Catherine Cortez Masto

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to share the story of one of my friends, Jesse Kleinedler. Jesse and her husband own and operate one of Reno's most successful small businesses--the Under the Rose Brewing Company. They are also the proud parents of a beautiful baby boy. Jesse, her family, and their business are doing great. But when I met Jesse last year, she told me her path to this point in life had not been easy. In 2012, Jesse left her job at a large firm--and the health insurance it provided--to pursue her dream of starting a brewery with her husband Scott. About 1 year later, she learned that she was pregnant. During a routine checkup 9 weeks before her due date, Jesse's midwife advised her to see an OB/GYN. Jesse didn't feel sick, so she hesitated, but the midwife urged her to go see a specialist anyway. Midway through her visit, the OB/GYN became concerned that Jesse's life was in danger. He diagnosed her with preeclampsia and rushed her to the hospital. Jesse's son was born a few hours later via emergency C-section. The doctors who delivered her baby agreed that had Jesse waited even 24 hours to see an OB/GYN, both she and her son would have died. In no uncertain terms, Jesse told me that she and her son owe their lives to the Affordable Care Act. Without the affordable coverage having been purchased on the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange, Jesse would not have been able to have seen a specialist, and she and her husband, certainly, would not have been able to have afforded the $1 million in medical costs Jesse's son incurred over the course of a months-long stay in the NICU. Jesse's son is now a happy, thriving toddler, but he has a medical issue that interferes with his growth. Jesse and Scott, her husband, fear that President Trump's efforts to roll back protections for people with preexisting conditions will make it impossible for them to afford their son's health insurance. Donald Trump has not yet been able to get the support in Congress he needs in order to repeal protections for people with preexisting conditions, but he has taken steps to circumvent the wheel of Congress and hack away at these protections bit by bit. In August, he signed an Executive order to expand access to what are called junk plans. These are health insurance plans that don't cover essential services like prescription drugs, emergency room visits, or maternity care. These plans are designed for short-term use only and don't include protections for people with preexisting conditions. That means, if you sign up for one of these plans and are a cancer survivor or are a pregnant woman or are a war veteran, you could be charged a higher rate. It also means you could be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for the care you receive in an emergency. Junk plans come in all shapes and sizes, but none of them comply with consumer protections established by the Affordable Care Act. The Kaiser Family Foundation looked at junk plans in 45 States and found that 43 percent did not include coverage for mental health services, that 71 percent did not cover outpatient prescription drugs, and that not a single one covered maternity care. Junk plans appear to be cheaper than comprehensive health insurance plans--that is, until you read the fine print. Junk plans have low monthly premiums and astronomical out-of-pocket costs. President Trump's Executive order allows insurance companies to trick consumers into signing up for these plans. Consumers think they are getting a good deal, only to find out, as soon as they get sick, that their medical bills are not covered. The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network says junk plans pose ``a serious threat to cancer patients' ability to access quality, affordable health coverage.'' It also says the present administration's rule will likely leave older and sicker Americans in the individual insurance marketplace, with few, if any, affordable health coverage choices and that patients who are living with serious conditions will be left paying more for the coverage they need if they can afford coverage at all. President Trump's Executive order to expand access to junk plans is not just an attack on our healthcare system, it is an attempt to send us back to the days when families like Jesse's could not afford the healthcare they needed. Jesse told me she owes her life to the health insurance she purchased through the ACA. Where would Jesse and her family be without it? What if she had not been able to afford a comprehensive plan? What if she had purchased a junk plan instead? There are 1.2 million Nevadans who live with preexisting conditions. That is nearly one in two. That number includes nearly 159,000 children and nearly 270,000 people who are nearing retirement. The junk plans rule directly threatens their healthcare. Heather Korbulic, who is the executive director of the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange, summed up the risk junk plans pose. She said: ``[Junk plans] are designed to basically take your preexisting condition and charge you more or tell you that you can't be on those plans at all.'' She continued: ``If they find that you've not disclosed a preexisting medical condition . . . then you're left high and dry with no insurance.'' I don't want to go back to a world where Nevadans with preexisting conditions can't get the care they need or where insurance companies aren't required to cover basic services like maternity care. I was a proud cosponsor of Senator Tammy Baldwin's resolution to overturn President Trump's Executive order. In failing to pass this resolution, the U.S. Senate has done a profound disservice to families and communities all across the country. I will continue fighting to restore protections against junk plans, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

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

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate has been called upon to fulfill our constitutional duty to give advice and consent on President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. In the past, Presidents worked with a bipartisan Senate to appoint someone who understood the importance of precedence and transparency, who respected the independent integrity of the highest Court in the land. Unfortunately, that did not happen during the nomination process. Instead, the process was flawed to fast track a nominee without a full vetting for political gain. Brett Kavanaugh was handpicked by the Federalist Society, a rightwing lobbying organization dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade. Why? Because, as he has made clear on several occasions, President Trump wants to stack the Court with Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, I am new to the Senate, and as long as I have been here, I have been told that this is not regular order. As we went through this confirmation hearing, unfortunately, I found it, along with my colleagues, to be fast tracked. I take very seriously my role of advice and consent when it comes to a nominee, and I think we all as Senators have an equal vote. We should all have access to all of the information and a full vetting of any nominee who wants to sit on the highest Court for a lifetime appointment. Think about it--a lifetime appointment. There are only nine members. This is something that we should all look for--the right person--and everyone should have a full vetting, but this hearing was fast-tracked. Not only was it fast-tracked, but we did not have access to all of the documents necessary to determine whether Brett Kavanaugh had the correct judicial philosophy and the judicial temperament and impartiality that is necessary for somebody to sit on the highest Court of the land. Not only were we limited in the number of documents, but what little documents we did get, unfortunately, on some of them were marked ``committee confidential'' in an effort to prevent Members from using documents to question the witness. By unilaterally declaring them committee confidential, many of my colleagues in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing were unable to adequately question Judge Kavanaugh. I am told that this process of marking ``committee confidential'' is without precedent. Republicans claim that Chairman Leahy also accepted documents on a ``committee confidential'' basis during the Kagan nomination. Those documents were processed by the National Archives, not private, partisan lawyers, and Republicans did not object. By the time of her hearing, 99 percent of Elena Kagan's White House records were publicly available and could be used freely by any Member. In contrast, the committee has only seen 7 percent of Brett Kavanaugh's White House records and only 4 percent were made available to the public. No Senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents ``committee confidential'' and prohibit their public release. Neither the rules of the Senate nor the rules of the committee authorize the unilateral designation. There was no committee action and Ranking Member Feinstein sent a letter stating she did not agree with a blanket designation, and she asked the chairman to work with her to identify the subset of documents that should remain confidential, and he refused. But the chairman released thousands of documents himself. Specifically, he released thousands of documents that had previously been marked ``committee confidential,'' after consulting with Mr. Burck. If these were committee confidential documents, then, the chairman's actions would be a violation of Senate rules. The Senate rules provide a penalty for disclosing ``the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate'' but it requires a vote or a committee action to conduct confidential business or proceedings. Democrats cannot be held to a different standard. Chairman Grassley has asserted that Mr. Burck has sole authority to decide what documents may be used to question Judge Kavanaugh and sole authority to decide which documents may be released to the public. However, he has failed to cite any rule or statute that gives Mr. Burck any authority. We should not move forward with hearings when we only had a fraction of the nominee's record, and the most significant document we had remains hidden from public view. The chairman claimed that he provided ample opportunity for Democrats to clear committee-confidential documents for use at the hearing, but he refused the request of several Members to make documents on a number of topics public. I also want to make it clear that as I watched that hearing, there were allegations that Members of the Senate didn't even show up to take a look at these confidential documents, so why were we complaining. I will tell you what, I showed up. I was there for 3 days looking at all of these documents because I thought it was necessary, even if we were going to be limited in what we could see and what we could talk about. I have a voice equal like everyone else, and I should have access to those documents and figure out if I had the opportunity to talk to Judge Kavanaugh or talk with my colleagues about it, then I should have access to those documents, but even when we had access, the chairman demanded that Democrats send him their documents for preclearance by his staff, President Bush's lawyers, and the White House. My understanding is, never before have minority members of the committee been required to identify and preclear the topics and documents they want to discuss with a Supreme Court nominee with the chairman or outside private lawyers in the White House; never has a majority asserted unilateral authority to preclear what issues the minority party can even ask a nominee. The idea that Democrats have to ask Republicans to preclear their questions in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is outrageous. If the chairman, Bill Burck, and the Trump White House were truly interested in a transparent process, Mr. Burck and the White House could make the White House Counsel records public now, as President Obama and former President Clinton did for the Kagan nomination, but we still don't have access to all of the documents. We still have a process that is broken. We still have a process that, unfortunately, did not provide all of the Senators the opportunity to have a full vetting of Brett Kavanaugh. I took my time. I reviewed Judge Kavanaugh's record. I looked at his cases, his written statements; I listened to his comments in the hearing; I went and viewed the committee-confidential documents. I wanted an opportunity to meet with him. Unfortunately, that never happened, so I couldn't question him myself. Based on all of the information and based on taking my time--like I did with our previous nominee because it is that important that we get the right person on the bench--in his statements and in his writings and opinions, it was clear to me that Brett Kavanaugh has shown he does not respect precedent. He does not respect a woman's right to choose. He does not respect workers' rights. If confirmed, I believe Judge Kavanaugh's extreme activist judicial philosophy will pose a threat to women, our environment, our