over that loss.

They tried to figure out where the gun came from? Where did that criminal get that gun? It was purchased legally outside Madison, WI. It was then sold, without a background check, to another person who, in turn, sold it on the internet with no background check to a person with a record of felony arrests and convictions. It completely defied the system and made the argument again, sadly, of why universal background checks--not just at Federal licensed dealers but also at gun shows and on the internet--are absolutely essential. The Fix NICS bill does not solve that problem. We must solve that problem.

Secondly, on the military assault weapons, today at the Senate Judiciary Committee, we talked about the impact of an assault weapon and a bullet that is fired. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, who has followed this terrible incident in Parkland and has spoken out so eloquently, reminded us that firing a bullet in a handgun may mean that that bullet passes through your body and injures an organ. Firing a long gun, a rifle, or a semiautomatic weapon like the AR-15 does dramatically more damage. The bullet may enter your body in a small way, but it comes out on the other side with a wound the size of an orange and, in the process, tumbles through your body, ripping through tissue, ripping through arteries, ripping through organs, and creating a situation that is difficult and sometimes impossible to repair.

Why would anyone need a weapon like that? You sure don't need it to go hunting. If you need an AR-15 to go shoot a deer, for goodness sakes, you ought to stick to fishing. You obviously don't have the skill necessary. To own it just to own it? Some do. They are collectors, I imagine. But opening those sales to 18-, 19-, or 20-year- olds makes no sense whatsoever, and that is what the students from Parkland and around the country are saying today. I couldn't agree with them more.

As for high-capacity magazines, why do you need 30 rounds? Why do you need 60 rounds? What is that all about? It is being used in weapons that are designed to kill other human beings--not just a few, but many.

As for bump stocks, I never heard of a bump stock until a few months ago, when the Las Vegas mass shooting occurred, killing innocent people at a country and western concert. We have banned machine guns in America for decades. Well, leave it to the firearm manufacturers. They found a way to create a mechanism that takes a semiautomatic weapon-- meaning that you have to pull the trigger each time for each round--and turns it essentially into an automatic weapon, where you can hold the trigger and use the recoil and it just sprays the bullets until you empty the magazine, with something called a bump stock.

I can't imagine why we haven't just flat out passed a bill to ban bump stocks after what happened in Las Vegas, but this Congress, this Senate is frozen by the gun lobby.

All across America today, young people are stepping up. I asked a teacher, Ms. Posada, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee today: What is it about the students in your school? Why have they become such national leaders, outspoken on this issue and inspirational on this issue to me?

She said: That is the way we trained them, to be part of an America where they can participate and be a leader, and they are.

I encourage them to continue to put the pressure on all of us, starting with President Trump, who may switch his position again. He went from all for gun safety to the gun lobby position in a matter of days. Maybe he will come back again to some more reasonable position.

Put the pressure on Congress too. We have run out of excuses, haven't we?

More and more innocent Americans have been killed, and the best we can come up with is that over 200 years ago, when some men sat down to write our Bill of Rights, that Second Amendment gave the authority to individuals to buy any and everything they want to buy in the name of the right to bear arms. I don't think that is what they had in mind at all.

We cannot continue to let the NRA and the gun lobby have veto power over gun policy in America. We are facing an epidemic of violence with hundreds of Americans shot every day--from Commander Bauer in Chicago; to the kids in Parkland, FL; to Las Vegas; to DeKalb, IL. The list goes on and on and on. We have to put the safety of our kids and our neighborhoods ahead of the gun lobby's agenda, which is just to sell more guns.

We have to have the courage as a Senate to bring a bill to the floor and to open it to amendments. We don't do that anymore in the Senate. There was a time when the Senate was a great deliberative body, and now the Senate is not. The silence of the Senate, when it comes to this gun safety issue, is deafening. Americans know it well, and the question now is whether we will do everything within our power to reduce the number of shootings, to keep our communities safe, and to spare more 6- year-old first graders that horrible lesson they may remember forever-- to hit the floor when the shooter comes in the classroom.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, on September 5 of last year, President Trump announced the repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. As a result of that decision by President Trump, hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the United States as children, known as Dreamers, face losing their work permits and their right to stay in America without deportation. They are threatened with being returned to countries that many of them barely remember, if at all.