constitutional separation of powers, and our fundamental civil rights, but it is not just Brett Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy that troubles me. Last week, Judge Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend himself against sexual assault allegations. He was asking for our vote for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court-- one of the deepest and most profound honors this Nation can bestow upon a citizen. This nominee was interviewing for a job in front of the American people, and he was belligerent, evasive, and aggressive. This nominee, who currently sits as an appellate court judge on the DC Circuit Court, disregarded all demeanor and respect for impartiality and independence by accusing the Democrats of engaging in ``a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.'' He then took it even further by stating: ``And as we all know in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around, comes around.'' ``What goes around comes around,'' are those the words of an impartial judge? Of course not. During the question-and-answer period with the Senators, he was belligerent, impatient, and aggressive toward anyone who pressed him to get to the truth. His demonstrated lack of temperament and impartiality is another reason I cannot support him. It is also why over 2,400 law professors, from respected law schools across this country, penned a letter to the Senators to state that the Senate should not confirm Judge Kavanaugh-- some of these very law professors who also appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court; some of these very law professors who also practiced and teach at Yale and Harvard. They wrote: Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. A judge requires a personality that is even- handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous, yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result. They further stated: At the Senate hearings on September 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest Court of this land. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointed by President Ford, stated similar concerns: When I watched Judge Kavanaugh's testimony, I didn't see a fair and impartial Justice. I saw a man who is blinded by rage and ideology. As a sitting judge, Brett Kavanaugh knows better. His accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee for 4 hours. She was poised, serious, and credible recounting what was clearly one of the most scarring, traumatic experiences of her life, and she did it on live television for all the world to hear. She did it in the face of death threats. She did it at the risk of damaging her credibility and career. She had nothing to gain. She has done a profound service to everyone whose life has been touched by sexual assault or abuse. Dr. Ford, I believe you, and I thank you for your courage in coming forward. I believe in a fair and independent process for people who have been accused of serious crimes like sexual assault, and the process should include a neutral investigation that is thorough and nonpartisan because it will hold a perpetrator accountable or exonerate the falsely accused. But that fair and independent process did not occur this time. I am glad some of my colleagues stood up to make sure the FBI had a chance to reopen its background investigation. I will tell you what, after reading the recent FBI report, it is clear Republican leadership limited its scope, and I say that as somebody who not only has been a prosecutor for 10 years, 8 years the attorney general of the State of Nevada, who has conducted criminal investigations and oversaw peace officers who did the same thing. What they did not do, they did not interview Dr. Ford, nor obtain from her the important medical records that would corroborate her testimony. In fact, her attorneys wrote to the FBI offering up not only additional witnesses but making the statement that if they were to interview Dr. Ford, she would have also provided corroborating evidence, including her medical records and access to the phone from which she messaged the Washington Post about Judge Kavanaugh's assault prior to his nomination to the Supreme Court. I am here to tell you, corroborating evidence isn't just in the form of witness statements; it is in the form of documentation that is key, and that was never recovered by the FBI. I will tell you, the potential witnesses that potentially the FBI could have talked to, we know--we know because they came forward out of a civic duty and they went public, and the FBI still did not talk to them. We know Dr. Blasey Ford's husband, Russell Ford, said Christine shared the details of the sexual assault during a couple's therapy session in 2012. She said that in high school, she had been trapped in a room and physically restrained by one boy who was molesting her while another boy watched, and Dr. Ford's husband said: ``I remember her saying that the attacker's name was Brett Kavanaugh'' in 2012--2012. Along with her husband, Adela Gildo-Mazzo, a friend of Dr. Blasey Ford, came forward and said: In June of 2013, Christine said that she had been almost raped by someone who was now a Federal judge. She told me she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys, and that she then escaped, ran away, and hid. A third witness, somebody who could have corroborated Dr. Ford's statement, Lynne Brookes, Brett Kavanaugh's college friend, who said: ``There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember.'' So I know--and unfortunately too often we have seen in this particular case an FBI supplemental report that was not thorough. In addition, after I reviewed the summary of the report and realized we were missing information, the additional corroborations would have also gone to Debbie Ramirez's allegations, but the FBI did not interview important witnesses to corroborate Debbie Ramirez's allegations. We now know--because they have been again willing to come forward after seeing what has been happening through these hearings--Kenneth Appold, a suitemate of Brett Kavanaugh at Yale, who is now a professor at Princeton, stated: ``I can corroborate Debbie's account.'' He said: ``I believe her because it matches the same story I heard 35 years ago, although the two of us have never talked.'' Professor Appold was never interviewed. Likewise, James Roche was also a roommate of Brett Kavanaugh, and he said: ``Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk.'' Likewise, Chad Luddington, a college classmate came forward: ``I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.'' They were not interviewed by the FBI. So now, because we have only limited information, all Senators are left with a lack of a full understanding of the facts surrounding the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. The questions swirling around Brett Kavanaugh get at the very heart of our responsibility as Members of the U.S. Senate. We are not here to be a rubberstamp on the President's nominees. We are a check and balance on his power. We are here to work with him to make decisions that are right for the American people. That means we listen to our constituents. That includes women and men who have buried their experiences of trauma for far too long. I have received letters from my constituents from all over Nevada sharing their stories of survival. I heard from men and women in our military who were struggling not just with the effects of PTSD but with the experience of being sexually abused. I recently met with women who led the campaign to codify a woman's right to choose in the Nevada State Constitution, and they all asked me to oppose Brett Kavanaugh's nomination, and I stand with them. I stand with survivors. I stand for the right of every American woman to make her own healthcare decisions. I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I believe in the integrity and independence of our judicial system. I condemn Brett Kavanaugh's confrontational and partisan behavior, and I condemn the handling of this nomination by Senate Republican leaders. We must work together, in a bipartisan way, and restore our constitutional role of advice and consent. This is about something bigger than any one nominee. It is about the integrity of our Nation's institutions. It is about the core functions of our democracy. We can't allow partisan politics to eat away at the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution. We have to return to common decency and regular order. Anything less is below the dignity of the American people and the great Constitution we swore an oath to faithfully support. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting against this temperamentally unfit nominee. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, today I recognize a pillar of the community in Reno, NV: Evelyn Mount. For over 41 years, Evelyn has graciously provided Reno residents and families in times of need with the comfort of a holiday meal. This year marks the end of an era in community leadership in Reno, as Evelyn intends to step away from the role of organizing and coordinating her annual food drive. Growing up in the small city of Tallulah, LA, Evelyn's family instilled in her the importance of the values of sacrifice and service. Those values have been at the core of how Evelyn has lived her life, putting the needs of others ahead of her own. It wasn't until 1976 that Evelyn and her husband Leon brought this selflessness to Reno, NV. Soon after her arrival, she began work as a telephone operator at the airport. Committed to assisting those in need, Evelyn started collecting food donations in her spare time. Her devotion to the Reno community did not go unnoticed, as employees from other departments quickly contributed to her food collection. To her credit, Evelyn was able to collect more than 200 bags of food to distribute amongst members of the northern Nevada community. Her success prompted the expansion of her operations, which now includes an outreach center and several volunteers. Nevadans who know Evelyn have come to understand her sense of duty to community and affiliate the autumn season as ``Evelyn Mount food drive season.'' The sense of community, care, and inclusion that Evelyn has given Reno residents is perhaps her most important legacy. She has inspired countless volunteers to donate their time and money, while providing hope to families who are down on their luck. Because of her, a compassionate community of selfless volunteers has grown in northern Nevada, including some who were once on the receiving end of food donations. Recognizing Evelyn's profound commitment to our community, the city of Reno renamed a community center near Evelyn's home, titling it the Evelyn Mount Northeast Community Center. This center reminds us all of the difference just one person can make in the lives of many. I ask my colleagues to join me in further recognizing Mrs. Evelyn Mount's legacy for a life of humanitarianism and service to her community, for her sense of responsibility to others, and for her fight against hunger in Reno, NV. Evelyn Mount is the epitome of a community leader, and I admire her unparalleled ability to inspire others to donate their time and energy to a cause greater than themselves.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, 1 year has passed since 58 lives were cut short at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival. Those wounded and killed that night had come together to have fun, to relax, and to celebrate their love of country music with their friends and families in my hometown of Las Vegas. Instead of a celebration, terror rained down on them that night. As Nevadans woke up to the news of what happened, many like me were shocked and heartbroken. We asked, how could this happen? I will never forget going to the family reunification center, where families were looking for their loved ones or were waiting for calls from the coroner, and I will never forget the parents I spoke to moments before their learning that their daughter, Melissa, didn't make it. In the weeks following the 1 October massacre, Las Vegans demonstrated that we are a tight-knit family who rallies together in times of need. We heard stories of incredible bravery at the scene of the attack--a husband who died to protect his wife on the night they were celebrating their 23rd wedding anniversary; a former marine who turned a truck into a makeshift ambulance and drove more than two dozen people to the hospital; a couple who provided CPR to victims as bullets rained down; a mother who went into mamma bear mode and used her body as a shield to protect her children; hundreds of concert-goers who risked their lives while carrying fellow concert-goers to safety. All of our firefighters and police officers in Southern Nevada, including the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Clark County School District Police, the Las Vegas Fire Department, and the Clark County Fire Department, deserve our utmost thanks for their bravery on the night of the attack. They, along with American Medical Response, MedicWest Ambulance, Community Ambulance, the University Medical Center, Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, the Valley Health System, Dignity Health, and all of the first responders in Southern Nevada, went above and beyond the call of duty. On October 1, many of these brave men and women ran toward the bullets, putting their lives in grave danger because they knew it was the only way to save people in need. Nurses and doctors worked all through the night, not just on October 1 but for months afterward to care for the wounded. Before dawn had even broken on October 2, people in Las Vegas, Reno, and throughout the State had formed lines at blood banks. Many of the lines were so long they stretched out the door and around the block. The staff at United Blood Services worked tirelessly to process the donations and get the blood supply to our area hospitals. In the weeks that followed, Las Vegans held candlelight vigils. They donated food, coffee, water, and blankets to help the survivors and the victims' families. They constructed beautiful memorials that still stand as a testament to those taken and to provide healing to every person impacted by events of that night. The Red Cross and the Department of Veterans Affairs stepped in to bring mobile units to our hospitals. The FBI and the Nevada Victims of Crime Program helped grieving families secure funds to cover funeral and travel costs. Our military community stepped in to provide critical support as well. Airmen from Nellis Air Force Base were present at the concert on the night of the shooting and helped evacuate attendees. Nellis medical professionals treated victims and helped saved lives while the military spouse community collected basic necessities for the survivors and the victims' families. Providers at the Las Vegas-based Behavioral Bilingual Services were instrumental in addressing immigration and language barriers for so many immigrant survivors. The Clark County staff at the Vegas Strong Resiliency Center has been there for survivors every step of the way, advocating on their behalf and helping them find new jobs, getting them compensation for lost wages, and getting them the mental health care they need. Airlines like Allegiant and Southwest and medical providers like Valley Health Systems, Medic West, and American Medical Response helped defray costs for the victims and their families. St. Rose Dominican Hospitals said that they would not bill or require payment from any of the victims they treated, and United Health waived cost-sharing for victims so that they could get treatment for months after the tragedy with no out-of-pocket costs. The generosity didn't end there. People from all over the world donated more than $31 million to pay for basic necessities, medical bills, and funeral costs for the victims and their families. One year has passed since the events of October 1, 2017. I know for many in our community of Las Vegas, and for the hundreds of survivors, it feels as though they have been forgotten, but please know--please know--the survivors and those who were taken will never be forgotten. We will always hold the names and stories of everyone affected by this tragedy in our hearts and in our minds. In Las Vegas, we are still healing. We are still grieving for the family members who are no longer with us-- for sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, cousins, nieces, nephews, aunts, and children we will never see again. We are still grieving for the survivors, whose lives will never be the same. I don't believe perfect healing is possible, but I do believe we can learn to adjust to the searing pain of tragedy. We do it through remembrance. Through remembrance, the people we love are never truly gone, as long as we are around to say their names or share a memory of them. Through remembrance, the people and families who are still healing from their wounds are shown the love and comfort of our community. Today, in remembrance of that awful night 1 year ago, let's give thanks for the bravery and dedication of our first responders. Let's continue to do everything we can to support those who are still struggling to recover from the emotional and physical wounds they sustained on October 1. Fifty-eight innocent lives ended on October 1, but thousands more were changed forever. We must keep the survivors in our minds and in our hearts as they heal from their injuries, both visible and invisible, and get back on their feet. The Davis family lost their daughter Neysa on the night of the shooting. Neysa's dream was that her three sons would graduate from college. They decided that the best way to heal their family and their community was to start an organization dedicated to fulfilling Neysa's dream. I thank the Davis family for their resilience and their generosity. We must follow the Davis family's example and continue to come together as a community. We must come together, not just in Las Vegas but all throughout Nevada to bring healing, peace, and hope to everyone who was affected. Tonight, at 6:30 p.m., the city of Las Vegas will host a ceremony at the Las Vegas Community Healing Garden to dedicate a new remembrance wall. I encourage everyone back home to try to attend this event or simply take a moment to pause and reflect in honor of the victims and their families. In a few moments, I will read the names of everyone who was killed so that their names will be reserved in the Congressional Record. May God bless the city of Las Vegas, the State of Nevada, and everyone affected by this strategy. Today, we remember Austin Cooper Meyer, 24 years of age from Sparks, NV; Brennan Lee Stewart, 30, North Las Vegas, NV; Cameron Lee Robinson, 28, Las Vegas, NV; Charleston Hartfield, Henderson, NV, 34 years of age; Eric Steven Silva, 21 years old, Las Vegas, NV; Laura Anne Shipp, 50, Las Vegas, NV; Neysa Christine Tonks, 46, Las Vegas, NV; Quinton Joe Robbins, 20, Henderson, NV; Adrian Allan Murfitt, 35, Anchorage, AK; Dorene Anderson, 49, Anchorage, AK; Brett Erin Schwanbeck, 61, Bullhead City, AZ; Andrea Lee Anna Castilla, 28, Santa Ana, CA; Angela Christine Gomez, 20, Riverside, CA; Austin William Davis, 29, Riverside, CA; Bailey Dee Schweitzer, 20, Bakersfield, CA; Brian Scott Fraser, 39, La Palma, CA; Candice Ryan Bowers, 40, Garden Grove, CA; Carrie Rae Barnette, 34, Riverside, CA; Christiana Mae Duarte, 22, Redondo Beach, CA; Christopher Hazencomb, 44, Camarillo, CA; Christopher Louis Roybal, 28, Corona, CA; Dana Leann Gardner, 52, Grand Terrace, CA; Denise Marie Cohen, 58, Carpinteria, CA; Derrick Dean Taylor, 56, Bonita, CA; Hannah Ahlers, 34, Beaumont, CA; Jack Reginald Beaton, 54, Bakersfield, CA; Jennifer Marie Parks, 35, Lancaster, CA; Jennifer Topaz Irvine, 42, San Diego, CA; John Joseph Phippen, 56, Santa Clarita, CA; Jordyn Nicole Rivera, 21, La Verne, CA; Kelsey Breanne Meadows, 28, Taft, CA; Keri Lynn Galvan, 31, Thousand Oaks, CA; Kurt Allen Von Tillow, 55, Cameron Park, CA; Lisa Marie Patterson, 46, Lomita, CA; Melissa Ramirez, 26, Littlerock, CA; Michelle Vo, 32, Marina del Rey, CA; Patricia Mestas, 67, Riverside, CA; Rachael Kathleen Parker, 33, Long Beach, CA; Rocio Guillen, 40, Corona, CA; Sandra Lee Casey, 35, Torrance, CA; Stacee Ann Etcheber, 50, Novato, CA; Susan Marie Smith, 53, Simi Valley, CA; Teresa Kimura, 38, Placentia, CA; Thomas Allen Day, Jr., 54, Corona, CA; Victor Lloyd Link, 55, Aliso Viejo, CA; Calla-Marie Medig, 28, Edmonton Alberta, Canada; Jessica Lynn Klymchuk, 34, Valleyview, Alberta, Canada; Jordan Alan McIldoon, 23, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada; Tara Ann Roe, 34, Okotuks, Alberta, Canada; Carly Anne Kreibaum, 33, Sutherland, IA; Rhonda LeRocque, 42, Tewksbury, MA; Stephen Richard Berger, 44, Excelsior, MN; Lisa Romero-Muniz, 48, Gallup, NM; William Winfield Wolfe, Jr., 42, Newburg, PA; James Sonny Melton, 29, Big Sandy, TN; Heather Lorraine Alvarado, 35, Cedar City, UT; Carolyn Lee Parsons, 31, Seattle, WA; and Denise Brenna Burditus, 50, Martinsburg, WV. To the hundreds injured that night, those still recovering from the scars, visible and invisible, we stand with you. We have not forgotten. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, for 25 years the Gay and Lesbian Community Center, ``the Center,'' of Southern Nevada has served as a vital resource for the LGBTQ community and their allies in and around Las Vegas. The Center offers essential services such as comprehensive sex education and college and career readiness, all while fighting to end discrimination against and further the well-being of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community. In 1993, the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Southern Nevada purchased a building and opened its doors, becoming the first safe public space in Las Vegas for LGBTQ people. That year, the Nevada Legislature repealed sodomy laws and the Center hosted its first LGBTQ rights celebration. Since then, the Center has continued to grow with the city and has hosted many more events, including to celebrate the Supreme Court decision instituting marriage equality nationwide. The Center also celebrated the opening of a new building in 2013 named after Las Vegas philanthropist Robert Forbuss. The Center has increased its services, outreach, and membership throughout the years and has formed valuable community partnerships with government entities, private companies, and other nonprofits in order to maintain its no-cost community programming. For two and a half decades, the Center has been unwavering in its commitment to the people of southern Nevada. The Center will continue to be on the leading edge of advocacy for the human rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking the Gay and Lesbian Center of Southern Nevada for its dedication to ensuring all Nevadans are treated equally and for its service to the community over the past 25 years.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, today I recognize Mrs. Lisa Maloff, of Zephyr, NV, on the grand opening of the Lisa Maloff University Center at Lake Tahoe Community College. On August 16, 2018, members of the Lake Tahoe community will come together for a ribbon- cutting ceremony. The facility will help Californians and Nevadans alike achieve their goal of obtaining a 4-year college degree. Upon moving to Lake Tahoe in 1958, Lisa hoped to complete a teaching credential and give back to her community through public service. Unfortunately, the closest 4-year institution was the University of Nevada, Reno. The geographic isolation of the Tahoe Basin's mountainous terrain, sometimes unpredictable weather, and travel time forced Lisa to defer her dream of teaching and stymied her educational goals. Some of these challenges persist today, especially for the area's working students with families. Now, with the opening of the Lisa Maloff University Center, through partnership with nearby universities, the dreams of a 4-year college degree will become a reality to scores of students in the Lake Tahoe Basin. This center is one of many philanthropic contributions by Mrs. Lisa Maloff and her husband, Robert Maloff, and adds to the lore that has earned her the moniker of Angel of Tahoe. Mrs. Maloff has been a strong supporter and advocate for a variety of Lake Tahoe causes, including Barton Memorial Hospital, the Boys and Girls Club of Lake Tahoe, the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, George Whittell High School, and Tahoe Youth & Family Services. Her passion for improving services, programs, and the quality of life in the Lake Tahoe community is commendable and serves as a great example to all Nevadans. Today, I celebrate the many contributions of Mrs. Lisa Maloff to the Lake Tahoe Basin community and her work to enhance the opportunities for all young Nevadans to succeed and thrive. It is with pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mrs. Lisa Maloff for her generous philanthropy, her commitment to education, and her efforts to change outcomes for people in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I thank Senator Wyden. Mr. President, 53 years ago on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed landmark legislation to establish Medicare and Medicaid--two essential programs that provide healthcare to over 120 million Americans and over 1 million Nevadans. When President Johnson signed this historic bill, he said: No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years. No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents, and to their uncles, and their aunts. And no longer will this Nation refuse the hand of justice to those who have given a lifetime of service and wisdom and labor to the progress of this progressive country. On that day, LBJ declared an end to an era in which healthcare was denied to the most vulnerable members of our communities. So I rise to celebrate the incredible progress we have made since President Johnson created Medicare and Medicaid. We lifted hundreds of millions of Americans out of abject poverty and provided hundreds of millions more with dignity, security, and peace of mind. Then, in 2010, we passed the Affordable Care Act, which was built on the foundation that President Johnson laid, and gave 20 million additional Americans, including hundreds of thousands of Nevadans, access to affordable healthcare coverage. Yet today is not just for celebration, because our work is not yet done. Prescription drug prices, premiums, and copays are still too high. Too many Americans can't afford the medicine they need in order to live. Too many Americans can't find a doctor whose office is less than a day's drive away. Too many Americans are still struggling to get healthcare that meets their basic needs. Instead of trying to expand access to healthcare, some of my Republican colleagues here in Congress are working every single day to attack the Affordable Care Act and strip healthcare coverage away from tens of millions of Americans. Some Republican leaders are now threatening to cut Medicare and Medicaid in order to pay for President Trump's massive tax cut to corporations and special interest groups. The Republican tax bill exploded our deficit by $1.5 trillion, and now Republicans are demanding cuts to critical healthcare programs to pay for their lavish corporate CEO giveaway. So it is not enough to celebrate our progress. When President Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments Act, he landed an historic blow in the fight against poverty, injustice, and inequality. Today, we have to rededicate ourselves to that fight. We have to protect, strengthen, and improve the Affordable Care Act. We have to lower the cost of prescription drugs and invest in the health of every community. We have to create an affordable public health insurance option that would be available to everyone in the United States regardless of one's income level. We also have to fight back against cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, because the fight to protect our healthcare is a fight to protect our dignity, our security, and our basic rights. I yield the floor.