These Dreamers were brought here as children--infants, toddlers, young kids--by their parents to America, and they grew up here. They went to school in America, to our public schools and other schools that were available to them. They stood up in their classrooms every morning and pledged allegiance to the flag. They grew up believing that this was their home.

At some point in their lives their parents pulled them aside and told them the bitter truth--that they were not legally in America, they were undocumented, and they were vulnerable. At any minute, a knock on the door or a stop on the highway could result in not only their deportation but the deportation of every member of their family. Growing up is tough enough for an adolescent. I can't imagine growing up with this shadow over me, wondering whether at any moment a misstep or being in the wrong place might mean that I would be sent from this country and that my parents would be sent with me, but they grew up with that reality and with that danger.

They did some extraordinary things. They not only prospered in America and finished their education, they went on with great ambition, believing the day would come when they would get a chance to be part of this country.

Seventeen years ago, I introduced the Dream Act. The purpose of that bill was to give those young people a chance--a chance to earn their way to legal status, earn their way to citizenship. If they have a serious criminal record, they are gone and we want nothing to do with them. They had squandered any opportunity they had to be part of America's future. But if they were doing the right thing, leading a good life, working hard, finishing school, many of us believed they deserved a chance. In fact, at this point, 85 percent of Americans believe they deserve a chance, and that includes 60 percent of the people who voted for President Trump.

We have never passed the Dream Act and made it the law, but when I asked my former Senate colleague, President Obama, to see if there was something he could do by Executive order, he created DACA. DACA gave these young people a 2-year renewable protection. They had to pay a $500 fee, submit themselves to a criminal background check, and if they passed it, they would end up with a temporary, renewable right to stay in America. About 800,000 came forward and did it.

There were many more who were eligible but scared--scared that turning over their family's information and their personal information to this government or any government could turn out badly. Can you blame them? They have lived their whole lives in fear that a highway stop or somebody being arrested next to them could mean they would have to leave the only country they had ever known. But 800,000 stepped up and said: We will do it. I encouraged them. I went to so many meetings in Chicago, around the State of Illinois, and around the country telling them that this DACA Program was for real and that the government was giving them a pledge that they would stand by them on a renewable basis because of President Obama's order.

The program was a huge success. As I mentioned, 800,000 signed up, and some even renewed. Then came the decision by President Trump to end the program. What he said was that by March 5 of this year, there would be no more DACA. Those who were protected could play out their temporary protection but no renewals.

That is where the issue stood for the longest time. Many of us decided that we needed to do something about it and to accept the President's challenge and create a law--a law that would provide protection for these young people. Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina; Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona; Senator Cory Gardner, a Republican from Colorado; Senator Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Colorado; and Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey--we came together and decided on a bipartisan basis to draw up a bill to try to solve this problem, be fair to these young people, and give them a chance to stay in America and earn their way to citizenship. When we proposed the bill to President Trump, he rejected it. In fact, he rejected six different bipartisan proposals to solve this problem.

So the deadline was looming and passed last week on March 5, and the program, by the President's proclamation, would have been finished were it not for two Federal courts that intervened and said: No, Mr. President. You may have overstepped. You may have done more than you can legally do. So we are going to protect these Dreamers, these DACA young people, until we resolve the question on your constitutional authority to make that decision.

At the current moment, more than 700,000 of these young DACA recipients are protected by a court order that required that they reopen DACA eligibility for those whose DACA protection had expired, the 2-year temporary protection. Now tens of thousands of them are coming forward and applying for DACA renewal.

Last week I called Secretary Nielsen at the Department of Homeland Security and said: I have some questions that I am hearing as I travel around. For example, if I was protected by DACA and my protection came to an end and I am now reapplying for DACA and going to your agency, how long will it take your agency to process my application?