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise to speak out in opposition to the nomination of Ryan Bounds to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I will be voting against his confirmation, and I ask all of my colleagues to do the same. My reason for this is not just the fact that in expressing his disdain for multicultural values in a series of college writings, he compared efforts to build tolerance and promote diversity to Nazi book burning; it is not just the fact that he advocated against policies designed to make LGBTQ students feel welcome and crack down on campus rapists; it is not just the fact that when a bipartisan judicial selection committee asked him to disclose past controversies, he deliberately misled the committee and said there was nothing to worry about. Now that his controversial writings have come to light, he refuses to retract or show remorse for his statements. Instead, he brushes them off as overbroad and overheated. Ryan Bounds' writings show he does not believe in a tolerant and diverse America, where women and people of color are treated with equal respect. In my eyes, that alone disqualifies him from sitting on the Federal bench, but Bounds has not received the blue-slip approval of either Senator from his home State of Oregon. No judge in modern history has ever been confirmed without a blue slip from either home State Senator. So a vote to confirm him is a direct attack on the Senate's constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. The blue-slip process is a critical function of the legislative branch. It gives every Senator a chance to have a say in the Federal judges who serve in their home State. The nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will have a lifetime tenure. If confirmed, Ryan Bounds will have influence over our legal system for the rest of his life. Don't the American people and their elected officials deserve a say in whether he should be allowed to fill that seat? This debate is not just about one unqualified judge and his racist ideas. It is about the duty of the legislative branch to serve as a check and balance on the President. Over the course of the Trump administration so far, we have seen an unprecedented attempt to undermine the blue-slip process and pack the courts with judges favored by corporations and special interests. I urge my colleagues to take a stand against President Trump's attacks on our legal system. Protect the integrity of the blue-slip process and vote against Ryan Bounds' nomination. The power and independence of the legislature is at stake. I yield the floor.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise to speak out against the nomination of Randal Quarles to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Mr. Quarles served in the Bush administration's Treasury Department in the years that led up to the financial crisis of 2008. His failure to take action to prevent this crisis led to hundreds of thousands of foreclosures and evictions in my home State of Nevada. Nevada was ground zero for the financial crisis. We were the hardest hit of any State in the country. We had the highest foreclosure rate for 62 months straight, and we had the highest number of underwater mortgages. Banks took the homes of more than 219,000 Nevada families. Anyone driving through parts of Las Vegas and Reno in 2009 could see boarded-up houses, ``for sale'' signs, and empty lots everywhere. On many streets, you would see more houses in foreclosure than not. I was attorney general in Nevada at this time. My team and I did everything we could to fight for homeowners and help them save their homes. We sued the big banks and secured $1.9 billion to create the Home Again: Nevada Homeowner Relief Program to help Nevadans stay in their homes. As all of this was going on, I knew there was only so much we could do at the State level. We needed real change at the Federal level to prevent the financial crisis from ever happening again. The Federal regulators should have protected Nevada homeowners, but instead they protected the big banks. I ran for a seat in the Senate because I wanted to change the system. I wanted to put rules in place that protected Nevadans, not Wall Street bankers. That is why I cannot, in good conscience, support Randal Quarles' nomination to a 14-year term as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Randal Quarles was one of those policymakers in the Bush administration who let the big banks write their own rules. Maybe things would be different if he had learned the lessons of the financial crisis, if he had demonstrated any understanding that radical financial deregulation only helps the big banks, but Randal Quarles has been sitting on the Fed's Board of Governors since October of last year. Since then, he has advocated for policies that weaken oversight of the financial system, let big banks gamble with depositors' money, and undermine protections for consumers and homeowners. Over a decade has passed since the rules he helped write caused hundreds of thousands of Nevadans to lose their homes, and he still hasn't learned his lesson. He is pushing the same agenda that led to the financial crisis in 2008. The mistakes he made as a member of the Bush administration devastated families and communities in my home State. Now the Senate is about to reward him with a position--the Vice Chair of Supervision--that he will hold for the next 14 years. He will be the lead on writing the rules that govern Wall Street and the banks. I don't trust him to put families first. I don't believe he will make our financial systems safer and more fair. Randal Quarles shouldn't be allowed to oversee our financial system for 14 minutes. I refuse to rubberstamp his nomination for a position that lasts 14 years. I yield the floor.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

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

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues and the American people what I witnessed on a visit to a couple of immigration detention facilities on our southern border and the stories of the people, children, and infants being held there. On a visit to an adult detention facility, I sat down with a group of six mothers whose children had been taken from them. One of them, Anna, had a 5-year-old daughter she brought with her to the United States. After witnessing a brutal murder in her neighborhood and receiving death threats in her home country, she decided to leave that country to keep her 5-year-old daughter safe. She traveled 3,000 miles to get to our southern border, and when she finally arrived, she thought: I am safe. I made it. I am going to tell them who I am and why I am here because I know I finally made it to safety. She flagged down Customs and Border Patrol agents thinking that they would help her, but when she did, CBP officials arrested her. They took her into custody, and then they separated her from her daughter. Anna's daughter was put on a bus and driven hundreds of miles away. As Anna was telling this story to me, every single one of the mothers began to cry. Anna told me this was the first time she had ever been separated from her 5-year-old daughter, and she had no idea--no idea-- where her daughter was and what they were doing with her. All of the women, as Anna was telling me the story, had experienced the same thing. Each one of the women I spoke with had children under the age of 12 who were taken away from them. Their stories were the same. They had all faced horrific gang violence and abuse in their home country and fled to protect their families. They had been raped and tortured. They saw loved ones killed before their very eyes. Another one of the women I spoke with, Griselda, explained that in her community, the gangs expect extortion payments every week from business owners, such as herself, and if you can't pay, they come to your house and kidnap or rape or kill your children. One day, gang members came and started threatening her son. She knew in that moment she had two options: stay and watch her son die or pack up her children and run. I asked the group of women: Why didn't you go to the police for help? They explained to me that the police in their country are just as corrupt as the gangs. In their country, there is no rule of law. There are no protections. If you want to save your children's lives, your only option is to run, and that is what these women did. They came to the United States expecting to find freedom and protection, but instead they were thrown in jail, and their children were loaded on buses and driven away. These parents want to now know, where are their children? When they asked me, I told them I didn't have the information they needed, and that I, too, was asking the same questions, but I promised them I would take their stories back with me to Washington, DC, and share them with the American people. Because of President Trump's inhumane family separation policy, we have almost 3,000 children separated from their parents. Their moms and dads just want to have their children back in their arms. Just recently, Secretary Azar testified that there is no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located. Well, that is absolutely false. I spoke with 10 mothers and fathers who have no clue where their children are. They look at me with tears running down their faces. They pleaded with me to help them find their children. This administration gave no thought to the damage inflicted on these families, and they clearly had no plan for how they would reunite them. We have three different entities working to reunify these families. Two are under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and one under the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, but none of them are working together. As a result, the Trump administration has missed its court-ordered deadline to reunite young children under 5 with their parents. There are 102 children under 5 years old waiting to be reunited with their families, but as far as we know, only 4 families have been united. The Trump administration has been ordered to reunite up to 3,000 children with their parents by July 26, but they are on track to miss that deadline too. In the midst of all of this, HHS officials discovered they have been holding a toddler, who may be a U.S. citizen, in detention for over a year. How could that be possible? How could the reunification process be so erratic, inefficient, and slow? This administration has been making excuses left and right, trying to pin the blame on anyone but themselves. They have suggested that the reunification process is slow because too many Members of Congress are taking tours of these detention facilities. I couldn't help but laugh when I heard that because I can guarantee you, I was not taking a tour when I tried to enter a children's detention facility, and they locked me out. They would not let me in. I was not allowed in to check on the condition of these children or even to talk to anyone in charge about how they were taking care of children, toddlers, and infants--kids under the age of 12 who have been separated from their parents, many for the first time. I was there to find out how taxpayer money was being spent and how the kids were being treated, but the facilities manager locked the door and gave me the number for a communications director to call to seek assistance. With a handful of exceptions, most of my colleagues have also been turned away. The Trump administration is also saying they are having trouble locating some of the parents. Part of the problem is, at least 12 of the parents with children under 5 years old have already been deported. Can you imagine that? Babies who can't even speak have no clue where their moms and dads went, and they might never know. The Trump administration can't pin the blame for this on Congress, Democrats, or anyone else. They are missing the deadline for one reason and one reason only: because they never made a plan to reunite these families. They never intended to. They didn't have a plan 2 weeks ago, when I went down to the border, and they don't have one now. They created this chaos with no plan to put the broken pieces back together. They had to start from scratch trying to locate parents and children detained across the country, and now we are hearing heartbreaking stories of reunification--toddlers who do not recognize their mothers anymore. The physiological trauma this administration has inflicted on these children will last a lifetime. So, today, I am calling on President Trump to finally do his job and provide us with a concrete plan. I want to see results, and I will not stop fighting until every child has been reunited with their parents. Stop making excuses. Stop blaming Democrats for the crisis you created, President Trump. The other thing I keep hearing from this administration and from President Trump's allies is, the Democrats want open borders. This is not about open borders. I support strong, secure borders. I have spent my career fighting to uphold the law as the attorney general of the State of Nevada for 8 years, fighting to secure our borders. It is not about secure borders. We need a plan to reunite these families because this is about our values. This is about human rights. This is about who we are as a country, and separating families is not who we are. We do not tear babies out of their mothers' arms. We have always--always--had a guiding principle when it comes to children: We do no harm. Whether they are Honduran children, Guatemalan children, Salvadoran children, or American children, we do no harm. I call on President Trump, abandon your inhumane, zero tolerance immigration policy; abandon the heartless decision to separate families. We should be looking for humane, cost-effective alternatives to detention for families fleeing violence. We don't need the Department of Defense to build internment camps for babies, toddlers, and kids. Locking up families who are seeking asylum under the laws we have put in place to protect them will be a moral stain on our country for generations to come. President Trump, the American people demand that you explain how you plan to reunite these families you have scarred forever and whom you ripped apart. Work with Democrats to solve the refugee crisis in Central America. Don't treat innocent parents and children as political pawns. Don't turn your back on everything this country stands for. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, after 19 years of dedicated service to the court, U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke will be retiring on July 31, 2018. I wish to recognize Judge Cooke for her excellent service to the Federal judiciary and the State of Nevada while serving as U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Nevada since 1999. As a third generation Nevada attorney, Judge Cooke has worked diligently to advance communities across Nevada, notably working to ensure equal protection under the law for the most vulnerable and forgotten populations. Judge Cooke initiated the CLEAR--Court Led Efforts at Recovery--court program, Nevada's first Federal reentry court, which helps to alleviate the barriers that formerly incarcerated individuals face as they attempt to reintegrate into society. She also worked to ensure inmates received timely resolutions to their civil rights claims by developing the District of Nevada's inmate early mediation program and implementing electronic filing for civil rights litigation. Judge Cooke has also held leadership positions in a number of prestigious organizations and committees. Judge Cooke served as the 2008-2009 president of the Bruce R. Thompson Chapter of the American Inns of Court and continues to be active as an emeritus master. Judge Cooke was also the president of the Northern Nevada Women Lawyers Association in 1990 and was the 2001 recipient of the Outstanding Woman Lawyer of the Year Award. Prior to her tenure on the bench, Judge Cooke served on the Nevada Tax Commission and the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission. She has also devoted significant time to the advancement of alternative dispute resolution, serving on the Ninth Circuit's alternative dispute resolution committee from 2001 until 2013 and chairing the committee from 2009 to 2013. She has also conducted educational programs on the subject across the country and abroad. In addition to her work in public service, Judge Cooke has consistently given back to her community. She has served as a mentor and as a role model for youth in Nevada through her involvement with Big Brothers Big Sisters, which led to her being named the 2009 School- Based Big Sister of the Year by Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northern Nevada. Judge Cooke conducts annual presentations to elementary through high school students on the work of a Federal judge and volunteers her time each year to serve as a high school mock trial judge. Judge Cooke embodies the Nevada values of leadership, service, and hard work. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Valerie P. Cooke for her many years of service to the District of Nevada, the Federal bench, and communities across Nevada and the Nation.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, today I am honored to recognize one of Nevada's most dedicated and exceptional educators, Mr. Scott Ginger of Green Valley High School, who has served thousands of students with the utmost dedication. Mr. Ginger, as his current and former students continue to call him, has remained committed to his students' success for 29 years. He began his career at William E. Orr Middle School in 1989 and moved to Green Valley High School 2 years later, where administrators, faculty, students, and families have revered him. He has won the Green Valley High School Golden Gator Award 17 times and has been inducted into the Clark County Teachers' Hall of Fame. Nevadans who know Mr. Ginger are eager to highlight his impressive skills as a speech and debate coach, a role that has given him and his forensics team at Green Valley High School the county championship 24 consecutive times since 1995 and the State championship a record 16 times. In 2018, the National Speech and Debate Association named him Nevada Educator of the Year. Although a very skilled competitor, Mr. Ginger has always emphasized that speech and debate are primarily ``a vehicle to build character, to be ethical, to be kind, to think big picture and think about others.'' Students who were fortunate to learn from Mr. Ginger agree. Those in the professional world claim Mr. Ginger's classroom lessons still help them keep calm and collected when speaking in public. Most importantly, those students also give Mr. Ginger credit for their ability to make lasting connections and friendships. The sense of community belonging that Mr. Ginger has given his students is perhaps his most important legacy. He has allowed some of his most talented students to teach within the classroom and has provided an opportunity for former students to come back and speak about the multiple benefits they have reaped from forensics. Thus, a community of skilled debaters has grown in southern Nevada, including those who have become leaders in a variety of fields all across the country. No matter where their career paths lead them, Mr. Ginger's former students will always remember and cherish the life lessons they learned in his classroom. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Scott Ginger for his 29 years of service as an educator in the Clark County School District. I admire Mr. Ginger for his incredible ability to inspire and shape the lives of his students and for encouraging cooperation and a sense of community that should be held as a model for all classrooms in our Nation. I celebrate Mr. Ginger's impact in Nevada, and I am proud of his work to enhance young Nevadans' ability to succeed and thrive.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with my good colleague from New Hampshire and all of my colleagues today in defense of net neutrality. Net neutrality has leveled the playing field for every American consumer, allowing everyone to access and enjoy an open internet. Thanks to the internet provided by schools and public libraries, students have been able to utilize information available online to enhance their education or help them do their homework. I have heard from librarians and library administrators from all across Nevada expressing their concerns about the direct negative impact net neutrality's repeal would have on Nevadans. They told me that repealing net neutrality would hamper their ability to provide Nevadans with essential services. According to the Pew Research Center, ``Library users who take advantage of libraries' computers and internet connections are more likely to be young, black, female, and lower income.'' In Nevada, I know students who don't have access to internet at home now go to the library to do their homework. Nevadans applying for jobs currently use the internet in public libraries to connect with employers to submit resumes and job applications. Many Nevadans use the internet and internet access to learn new skills through training resources that are available online. In November of last year, I received a letter from the Las Vegas- Clark County Library District strongly opposing the repeal of net neutrality. The Las Vegas-Clark County Library District is the largest in the State and serves over 1.6 million people. The letter reads: Many of our customers, even in the urban areas of the county, are not able to afford access to the internet at their homes at all, and rely on public libraries to complete their school work, research information about starting small businesses, and whatever else they need to do on the internet. Limiting the ability of public libraries to provide fast, reliable internet service means limiting opportunities for Nevadans to thrive. Through simple online marketing or by using online sales platforms, small businesses have the opportunity to improve their visibility and expand their customer base. It has become possible for startup companies to get a fair chance at competing in highly saturated markets because of internet accessibility. It is true in Nevada and all across the country that the internet has opened doors for jobs, businesses, education, innovation, and technology, and net neutrality protections have allowed the country to continue opening those doors. As access to the internet has exploded, more and more Americans have been empowered to start their own business ventures. More specifically, there has been a sharp growth in women business owners due in large part to a freely accessible, fair and open internet. As you have heard, between 2007 and 2016, women-owned firms grew at a rate of five times the national average, mirroring the emergence of the internet as a platform for economic growth. For example, Etsy, an online shopping platform, caters to small businesses, 87 percent of which are owned by women. Just last week, I held a roundtable in Reno with women entrepreneurs. One of their biggest concerns was the repeal of net neutrality and how that would adversely affect their business's profitability and success. With net neutrality's repeal, business owners, like Katie, who cofounded a tech company in Reno, would have to go up against large corporations that can afford to buy faster internet speeds. This would stifle competition, and it would cripple the growth of small businesses like hers. Katie told me: It would really be a stifling situation for us, not only financially, but from an innovation standpoint. Your dollars have to go to furthering your business, not paying to deliver it. Nevada's economic growth depends on the small business owners, like Katie, who invest in our communities, and that is why we can't afford to repeal net neutrality. Chairman Pai's misguided decision to repeal net neutrality protections threatens to change the internet as we know it. It threatens our small businesses, access to online education, job growth, and innovation by giving those who can afford to pay more the ability to set their own rules. Nevada's small businesses, local hospitals, public libraries, and disadvantaged communities, among many others, will bear the burden as they become subject to the whims of broadband providers that now have the ability to elevate their own content and pick and choose which websites Nevadans can have access to. The FCC has a longstanding responsibility of protecting American consumers and the public interest. While Chairman Pai refuses to properly do his job, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the CRA and stand with all Americans, regardless of their income. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, there is an old saying that ``there is no such thing as a free lunch,'' but what about other things? What about free Spanish language driver's education classes? What about free backpacks, notebooks, pencils, and school supplies in the month before school starts? What about free financial wellness workshops, free turkeys in the week before Thanksgiving? These thing are all given away at events hosted by the LIBRE Initiative--a self-described grassroots organization dedicated to a ``free and open society.'' The events were held in Latino communities throughout the country, including Las Vegas, Miami, and Orlando. People attending these events were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Questions included: ``Are you more likely to vote for a Republican or a Democrat in the 2016 election?'' ``Do you feel the government should increase or decrease Federal spending in order to improve the economy?'' ``What is your name, email address, and telephone number?'' People actually had to hand over their personal data in exchange for the free stuff. So the stuff wasn't really free after all--but close enough, right? Well, in a career spent as a prosecutor, I have learned one thing: Always follow the money. If you follow the money just one step back, you learn that LIBRE is a shell organization funded by Charles and David Koch, two of the most powerful men in American politics. Charles and David Koch are the owners of Koch Industries, a massive energy company that manufactures, distributes, and refines petroleum. Koch Industries is one of the largest privately held companies in the Nation, with estimated annual revenues of over $100 billion. What does all this mean? It means the Koch brothers are two very rich men, and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the way the Koch brothers use their money to hijack our democracy for their own benefit. The Koch brothers are self-described radicals who believe the government should play no role in Americans' lives. The Koch brothers believe in a world with no Medicare, no Social Security, no Federal minimum wage, no public programs that support families when they fall on hard times, and no rules preventing Koch Industries from polluting our air, drinking water, or our public lands. The Koch brothers hate environmental regulations because Koch Industries is one of the top 10 worst polluters in the United States. Fewer environmental regulations mean the Koch brothers can obtain bigger financial gains. To keep their empire afloat, the Koch brothers are not just polluting our environment, they are polluting our political system, and they are polluting our airways with false advertising. The Kochs want Americans to believe climate change is a conspiracy, despite the global scientific consensus that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels. Why would they want to cast doubt on scientific fact? Because the Koch brothers sell and burn fossil fuels for a living, and they believe protecting our environment is bad for their bottom line. To protect their bottom line, the Kochs funnel money through a network of nonprofit organizations, foundations, and shell companies. These companies lobby the government, produce fake research reports, and run ad campaigns to manipulate and deceive the American people. Buying a democracy does not come cheap, but the Koch brothers are not stingy. In 2010, the year Citizens United opened the floodgates for big money in politics, the Kochs spent $125 million to support Republican candidates who pledged to roll back environmental and consumer protections. Since the 2010 elections, their influence has grown. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting candidates who spread lies that climate change is a conspiracy, that immigrants cause crime, and that more money in the Koch brothers' pocket means more money in yours. Now, the Koch brothers have big plans for the upcoming 2018 election. They have announced they will spend $400 million in the upcoming election cycle--their largest midterm election investment yet. Much of that money will be spent directly targeting Latinos through advertisements, events, and workshops. The Koch brothers think they can buy the Latino vote, just like they bought the votes of the House Freedom Caucus and so many other Republican politicians, but despite what their ads say, the Koch brothers are not advocates for the Latino community. They are advocates for more money in their own pockets, nothing more. The Koch brothers have supported some of the most anti-immigrant politicians in America, including Louie Gohmert, Mike Pompeo, Steve King, Russell Pearce, and Kris Kobach. These are the men responsible for policies like Trump's Muslim ban and Arizona's anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. The Koch brothers support politicians who want to end government funding for Planned Parenthood. If they get their way, Latinas would be hurt the most. More than 23 percent of Planned Parenthood patients are Latinas. Latinas are more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than women in any other racial or ethnic group. Planned Parenthood gives them access to annual screenings so they can stay healthy and cancer- free. The Koch brothers support school choice, which they say gives Latino families more freedom in how they educate their kids, but school choice vouchers take money out of the public school system, causing many Latino kids whose parents can't afford private schools to fall behind. The Koch brothers are close allies of Betsy DeVos, our current Education Secretary. Her claim to fame is her role in dragging Michigan's public education system to the bottom of national rankings and leaving thousands of students without access to a quality education. To make matters worse, the Kochs are working to undermine access to health insurance for working people. Latinos are less likely to have health insurance than any other racial or ethnic group. Without health insurance, a trip to the ER can result in a bill so expensive that a family can't pay their rent for months. Organizations like LIBRE will tell you their agenda is designed to promote freedom and self-sufficiency. They put out propaganda implying that Democrats don't believe in freedom because we believe government has a role in protecting access to affordable healthcare, clean water, air, and quality schools. The Koch brothers love freedom, but their freedom is to pollute our rivers, streams, and our air. Democrats believe in a different kind of freedom--the freedom to breathe clean air and drink clean water, the freedom to walk away from a trip to the ER without a medical bill that costs more than what you make in a year, and the freedom to walk into Planned Parenthood and walk out with information you need to make your own reproductive choices. We don't believe in the kind of freedom that allows Charles and David Koch to pull the strings of our democracy. How can anyone call that freedom at all? What the Koch brothers and their web of dark money organizations like LIBRE are really doing is deceiving Latinos and supporting the very same politicians who are working against Latino families. So, this year, as the Koch brothers are pulling out their checkbooks to fund their disinformation campaign, follow the money. Follow the money to find out who is paying for that glossy ad you see on TV. Follow the money that flows through LIBRE and other Koch-backed organizations to politicians who vote against immigrants, Dreamers, and refugees. The Koch brothers have spent millions of dollars funding Tea Party candidates in Congress--the main obstacles to immigration reform. What good are school supplies and driver's education classes and free health checkups if parents of American citizens are getting deported, if schools in our communities are being gutted, and if community health clinics are closing their doors? The Latino community in Nevada, and in communities of color across America, are strong, resilient, and diverse. We will not be fooled by false advertising. So many of our family members came to this country because they knew what it was like to live under the rule of oligarchs and elites. They came here because they wanted to have the freedom to pursue their dreams. Charles and David Koch want to buy Latino votes, buy our voices, and buy our democracy, which folks like my dad Manny Cortez worked all of their lives to protect. But I believe in the wisdom of the American people. I believe in the wisdom of our voters who will fight the lies, just as they did in Nevada 2 years ago. I have seen the Kochs' power and influence firsthand. They spent $10 million trying to defeat me in 2016. They threw millions into LIBRE to buy off Latino voters in Nevada. But they failed because Democrats in Congress continued to beat the drum and make voters aware of the lies, and I will keep fighting to do the same in the Senate. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

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

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, today I am honored to congratulate the dedicated staff at Clear Channel Outdoor, in Las Vegas, NV, for earning the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, Director's Community Leadership Award. On April 20, 2018, representatives from Clear Channel Outdoor will join the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, DC, to formally accept this much- deserved recognition. The FBI's special agents in 56 field offices work closely with the community to conduct investigations and to protect the American people from crimes and acts of extremism. In appreciation, special agents in FBI field offices nominate community leaders and organizations that exemplify their values and those who work tirelessly to assist them in their work to keep the community safe. The Director's Community Leadership Award honors these individuals and organizations for their leadership in combating crime, terrorism, drugs, and violence in America. Earning this award is no easy feat. This award recognizes Clear Channel Outdoor-Las Vegas for their steadfast efforts to provide digital billboard services that assisted law enforcement in generating thousands of leads and tips, following the tragic and senseless loss of life at the Route 91 Festival on October 1, 2017, in Las Vegas. Clear Channel Outdoor-Las Vegas donated billboard space on digital signs around the city of Las Vegas to expand law enforcement's reach, telling the community, ``If you see something, say something.'' In Las Vegas, the October 1 tragedy shocked our community but also spurred us to action. During that dark time, Las Vegans came together to drop off food and water at the Family Reunification Center, donate blood, and build beautiful memorials to honor those killed. I am proud of how our community came together, of how law enforcement acted to protect lives and ensure that residents and visitors felt protected following such a tragic incident. I am also proud of the Clear Channel Outdoor-Las Vegas staff, who joined as part of our community effort, answering the call to assist local law enforcement and educate our community at large. Clear Channel Outdoor-Las Vegas's actions helped rebuild and strengthen the bonds that make Las Vegas the beautiful place we call home. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Clear Channel Outdoor- Las Vegas for their generosity, their eagerness, and their empathy in helping their fellow citizens and for their endeavors to help our home heal from this senseless tragedy. I celebrate the FBI's recognition of Clear Channel Outdoor-Las Vegas, and I am proud of their work on behalf of law enforcement and the State of Nevada.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, along with my colleagues today, I rise to address what has unfortunately become the norm for our kids in schools and across the country. On October 1 in Las Vegas, we saw the worst mass shooting in the history of this country--innocent concertgoers attending an entertainment venue outdoors. There were 58 killed and 500 injured at the hands of a madman with an assault weapon. In the past 5 years, we have lost an average of 10 children each year to gun violence in Nevada alone. Today I speak in memory of the 50 children from my home State who will never get the chance to grow up and graduate from high school, pursue their dream job, or even have children of their own. The names I am about to read aloud were beloved sons, daughters, friends, and classmates whose lives were tragically cut short in the last 3 years: Clemente, 17 years old, from Las Vegas; Jovanni, 16 years old, from Las Vegas; Terry, a 17-year-old from Reno; Tiris, 17 years old, lived in Las Vegas; Marcus, 3 weeks old, lived in Las Vegas; Anthony, 17 years old from Laughlin; John, 11 months old, from Las Vegas; Anthony, 16 years old, from Las Vegas; Bradley, 4 years old, lived in Las Vegas; a young male victim, 16 years old, from Reno; Giovanni, 14 years old, Las Vegas; another young victim, 16 years old, lived in Las Vegas; Luis, 16 years old, from Las Vegas; another young victim, 15 years old, from West Wendover; Sincere, 12 years old, from Las Vegas; Ethan, 17 years old, from Las Vegas; Angelo, 15 years old, lived in Las Vegas; Benjamin, 17 years old, lived in Las Vegas; a young female victim, 3 years old, from Las Vegas; another male victim, 4 years old, lived in Las Vegas; Jhronne, 17 years old, from Las Vegas; Joshua, 17 years old, from Las Vegas; Xonajuk, 14 years old, from Las Vegas; Anhurak, 9 years old, from Las Vegas; Dalavanh, 15 years old, from Las Vegas; Robert, 17 years old, from Las Vegas; another young female victim, 17 years old, from Reno; and Fabriccio, 13 years old, from Las Vegas. Across the country students are saying ``Never again'' to another child lost to gun violence, and I ask that this Congress do the same thing. I yield the floor.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