Secretary Nielsen could not give me an exact date, but there has been speculation that it could take 4 to 6 months. You see, there is a big backlog of cases, and it could take months before they process all those cases. That was my first question.

My second question: In that 4- to 6-month period, can these young DACA recipients be deported?

She said no. I put out an order, she said, that no one is to be deported if they made an application for DACA renewal.

I asked Secretary Nielsen: Can we have that in writing?

I will get back to you, she said.

I don't think that is too much to ask--whether these young people can be protected from deportation while they are applying for DACA renewal.

The third question: There is also a legal ability to work under DACA. Can you protect these young people's ability to have a job while you are processing their applications?

She didn't know whether she could. I have since learned that she has the authority to do that, but it is an important question, isn't it? If you happen to be one of these DACA recipients--the vast majority of them are actually working, and most of them are in school or have graduated. They have to. They don't qualify for any Federal Pell grants or government loans, so they need to work to pay off their education. That is understandable.

So it is still uncertain as to what is going to happen. Then what happens when the court lifts this injunction, and what will be the future of these young people?

President Trump said some harsh things about immigration during the course of the Presidential campaign. We all remember his comments about people of the Muslim religion, his comments about Mexican rapists, and his pledge to build a big, beautiful wall from sea to shining sea and have Mexico pay for it. Do you remember? We all heard those things. But an interesting thing happened after he was elected: He started saying more moderate, positive things about Dreamers, to the point where I actually had some hope that this particular group would have a fighting chance. As of today, there is no indication that President Trump feels the same way. Six different bipartisan proposals have been rejected. So here we stand with this uncertainty.

When the issue came before the Senate, we did our best to put together a bipartisan rollcall. We came close but not close enough. There were 4 proposals on the floor, and the one with the largest number of votes received 54 votes. There were three Democrats who disagreed with some parts of it. I think we could have probably found a way to get their support. But we only had 8 Republicans who joined us-- 8 out of 51--to vote for the measure to deal with this issue. So it is still an unresolved issue at this moment as to what is going to happen after the court cases.

I have come to the floor many times--in fact, over 100 times--to tell the stories of these Dreamers, and I would like to do that today before I yield to the Democratic leader.

This is Maria Torres Mendoza. Maria is the 111th Dreamer I have featured here on the floor of the Senate. She came here to the United States from Mexico when she was 5 years old, and she grew up in the State of Washington. Her family didn't have much money, so she worked pretty hard. She used to deliver newspapers. She delivered 100 newspapers before school each morning. She worked odd jobs--shoveled snow, cut grass. When she was in high school, she worked as a server at a restaurant every day while she was still going to school, kept up with her studies, and delivered the newspapers in the morning. You can tell Maria is not a lazy person.

Because of her family's financial struggles, despite her best efforts, her family was homeless for some time. Through it all, she was an excellent student, and despite her family difficulties, she graduated from high school with a 3.8 grade point average.

She didn't believe she would ever make it to college, but she did. She was accepted at Washington State University Tri-Cities. She is a senior now, and this spring, she will graduate with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and a minor in computer science. She is currently working as a student engineer at ATI Titanium and Specialty Alloys, a specialty parts manufacturer. Her main project is creating a system to facilitate the usage of AutoCAD drawings and manuals for engineering and maintenance. I hope none of my colleagues ask me to explain what I just said, but it sounds like pretty important work. What is her dream? She wants a master's degree in engineering. She is particularly interested in nuclear-powered mechatronics--the technology that combines electronics and mechanical engineering.

Maria wrote me a letter, and here is what it said:

DACA is a whole world of opportunities for me. If DACA were

to be taken away from me, all my hard work would not count. I

want to see the results of my hard work and I wouldn't be

able to do so without DACA.

Would America be a better place if Maria was asked to leave? Would we be a stronger nation if we took this young girl's amazing energy, her academic accomplishment, and her dream and drive and sent them back to Mexico? After all these years, after education and hard work--two jobs at a time when she was in high school--is there any doubt that this young woman is going to be a spectacular success in life?

That is what this comes down to--real human beings, DACA recipients, protected by that Executive order of President Obama's, who are now under the threat of deportation because of President Trump's decision. It is a test of who we are as a nation, whether we believe in fairness and opportunity or whether we are going to walk away from our legacy. This is a nation of immigrants.

I stand before you proudly, the son of an immigrant to this country. My mother was brought here from Lithuania when she was 2 years old, and here her son stands as a Senator from the State of Illinois. That is my story, that is my family's story, and that is America's story.

It is time for us to remember Maria and the hundreds of thousands just like her who are asking for a chance to be part of our future.

Mr. President, is it possible that with all the things on your mind, you have forgotten DACA and the Dreamers?

We need President Trump to step up and lead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Sanders, Senator Murphy, and Senator Lee, for this bipartisan effort.

Why are we here today? Why are we discussing wars so far away? We are here because of this book. This is the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution very expressly tells us what we are supposed to be doing here. In article I, section 8, it lays out the things that we, the men and women who serve in Congress, are responsible for. Among the things that Congress shall have the power to do is to ``declare war.''

Why did the Founding Fathers make certain that it was clear that Congress would be involved in that decision on the declaration of war? When they created Congress, the idea was that the people of this country, far and wide, would at least have a voice in the decision, through the people they elected, and we would be held accountable for our decisions to declare war or to not declare it because we are up for election. So Congress has this responsibility, and over the years, many times, Congress has not exercised its responsibility in a responsible way.

I have a question. I bet that if I brought in every U.S. Senator and asked them the following question, very few would be able to answer it: How many countries is the United States military currently involved in

fighting? How many countries are we in today, fighting? Would you guess two? Iraq, Afghanistan--all right, for sure, there. Five? Ten? Twenty?

Brown University's Costs of War Project recently published data saying that the United States fought terror through direct fighting, training, or military support to other forces or through drone strikes in 76 countries between October 2015 and 2017. Is that the right number today? I am not sure. None of us know.

We are often surprised to learn we are sending our military and fighting in another country. When something awful occurs--Americans are killed, for example--sometimes Members of Congress hear it for the first time: Oh, we are in what country fighting?

I take this pretty seriously, and I have over the years when it comes to the authorization of using force, because it isn't just a matter of projecting American power; it is life and death. These are decisions that will be made by Congress or by the President--sometimes both--and the net result of it, even under the best of circumstances, is that Americans will perish. Funerals will be held in Illinois and in Utah and in Vermont and in Connecticut and in Wisconsin. That is the reality of the decisions we reach.

I can remember the debate right after 9/11 on the floor. It was one of the most important of my career. It was a question about whether we would authorize the President of the United States--President Bush at the time--to use military force to respond to 9/11. If my colleagues remember the debate, there were two real options on the floor. One was to use military force against those responsible for the attack on the United States and to send that force into Afghanistan. The other was to go after the so-called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They were two parallel debates, but two debates that I saw very differently.

I was skeptical from the start about this Iraqi invasion. Nobody ever connected the dots between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. We were talking about the threat that he was to the rest of the world. Yet we voted here on the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2002 to authorize the use of military force to go into Iraq. Sadly, we are still there today. Sadly, Iraq is in shambles, politically and physically, and the war continues.

I voted no. I remember that night. It was in October of 2002. I remember that night because the vote was taken very late, and there were two or three of us who stayed on the floor here, including Kent Conrad, as well as Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. Paul Wellstone was up for reelection. We wondered if that vote would affect him in any way, and I remember going up to him and saying: Paul, I hope your vote against the war in Iraq doesn't cost you the election.

Wellstone said to me: It is all right if it does. People know where I stand. They expect nothing less.

He didn't live to see the election. If my colleagues will remember, he died in a plane crash with his wife and staffers just a few days after that vote.

But that is the gravity of this decision. That is the importance of this decision. And that is why I want to thank my colleagues for bringing us together--just a few of us but enough of us, maybe--in the Senate to remind people of our constitutional responsibility.

The vote on Afghanistan was one I voted for--the invasion of Afghanistan. The message was clear: If you attack the United States, we will come right back after you, al-Qaida, and we did.

I recently asked the Secretary of Defense--when I voted that way in 2002, I did not imagine that 15 or 16 years later, that war would continue. So I asked him: How does this war ever end in Afghanistan? He didn't know the answer. He didn't come up with one. All he could say to me was that if we left, it would be worse.

Well, you can say that about a lot of other countries in the world. But what we are talking about today is what we are going to do in terms of this horrid situation in Yemen. I was in my office looking down on this debate via C-SPAN, and I saw the photos that have been displayed here--the utter human and physical devastation that is taking place.

Senator Sanders is asking a simple but deeply important question here today, and Senator Lee and Senator Murphy join him. Here is the question: Who authorized the U.S. military action to help Saudi Arabia fight the Houthis in Yemen? I didn't. I don't remember that there was ever a vote. So how are we doing this? By what authority is our government doing this?

This is not about the merits of the fight or in any way a vindication of the Houthis' troubling role in the horrific Yemeni civil war; it is about whether Congress follows its constitutional responsibilities. It is about whether the American people have a voice in this decision--the same people who will send their sons and daughters to bravely serve in our military.

I am happy to be a cosponsor of this resolution that halts any such U.S. support without any congressional authorization. I call on this Congress to deal with revisiting the 2001 and 2002 authorizations of force that I believe have been stretched by multiple administrations beyond any credible limit.

There are real threats to the safety and security of America out there--al-Qaida and its successors and others. But we in Congress have the responsibility to authorize those conflicts and regularly update them as necessary.

Congress and the Senate have been absent without leave when it comes to article I, section 8, and our authority and responsibility to declare war. We have other looming threats, including North Korea and Iran, but any U.S. war against those countries or others, short of protecting against an imminent attack as allowed for in the War Powers Resolution, requires the vote of Congress, regardless of who the President may be.

When it comes to the declaration of war, we simply cannot see this as an annoyance. We must do our part. We must follow the Constitution, even when it is difficult.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for the past 6 years, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has delivered weekly addresses to the Senate Chamber on climate change, telling us that it is time to wake up. That is the sign he posts on the floor each time he comes to discuss the disastrous effects of global warming. Today will mark his 200th speech on the Senate floor on this topic.

The urgency of the topic is real. Climate change threatens our national security and our local communities. Climate change drives global conflict and has far-reaching national security implications.

A report by Oxfam states that there is growing evidence that climate change is making droughts more frequent and more severe.

Drought has contributed to the crisis in Syria, migration from West Africa, and rapid urbanization in Somalia. Just last week, ``PBS NewsHour'' reported that in the last year alone, more than 1 million Somalis have been forced from their homes because of drought.

Herders and farmers used to live among one another, but increasingly severe drought has led to a scarcity of land and water. Some animal herders now carry weapons and fight over fertile land. Farmers who have fled to the city claim herders burned down their homes and turned their farmland into grassland. The fighting and scarcity of land has pushed both farmers and herders to the cities, and most of them end up in ramshackle camps, burdened by poverty--a tinderbox.

Last March, 110 people died from starvation and drought-related illness in 48 hours, prompting President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo to declare the drought a national disaster. Still, 1.2 million children under the age of 5 are projected to be malnourished in 2018.

Somalia is not the only country where the effects of climate change have created and exacerbated regional conflicts. In a few days, Syria will mark the seventh year of civil war. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences reports that climate change has contributed to the crisis in Syria. Extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was most likely due to climate change, and that drought was a factor in the uprisings in 2011, when more than 1 million displaced farmers joined pro-democracy protests.

Just last year, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote about massive migration out of parts of West Africa, through the Sahara Desert, to Libya, where people were hoping to eventually cross the Mediterranean Sea into Europe. The migration is driven in part by drought made more extreme by climate change, which has created widespread humanitarian crises.

As climate instability drives more extreme and frequent droughts and the scarcity of fertile land, water, and food, it will trigger major conflicts over resources, as we have seen in Yemen and Syria. As one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, the United States has a moral responsibility to act on this growing crisis.

Here in our country, my constituents in Illinois are already experiencing the adverse effects of climate change. Climate models suggest that if current global warming trends continue, Illinois will have a climate similar to that of the Texas gulf coast by the year 2100. You can't grow a lot of corn in that climate. For Illinois farmers, these changes to the environment have a direct effect on their livelihood--and for all of us, a direct effect on our food supply.

Wetter springs and more frequent flooding will leave farmers struggling to plant their corn and soybeans. Increasingly hot summers and more frequent droughts will stunt the growth and hurt crop yields. This means prices will increase, making it harder for families to put food on the table.

In recent years, Illinois has seen historic storms, floods, and droughts that have caused millions of dollars in damage.

Last week, scientists at the Illinois State Water Survey reported that this February was the wettest on record, beating the previous record precipitation by over half an inch. An average of 5 inches of rain fell statewide. Streator, IL, had over 11 inches of rain, and Aurora had the largest snowfall, with a recorded 26 inches of snow. In the last week of February, rainstorms and melted snow caused flooding across Illinois, with more than 20 counties throughout the State placed under a flood warning. As the water level of rivers continued to rise, several communities had to evacuate for their safety. Multiple communities were evacuated, and in some areas, residents had to be rescued by boat. Flooded roadways claimed the life of an Illinois resident after her car rolled into a rain-filled ditch.

Climate change is likely to increase the frequency and severity of flooding in Illinois, as well, and my constituents are concerned about their ability to recover from repeated flood events.

How much is flood damage costing us in Illinois? Last July, 3,200 residences were impacted by flooding, including 244 with major damage. This damage costs millions but often doesn't rise to the level where anyone qualifies for Federal aid. From 2007 to 2014, flooding in urban areas has caused $2.3 billion in damages.

Moving forward, repeated flood events will have a high price tag. In the last decade, extreme weather events and fire have cost the Federal Government over $350 billion, according to OMB. These costs will rise as the climate changes.

The evidence is clear. We need to get serious about addressing the cause and effect of climate change. Ignoring them threatens our national security and our safety. I believe our generation has a moral obligation to leave the world in better shape than we found it. Let's not run away from our responsibility to our children and grandchildren. Let's work toward solving the challenges of climate change.

This is a hard issue to explain from a political point of view. The only major political party in the world today that denies climate change is the Republican Party of the United States of America.

It is hard to imagine that a great party that once was actively engaged in a positive way in this debate is now absent without leave.

It is hard to explain that the party of Richard Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency, now is in complete denial when it comes to climate change and global warming.

It is hard to understand that they are missing the obvious indicators of evidence from every corner of the world about the impact of global warming.

It is almost impossible to understand how they can ignore the impact this will have on the lives of our children and grandchildren. Is it too much to ask our generation to make a little sacrifice to spare them the devastation that will come from climate change? Is it too much to ask us to be a little more sensitive in our use of energy so that our kids and grandkids can enjoy a good life in their years on Earth? That usually is a responsibility most generations accept, but we are being told that it is just too much to ask--to ask current Americans to come forward and do something that is thoughtful, meaningful, to reduce energy consumption and reduce emission and pollution. I think that is a horrible situation. I think it is one we shouldn't be proud of at all.

I thank my friend Sheldon Whitehouse for coming to the floor regularly and reminding us of what is happening in this world today and how we each have a responsibility to future generations to alleviate the suffering, the pain, and the damage that has been caused by this global warming.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) are necessarily absent.