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

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I stand today in support of my colleague from Maryland as the 36th State to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. I couldn't agree more. I think it is time to eradicate discrimination of any kind, so I commend my colleague for standing up today and for his comments. Mr. President, I stand to talk about an issue that continues in our communities, and it is the issue of housing discrimination. I recently read an article from the Center for Investigative Journalism about a young woman named Rachelle. At the time, Rachelle was in her early thirties and living in Philadelphia. She was making $60,000 a year as a contractor at Rutgers University. She had savings, good credit, and an undergraduate degree from Northwestern. When she first went to apply for a home loan, she thought she would be the perfect applicant. On paper, it seemed that way, but a few weeks later, she received an email informing her that her application had been denied. In the email her broker told her that because she was a contractor and not a full-time employee, her application was too risky for the bank to approve. She was at a loss. She had been planning to purchase a home for years and thought she had done everything right. She then asked her partner, Hanako, to sign on to the application with her. At the time, Hanako was working a few hours a week at the grocery store making $300 a month. That is about $3,600 a year. Hanako tried calling the bank to speak to a loan officer about the application, and to Rachelle's surprise, the loan officer picked up. He was attentive, helpful, and friendly to Hanako. A few weeks later, he approved the couple's loan. This makes no sense, right? Rachelle was making an income in the upper five figures, $60,000 a year. She was the one with good credit, and she was the one paying for Hanako's health insurance. The difference here was that Rachelle was Black. This story did not take place in 1930, when it was legal for housing lenders to discriminate on the basis of race. It did not take place in 1968, the year banks were formally banned from using race as a factor in deciding home loan applications. It took place less than 2 years ago, in 2016. Today, 50 years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, stories like Rachelle's are all too common. For any person of color who has tried to navigate the housing market, Rachelle's experience is a case of deja vu. We now know that Rachelle was the victim of redlining. ``Redlining'' is a term that describes the practice of denying goods or services to people on the basis of the color of their skin. The term originated in the 1930s, when redlining was the official policy of the Federal Housing Administration. Back then, Federal officials divvied up cities and assigned a color to each neighborhood. The color system was supposed to help mortgage lenders know where to invest. Green and blue neighborhoods were home to desirable borrowers with good credit. Yellow or red meant risky borrowers lived here so don't invest. The practice became known as redlining because the FHA would draw red lines on city maps to designate ``bad'' neighborhoods. For the FHA, a bad neighborhood was defined by the color of one's skin. Redlining was banned in the 1960s, but as we learn from stories like Rachelle's, the practice still goes on under the radar; so much so that in 1975, Congress passed the Housing Mortgage Disclosure Act--HMDA--to help regulators identify when it was going on, but even with the new requirements, redlining continued. Then, in the 1990s, the financial industry began selling something called the subprime loan. Subprime loans have high fees, adjustable interest rates, and payment shocks--characteristics that made them extremely dangerous. People who weren't approved for traditional loans were offered subprime loans instead. In 2008, when the market crashed, subprime loan holders saw their interest rates skyrocket. They suddenly became unable to afford to stay in their homes. Who do you think was most likely to hold one of these so-called subprime mortgages? People living in redlined neighborhoods, people of color, people who had been denied access to traditional loans. My home State of Nevada was one of the hardest hit States in the country by the financial crisis. We had the highest foreclosure rates for 62 straight months. We had the most number of underwater mortgages, and over 219,000 families lost their homes. Anyone driving through parts of Las Vegas and Reno in 2009 could see boarded up houses, for sale signs, and empty lots everywhere. On many streets, you would see more houses in foreclosure than not, and while all neighborhoods suffered, African-American, Latino, and Asian-Pacific Islander communities were hit the hardest. Entire neighborhoods were hollowed out. Trillions of dollars were lost. I was the attorney general of Nevada at this time. We did everything we could to fight for homeowners and help them stay in their homes. As this was going on, I asked myself: How could this happen? The Federal Government was supposed to regulate these banks. Where were they? Why didn't they put a stop to these practices before it all came crashing down? The Federal Government was supposed to be the watchdog, but they were letting banks write their own rules. As attorney general of Nevada, I sued the big banks for their fraudulent practices and secured over $1.9 billion to help homeowners in my State. In 2010, Federal lawmakers passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to ensure that what we saw in 2008 would never happen again. The bill was not perfect, but it did a lot of things right. It strengthened oversight of the big banks. It made the big banks undergo stress tests and develop bankruptcy plans, and it also strengthened HMDA, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. It strengthened reporting requirements to help regulators fight back against discriminatory, racist, redlining practices. Banks say they don't treat borrowers differently, but the data shows us that is a different story. Redlining remains a major problem for communities of color. The legislation we are now considering, S. 2155, would roll back Wall Street reform. It includes a section, section 104, that would repeal many of the reporting requirements we added after the financial crisis to prevent housing discrimination. Some rural and low-income census tracks are predominantly served by small lenders. If this specific loan data is removed from them, government officials, researchers, and the public will not have information on the quality of loans made, nor will they know about the credit scores of the borrowers or even a way to easily track the loans after they are sold to investors. When I was attorney general, I needed the information on the quality of the loans in the State to protect consumers. Where were the teaser rates and what was the reset? Who were the homeowners who might not be ready to pay $20,000 more on their monthly mortgages? These were the questions I had with no data. With everything we saw 10 years ago, I cannot now believe we are considering restricting access to this kind of data--the kind of data that is important to prevent housing discrimination. I have seen what happens when we don't have strong enough protections against housing discrimination. This is why I have submitted an amendment to strike section 104 to preserve access to data we need. With better information and protections, we could have prevented a crisis in which 12 million people lost their jobs, in which the banks took the homes of more than 7 million people. Let's not take away access to this information. Let's not make the same mistakes we made 10 years ago. I urge my colleagues to join me. Vote for fairness, vote for equality, vote for inclusion. Vote for everyone who got burned by the big banks. Vote for folks like Rachelle who just needed a break, who just needed a fair mortgage loan so they could buy their first home. Support my amendment to prevent loan and housing discrimination, to protect the access to data and to protect the progress we made under Wall Street reform. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I honor the life and memory of Dana Marshall-Bernstein and express my deepest condolences to her parents, family, and friends. Dana was diagnosed as a young child with Crohn's disease, which she succumbed to at age 28, but Dana did not allow her disease to define her and instead will be remembered for her infallible spirit, perseverance, strength, and courage. Through her large collection of hats and artistic spirit, Dana brought joy to so many. She was a light in the lives around her, as a ``spiritual warrior,'' giving hope and support through her work with the southwest chapter of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation. Dana lived life to the fullest--skiing, playing piano, creating art, and singing every chance she got. Dana's intelligence, brilliance, amazing sense of humor and wit, loving compassionate heart, and all- around remarkable soul will always be in the hearts and minds of her loving family and in those who had the fortune of knowing her.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, like my colleagues from whom we are hearing today, I also rise to talk about the importance of protecting the Dreamers, not just in the State of Nevada but across this country. I want to talk specifically about a term that I constantly hear during this debate on how we need to protect Dreamers and at the same time address this issue of ``chain migration.'' I call on my colleagues and President Trump to really stop using that term and to abandon the offensive and misleading term of ``chain migration'' because it paints a picture that does not reflect reality. Immigrants cannot sponsor their entire families to come here. Our system of family-based immigration allows American citizens and green card holders to petition for some of their immediate family members to join them in the United States. There are numerous steps families must take to legally immigrate to the United States. It is a long and arduous process that leaves husbands, wives, parents, brothers, and sisters waiting for decades. This system is so broken and slow that many people die before they ever have the chance to be reunited with their loved ones again. So this image of immigrants coming in endless chains across our borders couldn't be further from the truth. For instance, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is currently processing visa applications for the siblings of U.S. citizens from 1994. That is 24 years ago. This backlog is painful for many American families, like Fely. Fely is an immigrant from the Philippines who arrived in the United States with her husband and her youngest son back in 1989. Her father was a veteran who served in World War II, earned his citizenship, and petitioned to have Fely join him in the U.S. In the almost three decades since then, Fely has worked tirelessly to reunite with her other children. Now at 80 years old, she is still waiting and hoping that three of her children will make it through the backlog to join her at home. Her story shows us that sponsoring even your closest family members is a lengthy and difficult process. Tragically, Fely's struggle is not uncommon. Thousands of Filipino veterans all across this country are in the same situation. As a daughter and granddaughter of veterans, I know firsthand that when someone answers the call of duty, family members make sacrifices too. I support Senator Hirono's Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act, a bill that would expedite the visa process for Filipino World War II veterans' immediate relatives. We should honor the sacrifices that veterans and their families make by passing this bill, not by forcing them to wait in perpetual limbo. Our immigration system reflects our national commitment to the strength and importance of the family unit. Families are support systems. They pull each other up when someone is in need and pull together their resources. Strong families build strong communities. Karl is a 20-year-old Filipino-American community organizer born and raised in North Las Vegas. Karl's whole family is committed to community service. While attending high school, Karl's brother volunteers at an organization that serves the homeless. Karl's mother teaches special education in North Las Vegas to low-income children. Karl's dad is a mechanic and a military veteran, having served this country in multiple branches of the armed services. None of them would be here if not for our family-based, legal immigration system. Some of my Republican colleagues claim to be champions of strong, nuclear families and family values. Yet here we are today, considering a measure that would tear apart families like Karl's, that would leave parents without children, sisters without brothers, and husbands without wives. Why does the party of family values think that is acceptable? The problem is that the party of Donald Trump is not the party of family values. Donald Trump doesn't care about families. He wants to be able to pick and choose which families get to come in and which have to stay out. The White House immigration plan we are considering would cut legal immigration by up to 44 percent. That is half a million more immigrants who would be banned each year. This is one of the largest xenophobic-driven cuts to legal immigration since the 1920s. It would affect nearly 22 million people over the next five decades. What is going on here? What are they so afraid of? I recently sat down with immigrant workers in the Senate and the Pentagon who are about to lose their protections from deportation. One of them told me that she left El Salvador after seeing her husband brutally murdered in front of her and her son. She has been working for the Federal Government for the past two decades, serving the very men and women who are preparing to vote to send her back to the country she fled with her children. I also spoke with a Dreamer who works right here in the Senate cafeteria. She is the sole provider for her three American-citizen children, and she, too, is afraid that under Donald Trump's deportation policy, she is going to be ripped apart from her children and sent back to a country that she fled. These are the people Donald Trump wants to throw out of their homes. They are not asking for special treatment or handouts or giveaways. They just want to be allowed to stay and work hard and provide for their families. They don't want to have to go back to a place where they will have to live every day in fear for their lives and for their children's lives. This President will tell you that immigrants are taking jobs. That is a myth. It is a lie that has been spread about every immigrant group in American history, and it has been repeatedly debunked by economic research. According to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, a typical immigrant family will pay an estimated $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in public benefits over their lifetime. Immigrant families bring long-term economic benefits to our country by starting businesses, purchasing property, and supporting the education and achievement of their children. Research shows that immigrants drive growth. They generate new patents at twice the rate of native-born Americans. In 2014, they earned $1.3 trillion and contributed $105 billion in State and local taxes and nearly $224 billion in Federal taxes. Immigrants are 30 percent more likely to start a business in the United States than nonimmigrants, and 18 percent of small business owners in the United States are immigrants. They create jobs right here in the United States. Jobs are not the problem here. The problem is the color of immigrants' skin. We have a President of the United States who has wondered out loud why we can't have more Whites come to this country. President Trump denies being a racist. For a nonracist, he has done a shockingly good job of cultivating support among White supremacists. This is not about the color of people's skin, but this is about family. This is about strong nuclear families and family values. I am proud of who I am, where I came from, and I am a descendant of immigrants. But I also learned and believe in strong values and strong family values, and we lead with those values. So our immigration system should reflect our national commitment to the strength and the importance of that family unit and those family values. It makes no sense to me that we are fighting today to protect these kids and keep them in this country and then take their parents and rip them out of their homes and send them back to a country that they do not want to go to, that they do not call home, and where their safety is called into question. I don't understand that as a family value or as an American value. So I ask my colleagues, when we are talking about the immigration system and protecting Dreamers, let's implement commonsense immigration reform. Let's make sure that when we are protecting Dreamers, we are also protecting their family unit and those family values. This is not about pitting parents against their kids or having kids decide whether they should stay here or their parents should. No child should have to go to school concerned that when they come home, their parents may not be there. I don't know about you, but I went through the public school system in the State of Nevada, and I was always, always comforted with the thought that when I walked through that door, my mother and father would be there. Any other way to treat these children and their families, to me, is inhumane. They are not values that we stand for as Americans, and they are not values that we lead with when we are talking about commonsense reforms to immigration. So I ask my colleagues: Please, as we go through this debate, remember who we are talking about. There are faces, there are families, there are people behind the very decisions that we make this week. Thank you. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, last September President Trump rescinded the DACA Program. Since that time, nearly 20,000 DACA recipients have lost their status. That number continues to grow. I have posted this sign outside my office so my colleagues can see that 122 Dreamers are losing their status every single day. This chart cannot begin to tell the story of the impact this arbitrary decision has had on Dreamers' lives. Over the past year, I have held roundtables with Dreamers throughout Nevada. I wanted to hear their concerns, listen to their stories, and make sure they know their rights. Dreamers are not charts or numbers. They are people. They are amazing. They are putting themselves through school, studying hard, serving in our communities, our churches, and our military--all while working multiple jobs to support their families. In meeting with them, I have learned that they are their own best advocates. Dreamers deserve the chance to speak for themselves. They deserve better than to be used as pawns in a cynical game. They should not be forced to choose between achieving protection in the only country they have ever known and seeing their families attacked with arbitrary and cruel cuts to our family reunification and diversity visa programs. I am tired of seeing the White House pit people against one another. Tonight and this week, Congress is about to determine the future of these patriotic young men and women. Before we begin this debate, we need to take a few moments to understand who they are, what they are doing for our country, and what the consequences will be if we fail them. I wish to read a few letters they sent me. Listen to this letter from Jevi. He is a freshman at Nevada State College. Jevi said: I was born in Mexico in March 1998 and was brought to the United States when I was six months old. I recently started my freshman year at Nevada State College. I am majoring in Business Administration in the hope that I can open a small family restaurant someday. I have grown up in Las Vegas my entire life. It's the city I know, the city that raised me. It is my home, my only home. Listen to this letter from Maggie. She wrote: I came to the United States when I was ten years old. I faced language barriers when I started elementary school, but I quickly learned English and excelled as a student. I graduated from High School in 2007 with $20,000 in academic scholarships, but couldn't use them because I was undocumented. After receiving Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in June of 2013, I was able to begin working as a health care enrollment counselor for Nevada Health Link. In January 2014, I was accepted to the University of Nevada Reno, where I continued working to help people access affordable health care while going to school full time. That was Maggie. That was her letter to me. Listen to Francisco. This is his letter to me. My story is very much like others in this country. I am one of the 1.5 million undocumented children that were brought to the United States as minors by their parents. On September 17th, 2012, I applied for Deferred Action, hoping to be granted a work permit. Around that same time, I learned that I had been admitted to the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. On November 5 my work permit arrived. My family and I all came to tears upon learning the news. I quickly looked for a job so that I would be able to enroll and start paying for my school. That was from Francisco. Now hear from Anna, who wrote: I came to the United States with my family, from the Philippines, at the age of 7. My father left our family in 2001, and our visas expired soon after. I graduated from Centennial High School in 2008 and started nursing school at the College of Southern Nevada. I graduated in 2012 and received my DACA acceptance a year later. I am currently going on my third year working at University Medical Center . . . as a pediatric ICU nurse. These are only four of the stories that I have heard from Dreamers, and there are hundreds of thousands more just like them. I want to point out that just recently, I received a batch of 32 letters from seventh graders at Bailey Middle School in Las Vegas. To a T, the concern for every single one of these seventh graders was the same thing. Clarisa, one of these seventh graders, wrote: I would like to change Trump's decision and let the DACA program stay so immigrants get to have the life they had before. My family and friends are all I have in my life. I don't want to see them go because they cannot go to school or get a job. Thank you. That was from Clarisa. We also have a letter from Andrea G.: President Trump's decision affects my family, the people I know, and the community. It affects my family because my two older siblings were brought here when they were just babies. It affects people I know because some of my other family members were brought here as babies. I hope President Trump does not end DACA. Thank you. To a T, with regard to all of these letters, all of the information, all of the people with whom I have met both here in the Capitol and in Nevada, these Dreamers are incredible people. They are incredible individuals who are contributing to our communities. When you hear these stories, you see that this fight is not about charts and numbers or political leverage. This fight is not even about individuals. It is about entire communities. It is not just about what will happen to Jevi and Maggie and Francisco and Anna and all of those families who are connected somehow to those kids at Bailey Middle School. It is about what will happen to their customers, their students, their patients, their employers, their parents, their families, and their friends. You see, Dreamers are our first responders. They serve in our military. They drive our ambulances. They pray with us in church. They are on the frontlines, teaching our kids and defending our country. What happens when they are not here anymore? The debate over immigration in this country has focused for too long on misconceptions and stereotypes. Immigrants are not taking our jobs; they are creating them. They are not causing crime; they are putting their lives on the line to fight it. What do we gain by deporting them? What do we gain when Maggie and Francisco are forced to drop out of school? How do we gain when Anna cannot go back to work in the pediatric ICU? Jevi has no memory of the country in which he was born. He spent only the first 6 months of his life there. What do we gain when we send him back? Living in a community means depending on the people around you. It means having neighbors you can turn to in times of need. Dreamers are our neighbors. This is their time of need. I urge my colleagues to understand who Dreamers really are. Don't pit kids against parents or neighbors against neighbors. This is bigger than partisan politics. It is about human lives. It is time to fight for these families and for keeping these families together, who are an integral part of our communities. I know many of my colleagues support the Dream Act and reasonable border security measures. Let's get through to the finish line. The American people are watching us, and 80 percent of them want us to help Dreamers. Dreamers belong here, and Dreamers are American. This is our chance to do what is right. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion